George TICKLE

[tanyal]

I am looking for any information on George Tickle, a possible relative. He was listed as living in Plymouth in the 1851 census along with his wife Jane. He was described as having been born in Birmingham around 1795 (aged 56). I have a George Tickle in my family baptised in 1799 and I have found no George Tickles born or baptised in Birmingham around 1795, making me think that the two George Tickles are one and the same man.

Earlier, George was listed in the 1841 census, age 40, with his wife Jane (40), and daughter Jane (15). If the above age was correct he'd have been 46 then, which I would have thought would have been rounded down to 45, not to 40.

I have found George Tickle and his wife in the bdm index: he died in June 1857 in Plymouth, she two years earlier in the same place.

I am hoping to find out more about George Tickle and his family and maybe even to be able to contact a descendent of this family, to confirm that he is my George Tickle.

[hepburn]

I can offer an extracted entry off the IGI.
George Tickle Christened 25 March 1799 at St Phillips ,Birmingham.Parents George and Mary.
The same batch number comes up with Elizabeth Christened 3 Jan' 1794.
Mary Christened 20 May 1796.

[tanyal]

Yes, those are my ancestors.

I'm hoping that the George Tickle in Devon is the same man. Unfortunately, I've also found a George Tickell in Warwickshire in the 1841 census (aged 45) and he's also a candidate to be my relative. At this point in time, I don't know enough to sort out which is and which isn't.

[hepburn]

Without confusing myself  ,I'm pretty sure the  one born in Birmingham and the one living in Devon are the same man....

[tanyal]

The problem is that a George Tickle born in Warwickshire (aged 40) appears in the 1841 census as living in Warwickshire, and so does a George Tickell (aged 45), also living in Warwickshire. The latter doesn't, unfortunately, appear in any of the other censuses, and there's only one baptism in Warwickshire for a George Tickle in the time period I'm looking at 1795-1800.

[tanyal]

I should mention that the spelling "Tickell" was often used in the 18th and 19th centuries in my family so the "George Tickell" might very well be the family member, not the "George Tickle"

[janbev333]

I have recently had my DNA done and found I am closely related to many Tickles who descend from this George.  would love to hear from you regards J

[tanyal]

Hi there!

Sorry I’ve taken so long to reply; I’ve been dealing with an ongoing health issue.

I’d love to exchange information with you. I’ve also had DNA tests done, on FamilyTreeDNA and at Ancestry, and have matched with multiple descendants of William Tickle (my direct ancestor).