Author Topic: How reliable are other peoples trees  (Read 2691 times)

Offline Kevinshouse

  • RootsChat Veteran
  • *****
  • Posts: 867
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: How reliable are other peoples trees
« Reply #9 on: Wednesday 29 July 09 21:15 BST (UK) »
Thank you so much for all your replies.  Since posting my request I have looked through a will that left small amounts of money to the family (and I am wrong) there are other children recordered  that I knew nothing about until I found the tree on Ancestry - the children are now adults and  married .  Only John Born 1895 is missing.  I cant believe they had so many children in such a few years, the problem that I am having is that Jane born 1899 I cannot find a birth for although she is mentioned in the will (now married called Jane Lofthouse - I have found a married for her Jane M Hutchinson to Robert C Lofthouse 3rd quarter 1931 in Leeds).  So Jane does exist. The problem that I have is that Rae (sometimes Ray - female) and Jane seem to have both been born in 1899! In 1900 George and his twin sister Jessie were born (twins).  Also why was the twin called Jessie when there already was a child called Jessie (who married in 1921 a Percy Derbyshire). This will has solved some problems and made many more.
This family history hobby is taking my life over - but I love it
Many thanks and kind regards
Susan

Offline danuslave

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 3,882
  • My fashion sense isn't any better now!
    • View Profile
Re: How reliable are other peoples trees
« Reply #10 on: Thursday 30 July 09 17:27 BST (UK) »
Quote
This family history hobby is taking my life over

It seems to happen to us all  :D :D

Linda
MOXHAM/MOXAM - Wiltshire & Surrey
SKEATS - Surrey
BRETT - Kent & County Durham
and
SWINBANK - anywhere

Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk

Offline danuslave

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 3,882
  • My fashion sense isn't any better now!
    • View Profile
Re: How reliable are other peoples trees
« Reply #11 on: Thursday 30 July 09 17:33 BST (UK) »
Quote
Rae (sometimes Ray - female) and Jane seem to have both been born in 1899

It is biologically possible, without twins - 9 months goes into 12 one and a bit times!

One born January-March, the other September-Dec

Not a lot of fun for Mum though  :D

Linda
MOXHAM/MOXAM - Wiltshire & Surrey
SKEATS - Surrey
BRETT - Kent & County Durham
and
SWINBANK - anywhere

Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk

Offline danuslave

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 3,882
  • My fashion sense isn't any better now!
    • View Profile
Re: How reliable are other peoples trees
« Reply #12 on: Thursday 30 July 09 17:35 BST (UK) »
Quote
why was the twin called Jessie when there already was a child called Jessie

Are you sure they're not cousins rather than sisters?

Linda
MOXHAM/MOXAM - Wiltshire & Surrey
SKEATS - Surrey
BRETT - Kent & County Durham
and
SWINBANK - anywhere

Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk