Show Posts
1
Staffordshire Lookup Requests / Re: Annie Brookes or Brooks
« on: Friday 04 May 07 10:48 BST (UK) »
Thanks for those so far.
I'm going to accept George as the tailor as per karenlee & millymcb. My dad had found this separately, I subsequently discover, & it matches in the 1901 as well, when he seems to be married to Kate BAKER.
Thanks for that.
As for Eliza per millymcb:
I'm not sure about this one, as 26 in 1891 does not fit with known ages of 1 in 1861, 11 in 1871 & 20 in 1881. Also there is an Elizabeth Brooks born Q4 1864 Wolverhampton, but I think this Elizabeth moved to Wiltshire per the 1871.
On the other hand, I was already aware of a 1901 Eliza Brookes that was then only on my possible list, spelled with an e, aged 39, leather machinist (RG13/2912/183/21). This is in Coventry. Also there does not appear to be any birth registered for an Eliza with or without an e in 1861-1862 so that age does appear to be "wrong", but fits better with the known ages quoted above.
[Ages of 1, 11 & 20 really fit only the Q2 1859 Eliza Brookes, who should therefore be registered as 30 or 31 in 1891 and 40 or 41 in 1901].
I'm inclined to accept that Eliza tentatively, therefore.
As for Richard: there is a Richard Brookes born Q2 1863 in Wolverhampton, which fits his age of 8 in the 1871. There is also a Richard Brookes born Q2 1861 in West Bromwich, which fits your citing. Contradicting all of this, there is an IGI record for Richard Brooks 8 Nov 1863 Wolverhampton to Richard & Ann Brooks, which is absolutely right & is also good for age 8 in 1871. On that basis I'll just bear it in mind at this stage.
As for Francis: your Francis is simply too old in my view, as we have Francis aged 4 in 1871. Your Francis is I think the Francis J born in 1861 to Lucy, which clearly does not match "our" Francis. So I'm not convinced yet.
As a matter of interest, we can't find Richard or Francis in the 1881 either.
Pity about the lack of Annies so far, as that's the one of real interest!!
Regards
Chris
I'm going to accept George as the tailor as per karenlee & millymcb. My dad had found this separately, I subsequently discover, & it matches in the 1901 as well, when he seems to be married to Kate BAKER.
Thanks for that.
As for Eliza per millymcb:
I'm not sure about this one, as 26 in 1891 does not fit with known ages of 1 in 1861, 11 in 1871 & 20 in 1881. Also there is an Elizabeth Brooks born Q4 1864 Wolverhampton, but I think this Elizabeth moved to Wiltshire per the 1871.
On the other hand, I was already aware of a 1901 Eliza Brookes that was then only on my possible list, spelled with an e, aged 39, leather machinist (RG13/2912/183/21). This is in Coventry. Also there does not appear to be any birth registered for an Eliza with or without an e in 1861-1862 so that age does appear to be "wrong", but fits better with the known ages quoted above.
[Ages of 1, 11 & 20 really fit only the Q2 1859 Eliza Brookes, who should therefore be registered as 30 or 31 in 1891 and 40 or 41 in 1901].
I'm inclined to accept that Eliza tentatively, therefore.
As for Richard: there is a Richard Brookes born Q2 1863 in Wolverhampton, which fits his age of 8 in the 1871. There is also a Richard Brookes born Q2 1861 in West Bromwich, which fits your citing. Contradicting all of this, there is an IGI record for Richard Brooks 8 Nov 1863 Wolverhampton to Richard & Ann Brooks, which is absolutely right & is also good for age 8 in 1871. On that basis I'll just bear it in mind at this stage.
As for Francis: your Francis is simply too old in my view, as we have Francis aged 4 in 1871. Your Francis is I think the Francis J born in 1861 to Lucy, which clearly does not match "our" Francis. So I'm not convinced yet.
As a matter of interest, we can't find Richard or Francis in the 1881 either.
Pity about the lack of Annies so far, as that's the one of real interest!!
Regards
Chris