Author Topic: looking for proof!  (Read 6974 times)

Offline Trees

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 5,100
  • Can't see the wood for the !!!
    • View Profile
looking for proof!
« on: Tuesday 27 March 12 15:16 BST (UK) »
Having found several An..ry trees indicasting that two people on my tree married and emigrated to Newark New Jersey I am trying to validate the information. I have the 1890 census which has the right age for the wife but there are only two children listed in family search for the couple giving the mother's maiden name and there is a discrepancy .
The census shows  4 children born in New Jersey to be Samuel Aug 1890, William Aug 1892, Elizabeth 1894 and John Aug 1898 and she declares having 4 children all still living but Family Search has:
Parents:   Joshua Beer,​ Emily Loosemoore
   
name:   Beer
gender:   Female
birth date:   12 Apr 1893
birthplace:   Newark, Essex, New Jersey
father's name:   Joshua Beer
father's birthplace:   Eng.
father's age:   29y
mother's name:   Emily Loosemoore

But the only girl on the census is Elizabeth b Apr 1894

How reliable is this birth record? why can't I find the other children's births?
How can I find if the parents arrived together as a married couple between 1881 and 1890
the 1890 census indicates they have been married 14 years but I can't find any record of a marriage in the UK

Hope someone can help sort them out for memany thanks
Trees
Census Information is Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk

For details of my research interests please see
mcmullin.me.uk
Also read the children a story from Story Time at the same web site.

Offline aghadowey

  • RootsChat Honorary
  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 51,235
    • View Profile
Re: looking for proof!
« Reply #1 on: Tuesday 27 March 12 15:27 BST (UK) »
Do you mean 1900 U.S. census? (almost all of 1890 was destroyed years ago).
1900 census gives 14 years married (c1886) but both in U.S. since 1888 so it sounds as though the marriage took place before they arrived in U.S.

There is another record on LDS site (www.familysearch.org) besides the one you've found.

Male child born 4 Aug.1898 Newark, Essex Co., New Jersey- parents Joshua Beer (age 32, born England) & Emily Loosemoore (age 32, born England).

Both would be extracted birth records from New Jersey.

The nearest port of entry to Newark is New York- have you searched from them arriving together (or separately) at www.castlegarden.org.

Away sorting out DNA matches... I may be gone for some time many years!

Offline Trees

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 5,100
  • Can't see the wood for the !!!
    • View Profile
Re: looking for proof!
« Reply #2 on: Tuesday 27 March 12 15:39 BST (UK) »
Many thanks aghadowey  You are right I do mean 1900 census (found on family search)
I think this family search record is for John those dates are fine but why is Elizabeth a year out and what of Samuel and William How can I find Joshua and Emily's deaths they should be 1904 and 1934 respectively if the trees are right would Emily's death record give her maiden name?
My Emily Loosemore is born  June qtr 1865 which is a very good match dare I accept the cousins married ?
Census Information is Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk

For details of my research interests please see
mcmullin.me.uk
Also read the children a story from Story Time at the same web site.

Offline shellyesq

  • Moderator
  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • ********
  • Posts: 13,618
    • View Profile
Re: looking for proof!
« Reply #3 on: Tuesday 27 March 12 15:43 BST (UK) »
The 1895 New Jersey state census has them living in Newark with children Samuel, William, & Elizabeth.

Samuel & William's WWI & WWII Draft Registration cards both give their birthplace as Newark.  
Here are the WWII ones- https://familysearch.org/pal:/MM9.1.1/XRWV-34C
https://familysearch.org/pal:/MM9.1.1/XRWV-344


Offline Trees

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 5,100
  • Can't see the wood for the !!!
    • View Profile
Re: looking for proof!
« Reply #4 on: Tuesday 27 March 12 15:47 BST (UK) »
Thanks for those : shellyesq  it all helps build up the picture I am sure Joshua is on my tree now all I need is the proof that he married his cousin  :)
Census Information is Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk

For details of my research interests please see
mcmullin.me.uk
Also read the children a story from Story Time at the same web site.

Offline shellyesq

  • Moderator
  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • ********
  • Posts: 13,618
    • View Profile
Re: looking for proof!
« Reply #5 on: Tuesday 27 March 12 15:57 BST (UK) »
There looks like some mention of this family here:  http://genforum.genealogy.com/handford/messages/91.html

Joshua is in the 1910 Census, so I think the death date of 1904 is off.  Emily is widowed in the 1920 Census. 

Offline shellyesq

  • Moderator
  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • ********
  • Posts: 13,618
    • View Profile
Re: looking for proof!
« Reply #6 on: Tuesday 27 March 12 16:00 BST (UK) »
There's a possible death notice for Joshua in the New York Times from 1911: 
http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=FB0915F93E5517738DDDAB0A94D1405B818DF1D3

Offline Trees

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 5,100
  • Can't see the wood for the !!!
    • View Profile
Re: looking for proof!
« Reply #7 on: Tuesday 27 March 12 16:08 BST (UK) »
wow that certainly links with my data Shellyesq and many thanks for the death notice. Interesting though that piece also has a death in 1904 I wonder if this is where others had found it.
Census Information is Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk

For details of my research interests please see
mcmullin.me.uk
Also read the children a story from Story Time at the same web site.

Offline shellyesq

  • Moderator
  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • ********
  • Posts: 13,618
    • View Profile
Re: looking for proof!
« Reply #8 on: Tuesday 27 March 12 16:26 BST (UK) »
Emily appears to be in Newark city directories up to 1932, but not after that, so a 1934 death date seems like a possibility.