Genealogists' Forum - We have branches everywhere!



Go Back   Genealogists' Forum - We have branches everywhere! > Research > Research Questions

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 01-03-10, 08:37
Kit's Avatar
Kit Kit is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 3,716
Default Is Joseph the same as Henry?

I have a Joseph H Ashelford born 1856 Lydeard St Lawrence Somerset.

I also have a Henry Ashelford born 1856 Lydeard St Lawrence Somerset.

I don't think I have them both on a census.

There is only one entry on FreeBMD:
Births Mar 1856
ASHELFORD Henry Taunton 5c 459

Nothing for Joseph between 1854 and 1858.

I have found a transcription of henry's baptism: http://www.pbenyon1.plus.com/H_m_w/L...s/A-B.html#top
ASHELFORD Henery 06 Jan 1856 Elizabeth spinster single - base born

Joseph H appears on the 1871 census with his grandparents and their daughter Mary Ann Ashelford. Class: RG10; Piece: 2378; Folio: 36; Page: 4;

Henry appears on the 1881 with his grandmother and cousin Harry. RG11 Piece: 2370 Page: 13 Folio: 94

I may have Henry in a Union Workhouse in 1861 RG9; Piece: 1617; Folio: 33; Page: 60.

So the potential mother/s are Mary Ann and her sister Elizabeth aka Betsey.

I have Mary Ann on the 1861 RG9; Piece: 1620; Folio: 37; Page: 9

I have no record of Elizabeth/Betsey after 1851 but have found this in the USA: Year: 1870; Census Place: Sycamore Ward 2, Dekalb, Illinois; Roll M593_215; Page: 610A; Image: 548; Family History Library Film: 545714.

I am only considering the US record as 2 of their brothers may also be in Illinois. I just don't feel I have enough evidence.

Sorry this is so long. Thanks for looking.
__________________
Toni
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 01-03-10, 09:44
kiterunner's Avatar
kiterunner kiterunner is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Nottingham
Posts: 25,316
Default

So that 1870 US census entry is:
Ashelford Betsey 39 Domestic Servant born England.

Could well be her but we need to find out where she was in 1860 / 1861. I suppose she could have emigrated to the USA after the 1860 US census and before the 1861 UK census in which case she would be on neither.

Yes, I agree you need more evidence to be sure that Joseph Henry and Henry are the same person.
__________________
KiteRunner

Family History News updated 29th Feb
Findmypast 1871 census update
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 01-03-10, 09:51
kiterunner's Avatar
kiterunner kiterunner is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Nottingham
Posts: 25,316
Default

I guess this is the family in 1851, at Lydeard St Lawrence?
Ashelford George Head 50 Farmer Halse
Sarah Ashalford Wife 45 Wife Halse
Betsy Daur 21 Daur Stogumber
Abraham Son 18 Son Do
George Do 16 Son Do
John Do 13 Do
Mary Daur 11 Do
Joseph Son 5 Do
__________________
KiteRunner

Family History News updated 29th Feb
Findmypast 1871 census update
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 01-03-10, 09:52
Kit's Avatar
Kit Kit is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 3,716
Default

I was going to do another look for Elizabeth in 1861 and got sidetracked.

I'll have another look.

If anyone can find Joseph or henry in the same census as the other I'd be very grateful.
__________________
Toni
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 01-03-10, 09:52
Kit's Avatar
Kit Kit is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 3,716
Default

We cross posted Kate.

Yes that is the family in 1851.
__________________
Toni
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 05-03-10, 05:18
Kit's Avatar
Kit Kit is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 3,716
Default

I'm not sure if Elizabeth/Betsy went to the US or not but she is living with Henry in 1891 and she is listed as his widowed mother.

In 1901 she is also a widow.

on the 1911 however she is single and said she had one child born alive and then she crossed it out.

it appears she is a bit confused. lol
__________________
Toni
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 05-03-10, 09:39
kiterunner's Avatar
kiterunner kiterunner is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Nottingham
Posts: 25,316
Default

It might not be her who crossed it out, Kit, because the "number of children" bit was only supposed to be filled in by married women, so the people who tallied up the statistics crossed it out if it had been filled in by anyone else.
__________________
KiteRunner

Family History News updated 29th Feb
Findmypast 1871 census update
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 05-03-10, 10:09
Kit's Avatar
Kit Kit is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 3,716
Default

True Kate, I thought that later but she only completed the one column, not all of them, to say if any were still alive.

However as she is single any children are not from a marriage so technically they don't count anyway.
__________________
Toni
Reply With Quote
Reply


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 00:36.


Hosted by Photon IT

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7 PL3
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.