Severn or Severns, Birkin link help.

[shadowwind2112]

Are you sure about that, because this tree, says the opposite

As advised on your previous thread - the trees you are looking at contain many inaccuracies.  Those inaccuracies are well documented by various RC members in that thread.   

Have you read those replies and researched the details given?

If you are still uncertain - perhaps you need to contact the actual tree owners and discuss the content of their trees with them in the light of the replies you have received as we just appear to be going over the same ground covered in your earlier thread

Eeerrrrmmmm that tree is actually correct as I have heard from the owner. Again being rude is what you are.

[heywood]

If the tree is correct, then there is no problem. Just go with it.

If you look at those censuses that we have given details of, you can see there are two men with the same name and approximate age but with different places of birth.
Codnor and Greasley are within the same registration district but those censuses show two different men.

William of Greasley is unmarried.
William of Codnor has a family which, I think, is your interest.

Without going back over it all again, I think the tree may well be correct in most censuses but not in 1861.

The baptism details could well be wrong too because your William does not give Greasley as his place of birth.

If your tree owner has used that census plus the only available baptism record, Greasley, which seems to be online, then that might be the only error. That is putting Greasley as the place of birth rather than Codnor.

However, your own research will have highlighted this, I assume.

[CaroleW]

I think you are mistaking being factual for being rude. 

You provided info on your other thread that has been proved conclusively to be incorrect but have made no comment other than to continue to post the links to Ancestry trees. 

See the info you posted about Hilda Mary Severn - wrong person - wrong dates.

If you are so convinced the info in the trees is accurate - what point is there in RC members
wasting any more time posting info for you that proves it’s incorrect?




 

[heywood]

A quick one, but I am looking for a link between the following,

which will lead to eventually the following

1/. "Elizabeth Severns
B:1779 Greasley, Nottinghamshire, England

D:1844 Greasley, Nottinghamshire, England"

And any "Birkin" links that can be linked to the first "Severn" family members above

I don’t see Elizabeth b 1779, Greasley in the tree you have posted.
However there is a death in 1844 - Elizabeth Birkin 65 yrs in Basford district.

I can only see this one in 1841
Elizabeth Birkin 65 yrs living in Aston upon Trent, Derbyshire (not born in county)
? Birkin 65 yrs Ag Lab born in county

Is this who you mean?

I thought you were asking for clarification of the information posted in the trees.
We have pointed out where there seems to be some discrepancies and given alternative information from the censuses. You posted again though with a similar request.

In response to the help and advice, you have written:

“Are you sure about that, because this tree, says the opposite,”

“ Eeerrrrmmmm that tree is actually correct as I have heard from the owner. Again being rude is what you are.”

I do not think anyone on Rootschat is being rude to you. I would hope that you can see the effort made to help you sort this out.

You wrote initially that you have found the information yourself and not used others’ trees. That is how it should be. Sometimes, others’ research is correct but sometimes it isn’t.

It is difficult to see what you want here. If you prefer the information in that tree, that is your choice. However, as I have mentioned there is at least one error re birthplace but you must decide.

I apologise to others for the length of this post.

[Dizzifish]

I don't see Elizabeth b 1779, Greasley in the tree you have posted.
However there is a death in 1844 - Elizabeth Birkin 65 yrs in Basford district.

That is the Elizabeth Birkin I mentioned in reply 26

This is Thomas & Elizabeth Birkin on the 1841 census

1841 England, Wales & Scotland Census
Toll Bar, Kimberley in the parish of Greasley,
Piece 857 / Folio 29 / Page 5
Thomas BIRKIN, aged 63 - Grocer - born in county
Elizabeth BIRKIN, aged 62 - born in county

Next door is their son Thomas Birkin (Lace Maker) and his wife Susannah nee' Walker - married in Greasley 1836

Elizabeth's burial is given in reply 26

Burial at Greasley  - abode Kimberley
14th Nov 1845, Thomas BIRKIN  aged 67

Thomas Birkin also left a Will - granted 1846

The couple also have other children - even if these aren't people that you are interested in, it is always useful to cross reference information if only to rule them in or out.

As I haven't had any feedback either way I will leave the thread, at least for now.

[heywood]

Sorry Dizzifish. I had seen your post but meant that I could not find her in the tree.

Somewhere I also posted a Birkin (Pirkin) connection - think it was Phoebe Gascoigne which was mentioned by shadowwind2112 or it was a similar name and I think  there was an error in that tree too.

It may be lost now in all the posts but I hope it was seen and read at the time.