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 - SiriusB

Pages: [1] 2 3
1
Family History Beginners Board / Re: Assumptions
« on: Wednesday 08 January 20 11:16 GMT (UK)  »
Sometimes an assumption can be valid & it is how one proceeds from there that matters. I made such an assumption over the holidays from actual experience. I came across 2 consecutive entries for the same marriage. 2 different grooms for the same bride.

What struck me was that the surname of the 1st entry was that of the mother's maiden name of the 2nd entry. Believing it to be a genuine error, I contacted LDS Family Search providing the information & why I thought it was an error.

I received a lovely reply yesterday which explains the 2 entries. I have since found out why it also occurred. At the wedding in question, I was a page boy & the groom getting married was my 1st cousin.

2
Family History Beginners Board / Re: 262 Victoria Park Road Hackney - Adoption
« on: Wednesday 08 January 20 10:59 GMT (UK)  »
For a good insight, try the Salvation Army. There are some good reference links in the link below.
http://http://www.childrenshomes.org.uk/HackneyMothersSA/?LMCL=t_f0aF

3
Family History Beginners Board / Re: Assumptions
« on: Monday 06 January 20 01:05 GMT (UK)  »
In that case, isn't family tree research nothing but assumptions until it is either proven to be true or false?
One must start somewhere.
Of the 6, knew 5, the other died in 1940.
Of the 5, knew 2. As for the other 3, it is known that they lived, worked, married & remained in Ireland.
Of the 3, have confirmation of 1.
So with the info provided with offspring of all 3 marriages, just how would you attempt to research the unknown D.O.B's? Wouldn't you use a range of dates as well as the other relevant data?

4
Family History Beginners Board / Re: Assumptions
« on: Monday 06 January 20 00:39 GMT (UK)  »
Well, so far assumptions (educated guesses) have returned 6 bulleyes. When I order Aunt M's marriage certificate next month, I am certain I can add another.
Grandmothers 1st marriage resulted in 3 children - the last which was born in 1920
Grandfathers 1st marriage resulted in 5 children - The 1st born in 1914
Their 2nd marriage resulted in 6 children - 1st born in 1923, the last in 1933.
The only assumption not made here is one of bigamy.

5
Family History Beginners Board / Re: Assumptions
« on: Monday 06 January 20 00:19 GMT (UK)  »
Thanks. Educated guess is better. As for finding things, yes, already found several skeletons which makes sense of the arguments witnessed between uncles & aunts while growing up.

6
Family History Beginners Board / Re: Assumptions
« on: Monday 06 January 20 00:00 GMT (UK)  »
I'm not. I can safely say that of my parents generation, not all. The death certificate received yesterday for my uncle clearly showed him as the oldest of that generation to pass away to date. He was 83.

7
Family History Beginners Board / Re: Assumptions
« on: Sunday 05 January 20 23:42 GMT (UK)  »
Thanks. I asked because the odds of having a relative of that age is unusual as many passed away between 60-85. So I'm safely going to assume she is deceased & mark it as such on the program.

Rather just blindly assume, where my paternal side is concerned, I assumed the birth years due to knowledge of others, for example, Uncle Sonny (always went by that) was the 3rd of grandmothers 1st marriage & we sent dad home for his funeral in 1990, & many others attended as well due to his being the last of the family in Ireland & there was property involved. He was 70, so entered his year of birth as 1920.
Aunt M was one of 5 of granddad's 1st marriage. The 1st being Uncle D born in 1914 & died here in 1985 & was 71.

With all that info, I safely assumed that Granddad & grandma married in 1921/22 as Aunt H was born 1923 & died a couple of weeks before her 72nd in 1995.

I'm going to have to play round with the GRO indexes as they only allow a +/- of 2 years. From what I can see, Aunt M was a "normal" marriage, as she married 4th Q 1945.

@Chempat. Agree, I'm mainly referring to my parents generation as have fairly extensive info, many married at 18/19/20.

8
Family History Beginners Board / Re: Assumptions
« on: Sunday 05 January 20 22:55 GMT (UK)  »
True, but where current & past generation is concerned, it has been true for my family. I should have stated assumptions based on knowledge rather than just blind assumptions. Using that, I applied for 6 certificates on Xmas day, they arrived yesterday. They were not wasted, they were all family. The only doubt I had was for one uncle. The Irish records only provided 2 births (b)1918 (d)2001 & (b)1927 (d)1991. The deaths were in the UK (info gleaned from the GRO).

I discounted the 1927 birth due to being a year younger than Aunt T & place of death. I (correctly) assumed the 1918 birth because of place of death. I knew his sons still reside in that part of London, so it proved. Lucky? Maybe, but actual knowing the people helped.


9
Family History Beginners Board / Assumptions
« on: Sunday 05 January 20 22:24 GMT (UK)  »
Now that Family Tree research is much easier due to computers & the advent of the Internet. Does anyone make assumptions, bearing in mind that being digital, one can delete/amend/detach/attach as & when further info become available?

I ask because I've obtained correct info regarding one of my aunts & due to info already held, hit an issue. I normally assume that my female relatives marry between 17-21, & that has been the case with many of them. With the marriage details of Aunt M in 4th Q 1945, I've had to revise that assumption (Will be ordering marriage cert next month as hit the budget for this one).

My paternal grandparents were both married previously with grandad having 5 kids & grandmum having 3. They then went one to have a further 6. Dad was the 5th with Aunt H being the oldest of the 6 born in 1923. That upset my assumption that Aunt M was born in 1925. Based on info already held, I've assumed that she was born in 1918/19.

Would it be safe to assume that she is now deceased (until confirmed of course) as she would be 101/2 this year?

Pages: [1] 2 3