Genealogists' Forum - We have branches everywhere!



Go Back   Genealogists' Forum - We have branches everywhere! > Research > Members' Direct Ancestors > Take One Great-Grandparent

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old 07-01-17, 17:16
Merry's Avatar
Merry Merry is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Near Christchurch, Dorset
Posts: 17,946
Default

This is bugging me, so I'm adding it here although I don't have the whole story and it may be a complete red-herring in any case.....

I noticed that Elizabeth Higgs/Hanmore/Saxby seemed very convinced of her age and birthplace across the censuses 1871-1901 inc - 1842/3 at Yalding Kent. However, like her "husband" James Hanmore, she is nowhere to be seen in the name Higgs in 1851. There is also no baptism for her at Yalding and no birth reg for her in Maidstone District and there is only one Higgs GRO entry in Maidstone district at all in the first three decades of civil registration. There are also no Higgs GRO entries in Malling District until 1880.

Next I was thinking about the birth reg that Kate and James posted:

ANMORE, JAMES HENRY mmn -
GRO Reference: 1861 M Quarter in MAIDSTONE Volume 02A Page 458

So, this suggests that the birth was registered as illegitimate, but that somehow Elizabeth's name was given as Anmore rather than Higgs. I could see how this might have happened, if she was asked her name before they asked if she was married and she gave James's surname but then got caught out by the following questions. Seemed reasonable enough until I saw this:

Elizabeth Hanmore bap 22 Jun 1842 at Yalding, Kent, parents Robert and Anne

So, I wondered if, for some reason, James had ended up taking Elizabeth's name rather than the other way round, or some other convolution I've not thought of yet?!! If Hanmore was Elizabeth's name (and I still can't find her in 1851 no matter what I try!) or one of Elizabeth's names, then the 1861 birth reg for James Henry would be completed correctly.

However, I have not been able to find anything else about Robert and Ann Hanmore and have looked at lots of other entries for couples called Robert and Ann to no avail. I also wondered if Higgs and Hanmore were both names connected to Elizabeth as I did see this:

HIGGS, ANN aged 42
GRO Reference: 1845 D Quarter in MAIDSTONE Volume 05 Page 217

That is the only Higgs entry in Maidstone district until 1870 and as it is Ann, I wondered if she is the same person as Ann Hanmore at the baptism? I can't see this Ann Higgs in 1841 either (or Ann or Robert Hanmore!)


So, I've been going round in circles for some time .........
__________________
Merry

"Something has been filled in that I didn't know was blank" Matthew Broderick WDYTYA? March 2010
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 07-01-17, 17:18
kiterunner's Avatar
kiterunner kiterunner is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Nottingham
Posts: 22,016
Default

Do we know for sure that Sue is still stuck on this one?
__________________
KiteRunner

Family History News updated 12th December
MyHeritage - advanced features free for DNA uploaded this week
Ancestry - new filters for DNA matches
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 07-01-17, 17:36
Merry's Avatar
Merry Merry is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Near Christchurch, Dorset
Posts: 17,946
Default

No, I didn't notice it was an old post, I just followed on from James.

If she has the answer then I'd like to hear it lol!
__________________
Merry

"Something has been filled in that I didn't know was blank" Matthew Broderick WDYTYA? March 2010
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

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 02:51.


Hosted by Photon IT

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7 PL3
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.