#111
|
|||
|
|||
oops I meant 51 census only James is listed
Bert |
#112
|
|||
|
|||
We now seem a very long way from John Seabrook Perfumer and Hannah Hazell.
Bert |
#113
|
||||
|
||||
It's always important to follow up as many family branches as possible as if you don't you won't know what you have missed. What if another previously unknown family member had turned up with the Williams branch and given us a lead?
Also look for other people researching lines that attach to your tree as they may have some vital piece of information you don't. Have you found anyone researching the Williams family?
__________________
Merry "Something has been filled in that I didn't know was blank" Matthew Broderick WDYTYA? March 2010 |
#114
|
|||
|
|||
fair enough
Bert |
#115
|
||||
|
||||
I've had nieces turning up as house servants in uncle's household.
|
#116
|
|||
|
|||
Where would that be?
Bert |
#117
|
||||
|
||||
I think Uncle John means he has discovered this in his family tree, not with your Seabrook tree. Examining associated branches and twigs can reveal a clue which helps us answer our original query.
|
#118
|
|||
|
|||
Thank you
Would anybody know if there are any records of apprentice Perfumers on line? Bert |
#119
|
||||
|
||||
There are apprentice records on Ancestry - we found some Seabrook ones up-thread.
|
#120
|
||||
|
||||
The apprentice records on ancestry only go up to 1811 and I couldn't see your John Seabrook in there. They also have records of people who were made Freemen of the City of London with information about their apprenticeships but I couldn't see him in there either.
|
|
|