Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - thelly

Pages: [1] 2 3 4
1
Australia / Re: Mary HURST
« on: Monday 20 August 18 08:07 BST (UK)  »
Hi Sarah,
Not sure if I am sending this message to you the correct way.
My apologies for message to Bronny, I didn't know that she was a new member of Roots.  I haven't been on for awhile, so guess I'm not so sure about some of the rules.
Regards,
Thelly

2
Family History Beginners Board / Re: Jane Langston
« on: Sunday 25 March 18 05:48 BST (UK)  »
Hi all,
First of all thank you for your help, I will look up the web pages you have sent and see what is there, she could be the sister of Frederick B Langston, according to several records I have, she was born either 1815/16, and if Frederick was born in 1816, it is very possible they were related, and perhaps when she was convicted she said she was Irish, as her parents were.
I'm sorry I don't know what the Leeds means.
Regards,
Thelly

3
Family History Beginners Board / Re: Jane Langston
« on: Friday 23 March 18 07:21 GMT (UK)  »
Hi,
Yes, I have all that information about Jane, her eldest daughter, Sarah m Charles Stewart, they had three children, Frederick married Mary Rachel Hurst (also daughter of a convict) they had eleven children, their youngest daughter, Elizabeth also married a Stewart, brother of Sarah's husband, they also had eleven children, Elizabeth died in childbirth. Jane has stated that she was a widow on her marriage certificate, but also on that Langstone was with an E, so if that was her married name from her first marriage, I guess there is no way I will find her maiden name!  It is the same with John Turner, he was not a convict, but is also a mystery!
Regards,
Thelly

4
Family History Beginners Board / Re: Jane Langston
« on: Thursday 22 March 18 21:03 GMT (UK)  »
Hi Daisy,
Thanks for that information, I belong to The Female Convicts Organisation, they don't have information on convicts lives before being transported.  Not quite sure what you mean by the seven year rule?
Regards,
Thelly

5
Family History Beginners Board / Re: Jane Langston
« on: Thursday 22 March 18 06:33 GMT (UK)  »
Hi Kaye,
That is okay, it was lovely hearing from you, funny you should say you thought you had Royal connections, my mother was a Middleton, so of course I thought we might have been related to Kate Middleton, no such luck!!  I hadn't been on Ancestry for awhile, like you, have been fairly busy, but your email made me think about Jane, I am still not sure if her name ends with an 'e' as that is how the Old Bailey spelt Langstone, I started to look her up again, it is hard when not sure if it is a maiden, or married name!!  If she was already married when sent to Australia, than married John Turner, it doesn't bear thinking about, I guess some of the convicts lied about where they came from, it is not easy to find information, mainly because people years ago had large families and so had enough to do, when I originally found five convicts in my family, none of my relatives believed me, each one of them did so much for this country, as did many others who were sent here,  I can't find anything about the Turners' just that  John Turner was a Tailor and came from Lancashire or Lincolnshire, so I can't get past John, whereas with the Middletons' I have gone back to the 16th Century.
Regards,
Thelly

6
Family History Beginners Board / Re: Jane Langston
« on: Sunday 18 March 18 02:12 GMT (UK)  »
Hi Kaye,
Received your message this morning, I put that post up about six years ago, I have the same information as you re Jane Langston, I have a feeling she was possibly married and perhaps never divorced, I looked up my files and I have a Bedes and a Frederick, as she and John named their son, Frederick, she perhaps named the baby after her father! (he, Frederick John Turner was my g-grandfather), it is very hard to get information about convicts, after they were convicted, most of them hardly did anything wrong, England wanted to populate Australia, hence all those people being sent here, on her marriage certificate she had said she was a widow, not sure, other records say she was not, she was born about 1815/16.
Thank you for contacting me, I guess we are related.
Cheers,
Thelly

7
Family History Beginners Board / Re: Hinchey
« on: Wednesday 09 November 11 03:29 GMT (UK)  »
Hi MargP,

Someone researching the Hincheys was looking at passenger lists from 1841, and found the name Catherine Hinchey, but the age difference was too great.

I will send for a copy of her death certificate, but I'm not sure what would appear from 1913.

Thanks again,
Thelly
 

8
Family History Beginners Board / Re: Hinchey
« on: Monday 07 November 11 21:01 GMT (UK)  »
Hello MargP,
No my Catherine was not born in 1823, I still believe that the family members who researched her years ago are correct, it is mainly what happened to her family, and how she got to Australia, but I will do what you suggested and perhaps find (or try) the death certificate of my g-grandmother, but as you said that would only show what people knew about them at the time.

There is too much information on Ancestry and Genes Reunited from people researching  Catherine to ignore the fact as to who her parents and siblings were, it is just that none of us can find anything after the 1841 census.

Regards,
Thelly

9
Family History Beginners Board / Re: Hinchey
« on: Monday 07 November 11 08:51 GMT (UK)  »
Good evening to you,
Laurence Hickey's parents and siblings never came to Australia, and he never went back to Ireland.

The people here researching the Hickeys/Hincheys don't believe that Catherine was born in 1823, they still say that her parents were Lurran and Mary.

Thanks,
Thelly

Pages: [1] 2 3 4