|
#51
12-07-20, 08:33
|
||||
|
||||
You said the doc was difficult to read, but almost all of it is typed, so maybe if there's a part you are struggling with you could say what it is, because it seems a waste for me to type it all out when it's typed already! I only use three fingers, so it takes ages!! Persumably you only have the one doc, but there are several just for 1819 - I've not looked for other years.
__________________
"Something has been filled in that I didn't know was blank" Matthew Broderick WDYTYA? March 2010 
|
|
#52
12-07-20, 08:33
|
|||
|
|||
|
The document I've got must be the first one before the removal , It starts To the churchwardens and overseers of the poor township of pemberton in thecountyof lancaster and the overseers of the poor of the township of upholland .its saying they haven't gained legal settlement in pemberton . so perhaps they are being removed to upholland on you document . But it does give cecily age Fifteen or thereabouts . and the others ages .Ill look again to see if i can glean the ages. well done as usual , great work . Maybe at some stage i may be able to follow james and william .
|
|
#53
12-07-20, 08:37
|
||||
|
||||
|
Perhaps next time you are able to go to a library you need to checkout this Ancestry database more thoroughly as thre may well be further records for Richard and family;
Lancashire, England, Quarter Session Records and Petitions, 1648-1908
__________________
"Something has been filled in that I didn't know was blank" Matthew Broderick WDYTYA? March 2010
|
|
#54
12-07-20, 08:38
|
|||
|
|||
|
hi ,sorry merry it is an original document she has sent ,it's not typed out ,so some of it wasn't legible. Don't forgot i have not got ancestry , i have to use what ever resources i Have . You can get a lot more than I . So now there also is a removal of them to Radcliffe how awful for them .
|
|
#55
12-07-20, 08:38
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
__________________
"Something has been filled in that I didn't know was blank" Matthew Broderick WDYTYA? March 2010
|
|
#57
12-07-20, 09:50
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
__________________
"Something has been filled in that I didn't know was blank" Matthew Broderick WDYTYA? March 2010
|
|
#59
14-07-20, 06:14
|
|||
|
|||
|
hi ,Was searching for william walker , And came across this census 1861 accrington
William Walker born Wigan 1817 age 44 Mary Walker born Ireland age 42 stepson John Barnett age 15 born Ireland . richard Barnett age 10 born Wigan . Catherine goliger age 40 born ireland Patrick Goliger age 17 born ireland catherine Goliger born wigan age 10 margeret born wigan age 8 I can't find richard on the wigan online parish clerks . but the name could be wrong it could be burnett or something like that . And the goliger .could be gallagher. Resident place accrington . abbey st
|
|
#60
14-07-20, 07:21
|
||||
|
||||
|
You were right that Family Search has transcribed the surname incorrectly from the census image. The easiest way to work out if this might have happened if you don't have access to the image is to look for the same person in other places:
In 1851 he is recorded as Richard Barrat aged 4 months b Wigan. Mother Mary Barrat is 32 b Ireland which matches with Mrs Walker in 1861. Richard's father is Richard Barrat aged 40. Richard's birth reg has yet another spelling: BARRITT, RICHARD LEE GRO Reference: 1850 D Quarter in WIGAN UNION Volume 21 Page 873 Here's the death of his father: BARRETT, RICHARD 43 GRO Reference: 1854 S Quarter in WIGAN Volume 08C Page 42 You said you couldn't find Richard on Wigan's OPC pages, but might that be because they don't have any RC records? 've not seen a marriage between William Walker and Mary Barrett (any spelling) between 1854 and 1861 in Wigan or Haslingden districts, but I haven't looked anywhere else.
__________________
"Something has been filled in that I didn't know was blank" Matthew Broderick WDYTYA? March 2010
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
