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 - Ayashi

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 ... 200
1
The Common Room / Re: Messaging without appearing pushy - Thoughts please.
« on: Wednesday 19 January 22 22:58 GMT (UK)  »
If this were me, I would send another message updating him but if he doesn't feel inclined to continue the conversation after that, drop it. It isn't like you are just poking him out of the blue, you have actual info to share so that's a good excuse for another attempt at talking to him. He may have forgotten to speak to his mother at all, especially if he's not that invested in family history. If you continue the contact, he might say "oh, my mother remembers [Joe Bloggs]!"

I know the feeling though. It can be incredibly awkward messaging someone a second time if they didn't reply the first time.

2
Cardiganshire / Re: re: ELIZABETH DAVIES - LLANGRANOG, WALES
« on: Monday 17 January 22 22:29 GMT (UK)  »
I noted that the 1797 couple had many children pre-dating 1835. It happened occasionally, but in this case I'm far more inclined to believe that the people making the trees have made an error and simply copied each other without thinking. That happens far more often!

3
Cardiganshire / Re: re: ELIZABETH DAVIES - LLANGRANOG, WALES
« on: Sunday 16 January 22 21:18 GMT (UK)  »
There's more than one Thomas THOMAS who married an Elizabeth. Looking on census, I think the ones who are older might be Thomas THOMAS and Elizabeth JONES who married in 1817. There is another couple to consider- Thomas THOMAS 1812 Llandysiliogogo and Elizabeth 1812 Llangranog. I don't know where they are in 1861 but in 1851 they are living as a couple and 1871 they have an adopted daughter Jane WATKINS. Their ages would match an 1835 marriage date. Worth checking out?

4
Cardiganshire / Re: re: ELIZABETH DAVIES - LLANGRANOG, WALES
« on: Sunday 16 January 22 08:48 GMT (UK)  »
I'm reading this as her name being Elizabeth THOMAS (that is to say, married). The marks in between the names is curious- you see them (as usual) being used as filler on the end of sentences to remove gaps, but mid sentence? I wonder if a gap was left there for some reason that was later filled in when no word (middle name?) was added.

5
Ancestral Family Tree DNA Testing / Re: Identical twins
« on: Tuesday 11 January 22 20:18 GMT (UK)  »
It could be that since he is a generation removed he doesn't have enough DNA in common with some of those cousins in order to match with them.

6
Bedfordshire Lookup Requests / Re: Father died then a son was born.
« on: Sunday 09 January 22 20:46 GMT (UK)  »
You never know. Since she was a married woman she, and the baby, would appear under her late husband's surname even if he was provably not the father. The certificate might name him anyway, or no father at all, or you could look up "James Walter" with the relevant details to see if there's another entry under a different surname, which might suggest two different parental surnames on the certificate.

A christening, if you can find one, might potentially be more likely to name the biological father.

7
Family History Beginners Board / Re: 1905 Birth - Not registered
« on: Saturday 08 January 22 16:41 GMT (UK)  »
Beat me to it as well...

I've got another Edwin in my tree (also a WALKER!) that is interchangeably Edward.

8
The Common Room / Re: two different birth certificates for the same person, 16 years apart (England)
« on: Friday 07 January 22 23:54 GMT (UK)  »
Yes. I believe there was a change in the law around this time that allowed for a birth cert to be reissued in order to legitimise a child of parents who subsequently married.

9
Lanarkshire / Re: Marriage Certificate? Child out of Wedlock?
« on: Friday 07 January 22 09:55 GMT (UK)  »
Quote from: CourtneyP on Thursday 06 January 22 23:42 GMT (UK)

It was Samuel that died in 1932 (the baby is the ladies arms). The two other boys in the photo are Charles and John.

The parents would've been 24 and 20 in 1921!

Oh, whoops lol I'm blaming it on being late at night here!

Ah, that's possible at least. Most marriages in my tree are around mid-20s or so, I did wonder if an earlier marriage date would make them suspiciously young.

I've had children christened twice, but you don't usually forget you got married  ;D I'm pretty sure my ancestors as mentioned previously only married at that point because he was in the military and they needed to be married for certain benefits. Either they decided to be honest or they needed to provide some kind of proof I guess.

I'm guessing no 1921 marriage entry has been found yet?

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 ... 200