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 - bobalong

Pages: [1] 2 3
1
Family History Beginners Board / Re: Wilkinson and Thurman
« on: Sunday 28 February 21 18:17 GMT (UK)  »
I thought so. Yes, Vaughn is the lead on our tree.

My line is from Tollerton, through Nottingham, Derby and Appleby to Wolverhampton. If you have seen strange Thurman families in Derby and Appleby they are probably mine.

I have posted a reply to Andy on his Murder Mystery posting. I am questioning the John Thurman who married in Ashby de la Zouch.

Bob

2
Family History Beginners Board / Re: Wilkinson and Thurman
« on: Friday 26 February 21 18:28 GMT (UK)  »
It seems to me that you are tracing the same tree as another poster on here, Andy_T (know him?). If you search "Thurman" on this site you will see his post on William Thurman's murder on which he puts a precis of his tree.

Bob

3
The Common Room / Re: William THURMAN murder mystery at Ambergate, Derbyshire on the Cromford Canel
« on: Thursday 25 February 21 19:40 GMT (UK)  »
Hi, Andrew,
Hope you are still monitoring this thread.
We have traced our Thurman tree back to Thrumpton in Nottinghamshire and there is some evidence that we may have Leicestershire and, possibly, Derbyshire links. This makes me very interested in your tree.
I have a different John marrying Sarah Smith at Ashby De La Zouch in 1667. There is a John (recorded as Joham on FamilySearch) born in Church Gresley to William and Elizabeth in 1637 and I think it is him. The marriage record of John and Sarah has him as resident in Church Gresley.
John and Sarah had two children, William b 1669 and Mary b 1671, both in Church Gresley. I can see no trace of the John born in Lockington from then on.
Your John would actually suit me more. I have Edward of Lockington marrying Bathsheba Carr from Ashby d l Zouch, before moving to Wysall (very speculative!!) and your version would have provided a link.
Would be good to have a digital get together.
Regards,
     Bob

4
The Common Room / Re: Can anyone read this occupation please, from the 1939
« on: Saturday 25 November 17 09:01 GMT (UK)  »
But then again. From:
https://www.gracesguide.co.uk/Metal_Box_Co

WWII Made many things for war service including 140 million metal parts for respirators, 200 million items for precautions against gas attacks, 410 million machine gun belt clips, 1.5 million assembled units for anti-aircraft defence, mines, grenades, bomb tail fins, jerrican closures and water sterilisation kits, many different types of food packing including 5000 million cans, as well as operating agency factories for the government making gliders, production of fuses and repair of aero engines[4]

Metal Box was a big company so London may not have made these but Metal Box did make a lot of cans.

Bob

5
The Common Room / Re: Can anyone read this occupation please, from the 1939
« on: Saturday 25 November 17 08:56 GMT (UK)  »
Knowing he was in a reserved occupation and being jogged by Rena'a comment I have tried to join the (wide spaced!) dots.
How about the first word being foud, being taken as an abbreviation for foundry. To link that to material you get "raw". So I get:

"Foundry raw material transport supervisor and engineering clerk."

Are there foundrymen in the same area area and did metal box have a foundry or was it all sheet metal?

Bob

6
The Common Room / Re: Can anyone read this occupation please, from the 1939
« on: Friday 24 November 17 14:23 GMT (UK)  »
I reckon that the missing word is "transport".

....................................transport supervisor and engineering clerk.
Not convinced about the first bit.

Bob

7
Warwickshire / Re: PROFFITT and GARDINER - Brailes
« on: Sunday 24 August 14 16:33 BST (UK)  »
Had an hour off from my husbandly duties because of good behaviour so I went up to Warwick RO to look for 007's wicked brother, bastardy bonds, on the off chance they have them catalogued. Unfortunately they don't so I took the references I need and will have to go back to look at the quarter assizes. I will look for Esther Overton as well, to see if she claimed.
There are some Overton's mentioned in the apprentice records, one of whom was a carpenter in Hampton Lucy,having James Hadlon as an apprentice. Most, if not all, of these records seem to pertain to residents of Warwick St Mary so I assume they were paupers apprenticed out.
There was also a reference to a Henry who went AWOL in Jan 1743-4 and was returned to Warwick St Mary's in the Poor Law records.

Bob

8
Warwickshire / Re: PROFFITT and GARDINER - Brailes
« on: Friday 22 August 14 21:07 BST (UK)  »
Haywards:

Elizabeth bapt 18/11/1797 to John & Catherine at Ladbroke.
Sarah      bapt 26/6/1794  "    "      "      "               "
William   bapt  24/1/1804  "     "     "      "               "

On 3/11/1823 a William Hayward of Ladbroke marries Hester Collet at Stretton On Dunsmore. The witnesses are Charles Hayward and Hannah Hayward. Charles is possibly the son of Dorothy and Edward and Hannah might be his other sister b 16/11/1800 or Charles' wife (?).
13/8/1826 William and Esther Hayward have a daughter, Sarah, baptised in Leamington.
At the 1841 census a Sarah Hayward, aged 15, is living with Elizabeth Overton, nee Hayward in Leamington.
Esther Collett was born in 1799 and an Esther Hayward died in Leamington 8/3/1840 who's birth was around 1800. There are some indications in the news precis I can read that a Hayward was up before the beak in the period 1826-1841, I can't see a William's death in Leamington before then.

So I reckon that William Hayward was out of the picture and Esther died so his sister, Elizabeth Overton, takes care of his daughter, Sarah.

So, yes, I am reasonably sure that they were sisters, daughters of John & Catherine (nee Lidbrook).

John & Catherine were married in Radford Semele in 1788, both being of the parish.

Bob

9
Australia / Re: Transported then what?
« on: Friday 22 August 14 19:32 BST (UK)  »
I can't see a William Henry Overton around Leamington at that time, he is the right age and profession so it is probably the right person. He may well have added the Henry as a slight smokescreen around his fraudulent declaration that he was a widower on the marriage certificate.

The person after him in the marriage register is also a shoemaker so they may have been friends.


    Bob

Pages: [1] 2 3