Author Topic: Am l completely wrong??? Clark(e) family  (Read 802 times)

Offline reflector

  • RootsChat Extra
  • **
  • Posts: 97
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Am l completely wrong??? Clark(e) family
« on: Thursday 15 October 15 15:07 BST (UK) »
Hi everyone ,
l have been researching my Clark(e) family and thought l was doing well when someone on Ancestry told me had it wrong and l had given my ggggrandfather too many children so here goes.
My ggggrandfather b1783 William Clark , Buckland Hertfordshire Married Mary Daines or Deans (transcription error) 1805  Buckland and l think he died 1830.Buckland.
Their children are as l see it , William 1805 my gggrandfather, James 1807,George 1809, Mary 1811,( no occupation on old type of baptism) Robert 1813,Sarah 1815, Emma 1817 (Labourer), Henry 1818, John 1820,Thomas1822,Joseph 1824 and Edward 1827 so Mary had 12 children from the age of 22 to 44 not impossible for those times. from Robert onwards William  occupation is Butcher except for Mary and on Roberts Wedding cert 1843 Butcher but if 1830 is death date why  put William on there not deceased. ??? l hope someone can help .
Thankyou
Sandra
Travi
Clark London/Hertfordshire
Dilley London
Trout Devon
Wickert london/Germany
Rowe Devon/London

Offline lizdb

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 25,307
    • View Profile
Re: Am l completely wrong???
« Reply #1 on: Thursday 15 October 15 15:11 BST (UK) »
Had "someone on Ancestry" any evidence that any of the children you had found weren't actually belonging to your couple?  If not, ignore!
Edmonds/Edmunds - mainly Sussex
DeBoo - London
Green - Suffolk
Parker - Sussex
Kemp - Essex
Farrington - Essex
Boniface - West Sussex

census information is Crown Copyright from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk

Offline StanleysChesterton

  • RootsChat Veteran
  • *****
  • Posts: 711
  • My G-grandmother on right, 1955
    • View Profile
Re: Am l completely wrong???
« Reply #2 on: Thursday 15 October 15 15:23 BST (UK) »
It's no good somebody telling you you're wrong, if they don't also tell you how/why/where.  Did they hint at their reasons? 

It is possible that you're wrong, but if they think that then it must be based on something.  It is possible, say, that one child was somebody else's and they've seen a bastardy claim for it, whereas you've just checked baptisms and 'assumed' they had the same father and the vicar had simply left that field blank on that child.

How annoying for you!  Ask them how/why :)

Re "why not deceased" on a wedding certificate - everybody's interpretation of the correct answer differs.  It might be that him being deceased was either not asked, or dismissed as unimportant, so the name went on, but his demised status was omitted.

Related to: Lots of people!
:)
Mostly Cambridgeshire, Huntingdonshire, some Kent and Dorset.
 
Elizabeth Long/Elizabeth Wilson/Elizabeth Long Wilson, b 1889 Caxton - where are you?
- -
Seeking: death year/location of Albert Edward Morgan, born Cambridge 1885/86 to Hannah & Edward Morgan of 33 Cambridge Place.
WW1 soldier, service number 8624, 2nd battalion, Highland Light Infantry.

Offline philipsearching

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 4,073
  • I was a beautiful baby - what went wrong?
    • View Profile
Re: Am l completely wrong???
« Reply #3 on: Thursday 15 October 15 17:28 BST (UK) »
I don't guarantee that this is your family, but on the 1841 census in Buckland (ref HO107/443/7) there are:
Mary Clarke, 53, Ind,
Robert, 25, Ag lab
John, 20
Joseph, 15
Edward, 14

The ages match well enough.  William is not with the family so he is probably deceased.
Please help me to help you by citing sources for information.

Census information is Crown Copyright http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk


Offline reflector

  • RootsChat Extra
  • **
  • Posts: 97
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: Am l completely wrong???
« Reply #4 on: Friday 16 October 15 10:09 BST (UK) »
Hi, l also have 1841 census and agree could be my Clark as William is deceased,
Since posting l have looked through the records again and think l am right as l cannot find another William Clark marrying a Mary at that time and l think it is very unusual for that time for a couple who marry in 1805 to wait until 1811 to have children and the children do run about every 2 years so about right.
Unless the person sends me real proof l am following my instints which l think we do a lot in genealogy along with records.
Thankyou all for replying and its back to my Clarks.  :)
Sandra
Travi
Clark London/Hertfordshire
Dilley London
Trout Devon
Wickert london/Germany
Rowe Devon/London