Tracing Isaac - Page 3 - Genealogists' Forum

Merry · #21 03-08-23, 10:29

Denham Bucks or Denham Sussex?

Merry · #22 03-08-23, 10:35

Looking at old threads I see it's the Bucks one!

kiterunner · #23 03-08-23, 11:18

As far as I know, you should treat Geneanet with the same amount of scepticism as you would family trees on Ancestry.

Merry · #24 03-08-23, 11:18

Is this Isaac H b about 1745 who is supposed to be from Denham?

Merry · #25 03-08-23, 11:25

Quote:

Also, I'm told familysearch shows Isaac ,Sarah & two children (that would have been my
3xg/grandfather Thomas & his younger brother Robert) being removed from St Clement
Danes to St Pancras.

Is that the same settlement doc we were talking about ten years ago?!

http://www.genealogistsforum.co.uk/F...6&postcount=12

vita · #26 03-08-23, 11:27

Thanks,bothYes, Isaac b around 1745, father William Isaac's birthplace apparently shown as Surrey.

kiterunner · #27 03-08-23, 11:33

If you haven't seen the actual image on FamilySearch (I couldn't find the record on there at all), I am guessing that Isaac has been indexed because his name is given in the document as Sarah's husband, but that he wasn't actually one of the people removed, and that it is the same info that already appears in this thread a couple of times.

kiterunner · #28 03-08-23, 11:36

Also there are plenty of trees on Ancestry showing Isaac as being born in Denham, Bucks, son of William Isaac and Ellen. Doesn't mean it is correct though.

kiterunner · #29 03-08-23, 11:38

Looking at the first of such trees which comes up on Ancestry, sorry to say it looks like complete nonsense.

Merry · #30 03-08-23, 11:55

Quote:

Originally Posted by vita

Thanks,bothYes, Isaac b around 1745, father William Isaac's birthplace apparently shown as Surrey.

I can't tell whether there should be punctuation between 'William' and 'Isaac's', or a full stop after 1745, so I don't know which of them was supposedly born in Surrey??