RootsChat.Com

Is this the baptism of their son Charles at Ightfield 06 Jan 1756 - parents Thomas & Margaret  - it mentions Whitch* par.

Perhaps Margaret came from Pattingham.

Yes this is their son, my 5th great grandfather

As for Margaret, well the Margaret that married in Pattingham in 1754 was named Bishop. This is the marriage I am leaning towards at the moment.

In terms of Margaret Bishops born around this time, I can find two possibles bap Bridgnorth 1712 and Whitchurch 1727

Just been looking at a map at Bridgnorth is a mere 8 miles from Pattingham.

So I've found a Thomas Boulton bap 1719 in Whitchurch, but that would make him 35 when he married (wife Margaret being 27)

Seems promising

Now to look for burials to see if they lend any further support to this

My 4th Great Grandfather was George Boulton (b 1794 Whitchurch Shropshire), I have baptism records etc to substantiate etc. I don't normally have too much interest in the extended family, but where possible I like to include siblings, siblings marriage and subsequent children, simply because in doing so it improves the help with hints on Ancestry, and increases supporting evidence for your tree etc which might throw up clues which help.

George had 3 siblings, Adam (1786-1837), Thomas (1797-?) and Hannah (1801-1815). It's with Thomas I'm struggling.

I can find 3 possible marriages, Nov 1823 in Chetwynd (20 miles from Whitchurch) to Elizabeth Pool, Dec 1827 in Whitchurch to Elizabeth Woodnett, and Dec 1828 again in Whitchurch to Hannah Madeley.

I originally went with Elizabeth Woodnett, that was before finding the 1823 marriage. I then thought this looked better, based on one simple fact, one witnesss was named as George Boulton.

Looking further ahead, the only George Boulton I can find on 1841, 1851 census returns is in Hinstock  a mere 13 miles away from Whitchurch, with one Elizabeth.

Other ancestry trees seem split, but the more recent "hints" point towards the Thomas Boulton and Elizabeth Pool not being mine, although many of the dates on their trees don't stack up and most seem to have got their evidence from other trees rather than linking any specific primary sources.

It is of course quite possible of course Thomas simply died young or never married.

Apologies for the long winded post

Ancestry should take some responsibility here and put a marker against blatant errors in trees. otherwise it further spirals out of control as others copy the data.

I've come across trees with errors where people have used some ancestors as part of their tree but with different parents, then when you look at their source its to the correct information with the correct parentage, but these fools have used as evidence for their tree, these are basic errors or worse laziness.

I've messaged a few people in recent months, and you do sometimes get grateful thanks back, whilst others ignore, but it's not always bad.

The other week i contacted someone, not to point out an error but to ask for the source of a photograph, anyhow as a result of this contact I've been able to share newspaper report of a shared ancestor that suffered a tragic death, along with another which was a comical death, and its not just the sharing of info but the fact she was then able to give that info and copy a photo I had on my tree to her own mother who is suffering as a result of memory loss and rekindle her memories.

Is there a way of identifying visitors, even if related, to a household on the 1841 census, here's my dilemma

On the 1841 census I find my 4th great grandparents George Boulton and his wife Lydia in Hanley Staffordshire along with their children. Initially in my research I was only interested in the parental line in regards to following their entire life where possible through Parish Records and Census Records, but added other children etc where identified on the Census returns for later

In 1841 George and Lydia have a "son" listed, George, then aged 4. As there is no sign of him by 1851 I assumed he'd died young end of the line. Interestlingly I couldnt find a baptism record either, but I know some parish records were lost forever as a result of rioting in Hanley in 1842

However I have found a George aged 14 in 1851 with parents George and Elizabeth, and then a marriage record in 1860 in nearby Etruria, with the father named as George.

To confuse things both the George married to Lydia and the George married to Elizabeth were cabinet makers/carpenters

Is it possible/likely, my George aged 4 in 1841 was simply visiting my George and Lydia ?