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 - JillCuth

Pages: [1]
1
The Common Room / Re: Couple at separate addresses 1851 census
« on: Sunday 20 February 22 13:56 GMT (UK)  »
Quote from: rosie99 on Sunday 20 February 22 13:51 GMT (UK)
Newspaper reports of the drunken fall do not mention family either.  As his son was still alive at the time you would expect him to be buried with Elizabeth if they were still together when she died.

Yes that's what I'm thinking too.  The marital status of unmarried could be a mistake by the enumerator, an assumption I suppose or it could be that John chose to say he wasn't married if he and Elizabeth were separated.  However, as you say, you would expect him to be buried with her if they were together.  It makes me think it may have been drink problems that caused the break up and at some point even his family decided they didn't want him living with them!  He seems to have died alone and I had seen the newspaper report but no one seems to have known much about him.

2
The Common Room / Re: Couple at separate addresses 1851 census
« on: Sunday 20 February 22 13:35 GMT (UK)  »
Quote from: rosie99 on Sunday 20 February 22 13:15 GMT (UK)
Did he die in 1885.

FindMyPast have a removal of 'remains' from Jesmond Old Cemetery and it has 4 people mentioned including Elizabeth Tulip who was interred 27th September 1857 and John Tulip who was interred 27 August 1885

No, that's his and Elizabeth's son who was aged 66 when he died in 1885, I found that one in the GRO indexes thanks. The Elizabeth mentioned though is the wife I refer to.  I think he died in 1869 but can't be certain if I have the right guy.  I have a death certificate for a John Tulip of the right age but the informant was the coroner as he died after falling down some stone steps whilst drunk!  No family mentioned so I only have the age to go by.

3
The Common Room / Re: Couple at separate addresses 1851 census
« on: Sunday 20 February 22 13:01 GMT (UK)  »
Quote from: rosie99 on Sunday 20 February 22 12:48 GMT (UK)
  :-\
Quote from: JillCuth on Sunday 20 February 22 12:38 GMT (UK)
Just wondering if anyone can shed any light on a census entry for me. 1851 I have a married couple at separate addresses (they were at the same address in 1841with their offspring).
in 1851, he is aged 59, at 32 Ouseburn, Byker, described as head of household, occupation labourer with a lodger at the same address. 
If you mean he was at no 34 (John Julip) - He states he is unmarried  :-\

So it does! I misread the U for an M.  I'm pretty sure it is him as the age is right, as is the area from the 1841 census.  In 1861 he is living with his son John and daughter in law Ann at Stepney Bank and his marital status is not filled in.  Perhaps the unmarried status in 1851 does mean he was separated from his wife then.

4
The Common Room / Couple at separate addresses 1851 census
« on: Sunday 20 February 22 12:38 GMT (UK)  »
Just wondering if anyone can shed any light on a census entry for me. 1851 I have a married couple at separate addresses (they were at the same address in 1841with their offspring).
in 1851, he is aged 59, at 32 Ouseburn, Byker, described as head of household, occupation labourer with a lodger at the same address.  She is at the home of her daughter and son in law just down the street at number 37 Ouseburn.  Her relationship to head is Mother in law and her rank, profession or occupation is described as "At home with son".  I'm trying to work out if they had separated or if she was just visiting her daughter for the night.  Does anyone have any idea what the "at home with son" might refer to please?
By the way, she died in 1857 so I'm not able to check the 1861 census to see if they were together again by then.  Thanks in advance.

5
The Common Room / Re: newspaper records on FindMyPast
« on: Saturday 05 December 20 15:42 GMT (UK)  »
Quote from: Rena on Saturday 05 December 20 15:11 GMT (UK)
Quote from: JillCuth on Saturday 05 December 20 14:16 GMT (UK)

I am now happily ensconced in reports of murders, assaults and 'furious' driving in 1840s Hull  ;D

Welcome to rootschat from me too.  I noticed your name and it reminded me of a little boy in my class at Ainthorpe Infant/Junior school in the 1940s by name of Sydney Cuthbertson.

My name is Cuthbert,no 'son on the end.  I've had everything from Cuthbertson, Custer, Custard! haha.

6
The Common Room / Re: newspaper records on FindMyPast
« on: Saturday 05 December 20 14:16 GMT (UK)  »
Thanks all.  I managed to solve it by changing my taskbar setting to autohide so that it doesn't obscure the Apply filter button.

I am now happily ensconced in reports of murders, assaults and 'furious' driving in 1840s Hull  ;D

7
The Common Room / Re: newspaper records on FindMyPast
« on: Saturday 05 December 20 12:08 GMT (UK)  »
Thank you.  I do not get the Apply filter bit at the bottom.  My screen kind of bounces when I try to scroll down.  I've tried full screen mode too.  Obviously a problem with my display, I'll play around with the settings and resolution and see if I can get it to display properly.

Thanks for the welcome too :-)  :). Are those verification things something you have to do after every post?  I find the letters difficult to read!

8
The Common Room / newspaper records on FindMyPast
« on: Saturday 05 December 20 11:23 GMT (UK)  »
Does anyone know how to apply the filters on the newspaper search on FindMyPast?  I don't know if something is missing from my search screen but I just cannot get them to apply. 
So, down the side, choose the filter you want, in this case 'by newspaper'.  choose the newspapers I want to search in.  Then what? There is no 'apply filter' button, nothing to be done but to back out of the filter selection box and then find that no filter has been applied to my search.
It's driving me mad.  I paid for a full subscription specifically to get access to this record set but it is unusable without the filters.
Is it the same for everyone or am I being stupid and missing something obvious?

Pages: [1]