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 - somersetlass

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5
1
The Common Room / Re: Same two birth registrations in one quarter - why?
« on: Friday 28 February 14 13:49 GMT (UK)  »
Ah that all makes sense now & you are right.  I did know the mother was going through a divorce at the time & I didn't think to look if the birth was also registered under Sargent.  Thanks Galium.

2
The Common Room / Re: Same two birth registrations in one quarter - why?
« on: Friday 28 February 14 12:57 GMT (UK)  »
Thanks again, will leave my friend to decide whether to get both certificates!  SS

3
The Common Room / Re: Same two birth registrations in one quarter - why?
« on: Friday 28 February 14 12:50 GMT (UK)  »
Thank you Stan for your input, much appreciated, it's given me a different slant on this anomaly.  SS

4
The Common Room / Re: Same two birth registrations in one quarter - why?
« on: Friday 28 February 14 11:50 GMT (UK)  »
Stan

These are the two entries:

Q4 1911
STARLING Edwin G  (mother's maiden name PLASTER)  Southampton, 2C, 37
STARLING Edwin G  (mother's maiden name PLASTER)  Southampton, 2C, 2

See what you think ....


5
The Common Room / Re: Same two birth registrations in one quarter - why?
« on: Friday 28 February 14 11:07 GMT (UK)  »
The original page viewed on line is the printed list published by GRO so I guess the transcription of that originated from what was sent in from the district concerned (whether that was typed or written?) so maybe "unsure of page number" could be the answer.  I hadn't thought it just could be "indexed twice, not necessarily registered twice".

6
The Common Room / Same two birth registrations in one quarter - why?
« on: Friday 28 February 14 08:58 GMT (UK)  »
Can anyone offer an opinion/theory please?

Whilst researching for a friend I came across a birth registered in 1911 Q4 twice, same names, same mother's maiden name, the only small difference in the reference are the page numbers.  One was 37 and the other 2.  (Page entry 37 listed first)
Now I know this baby was born in August so can understand why the registration appears in Q4.
Could this be linked to the fact the mother was going through a divorce and had this baby with her new partner?  Maybe the first registration was incorrect in some way?

Hoping someone can shed some light for me.

7
Somerset / Re: Gas street Wellington somerset
« on: Wednesday 15 January 14 22:18 GMT (UK)  »
Gas street was at the bottom end of Champford Lane, so between Foxdown Terrace and the junction with Mantle Street.  So named due to the Wellington Gas & Coke Co formed in 1833 which had its works in Champford Lane, there were also large gasholders and opposite was the milk factory.  These were all demolished and new houses built (Champford Mews, Willcocks Close & Walkers Gate).  The current access into Champford Lane was created through the old milk factory entrance just over 20 years ago so the current Champford Mews was the original line of Champford Lane.  Although Gas Street might appear to be big on various census the cottages would have been small.

8
Somerset / Re: William Aplin / Sarah Wright married Wellington 1846
« on: Wednesday 29 February 12 17:11 GMT (UK)  »
Looks like Sarah b abt 1817-1818 gave three different places of birth: Wiveliscombe in 1851, Wellington in 1861 & 1871 and Thorne St Margaret in 1881 which are all within approx 7 miles of each other.  She is recorded as a widow from 1861 onwards with three children James, Eliza & Anna/Annie/Ann.

Might have to resort in getting the marriage certificate?


9
Well done for persevering and looking in other counties for them.  Hope the marriage certificate does confirm what you think.  Would be interested to know the outcome!

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5