Pages: 1 2 [3]

Author Topic: Trouble With Frederick Watson b. 1867  (Read 199 times)

Offline mulberry-rose

  • RootsChat Senior
  • ****
  • Posts: 303
  • Beloved Sooty (2014)
    • View Profile
Re: Trouble With Frederick Watson b. 1867
« Reply #18 on: Sunday 03 August 25 19:18 BST (UK) »
I’ve seen it where widows put their marriage length even though their spouse is dead, but not recording the (newest) marriage is odd.

Eleanor Watson their daughter born at 5 Percy St
Allan, Bell, Bolam, Bollum, Burrell, Campbell, Colthard, Conroy, Harrison, Howey, Keeney , Keough, Kirkup, Muldoon, Rooney, Storey, Valentine, Weatherson, Weatherstone (Nthland)
Ford, Aynsley, Lewis, Brown, Myers (Durham)
Green, Dillon, Drain, Cox, Muldoon (Lanark)

Offline JackB015725

  • RootsChat Extra
  • **
  • Posts: 25
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: Trouble With Frederick Watson b. 1867
« Reply #19 on: Sunday 03 August 25 19:31 BST (UK) »
Thanks for that.

I had no idea that they had a daughter born at 5 Percy Street in 1902, this information has proved to be very interesting indeed.

Yes, I do agree that it is weird that in the 1911 she is not living with him, and she has recorded her marriage to the deceased John Blenkinsopp as 32 years, instead of noting the one to Frederick Watson--weird!
Blenkinsopp, Peel, Raw, Handyside, Rodenby, Pigg, Murray, Scott

Offline rosie99

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 44,261
  • ALFIE 2009 - 2021 (Rosbercon Sky's the Limit)
    • View Profile
Re: Trouble With Frederick Watson b. 1867
« Reply #20 on: Sunday 03 August 25 22:07 BST (UK) »
The 32 years was filled in and then crossed out by the census enumerator.
Census information is Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
Pages: 1 2 [3]