Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - Peter H

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 ... 15
19
Surrey / Re: Burial of three Burch siblings on same day - cause of death?
« on: Thursday 13 June 13 18:35 BST (UK)  »
There's nothing on the register to indicate cause of death, just that they are all "of St Thomas's". Interestingly there are 11 burials on the 20th, which is far more than usual at that time. There are only about 3 or 4 burials each day noted in the register in the weeks before and after. And to confirm what Groom said, 6 of those 11 were 5 years old or under, 2 were in their teens and the remaining three were in their 40s or early 50s. Unhealthy place Southwark.

Peter

20
Surrey / Re: 12 Wellington Place, Deptford
« on: Monday 22 April 13 15:15 BST (UK)  »
Can seem very strange when people turn up miles from home. My great grandfather lived all his life in St Pancras but died miles away in Chatham with an unrecognised individual being the informant on the death certificate. It turned out to be a daughter of his who had married, hence the unrecognised name, and moved away years before. Great grandfather had obviously moved to Chatham where his daughter could look after him when he was taken ill shortly before he died.

Would E Ashton perhaps be a daughter using her married name in your case?

Peter

21
Surrey / Re: 12 Wellington Place, Deptford
« on: Monday 22 April 13 13:12 BST (UK)  »
Hi Retriever,

Part of Deptford certainly was in Surrey right up to the time when it was absorbed into the London County Council at the end of the 19th century. However, the Surrey 'half' was the western part and Wellington Place was just west of Deptford High Street and therefore in the Kent part of the parish. Wellington Place (and not Wellington Street, which was on the other side of the High Street) ran north-south between Evelyn Street and Edward Street and about 200 yards west of the parallel Deptford High Street. It appears to have been renamed Grinling Place as part of redevelopment of the area and appears as such on modern maps.

Peter

22
Surrey / Re: Daniel West, Lingfield B1761 Help please
« on: Wednesday 17 April 13 16:00 BST (UK)  »
Hi Carol,

To save you emailing the East Surrey Family History Society (I'm one of their researchers), today I popped down to the Society's Research Centre, which happens to be in Lingfield, and looked at the images of the baptism registers. As you say, the baptism of John West (it was actually 1801 of course, not 1701 as you said) does indeed say he was the son of Daniel and Elizabeth.

However, All three of the other children (Elizabeth, William and George) are shown as the sons or daughter of Daniel and Mary West. So that confirms that your Elizabeth is indeed the daughter of Mary West nee Cooper.

I can't explain why John's mother is shown as Elizabeth, especially as Mary seems to have been still alive at that time. There was no other information in the register and it may have been an error on the part of the vicar or curate etc. I couldn't see a death of a Mary West before 1801, nor a marriage of Daniel to Elizabeth, but the marriage and burial images weren't very clear on the microfiche and I may have missed one. There again, is it possible that there was another Daniel West in the area who married an Elizabeth and then had John?

Regards

Peter


23
Surrey / Re: Daniel West, Lingfield B1761 Help please
« on: Tuesday 16 April 13 10:46 BST (UK)  »
The family history society covering Lingfield is the East Surrey Family History Society. They can be contacted for searches in their records at searches0[at]btinternet.com (replace [at] with @)

Peter

24
Surrey / Re: Harman family Croydon
« on: Sunday 06 January 13 18:08 GMT (UK)  »
And the son that you referred to was (*) Harman, born Croydon Registration District in December quarter 1921.

Peter

Moderator comment: the name of a potentionally living person has been removed in accordance with Rootschat's 'no living people' policy.

25
Armed Forces / Re: Any idea what these medals are?
« on: Monday 17 December 12 18:49 GMT (UK)  »
It's not the 1902 State Landau as that has different embellishments and other subtle differences, but there are about ten other State Landaus so it will be one of those.

I doubt the photo was taken after 1924 as that would make him at least 51 and he doesn't look that old. I had looked at the Royal Household list, and you are right he isn't there, but it's likely he was employed until after that date, so his name wouldn't be shown as post 1924 employees are not listed.

Peter

26
Armed Forces / Re: Any idea what these medals are?
« on: Monday 17 December 12 18:01 GMT (UK)  »
Absolutely certain. He is not only known to the family but there is also a contemporary note written on the back identifying him as "mother's half brother William".

Peter

27
Armed Forces / Re: Any idea what these medals are?
« on: Sunday 16 December 12 00:21 GMT (UK)  »
Thanks very much John, for those thoughts. Certainly the three right hand medal ribbons do look like the Indian General Service Medal 1895-1902, the Queens South Africa Medal and the Kings South Africa Medal and they would fit in with his age and the likely date of the photo.

Having another look at the ribbon on the left hand medal, I am now wondering whether it might be the Queen Victoria Diamond Jubilee Medal whose ribbon had a central blue stripe flanked by white stripes and a very narrow blue stripe down each outside edge. It's very difficult to tell from a poor black and white photo, as you say, but it's a possibility, as the medal was issued to troops who were on duty on the day of the celebration in London.

Thanks again for your help.

Peter

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 ... 15