Author Topic: Help please: William Tomsey CREECH  (Read 17802 times)

Offline ForBill

  • RootsChat Extra
  • **
  • Posts: 38
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: Help please: William Tomsey CREECH
« Reply #72 on: Wednesday 02 November 16 00:57 GMT (UK) »
Karina I forgot to mention that a few of the Power's were noted singers and nearly all had red hair lol. Harry was indeed involved with horses but sadly from the punting end! There are some great articles on Harry in Trove. It appears Harry was estranged from his dad at the time of his death. Cheers David

Offline KarinaGardiner

  • RootsChat Extra
  • **
  • Posts: 2
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: Help please: William Tomsey CREECH
« Reply #73 on: Wednesday 02 November 16 01:21 GMT (UK) »
reply to #71.  Thanks David,  I have cleared the message so you should be able to PM me now.  So looking forward to what you have.  It has indeed been a great to read the posts for the Power line and put it together.  I only had from Laura Russell's marriage to George Packer and their children and only my mothers line and one other.
Cheers
Karina

Offline ForBill

  • RootsChat Extra
  • **
  • Posts: 38
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: Help please: William Tomsey CREECH
« Reply #74 on: Thursday 16 March 17 06:51 GMT (UK) »
Electoral Rolls are available online  for Victoria from 1903

From 1903 to 1909 Kate Ann POWER lived at 53 Carlisle St. St Kilda.
Over those years she is listed either as being of independent means or performing home duties.
No others of the surname are with her.

In 1903 man named Thomas Russell POWER is listed at 230 Leicester St. Carlton. Independent means. No others of the surname are with him.

So it would appear from at least 1903, the couple were not together.

I have read Kate Ann POWER's  will.
Sue

Hi Sue

I have found a divorce record (and ordered the case from PROV) for Thomas and Kate in 1892, assuming the case proceeded it will be an interesting read as back in the day...there was fault/cause in divorce.  Cheers David ps ty for reviving this post!