|
Thank you for Pm ing.
So why put down his brother as next of kin as well?
Grrr ,so many questions that no answers will be given for...........
|
|
Back tomorrow,bed is shouting for me.
|
|
The NA catalog says of wo363 (the burnt records):
Scope and content: This series contains microfilm copies of the surviving records of service for non commissioned officers and other ranks who served in the 1914-1918 war and did not re-enlist prior to the outbreak of war in 1939. etc
Similarly for wo364:
Scope and content This series consists of microfilm copies of service records of non-commissioned officers and other ranks who were discharged from the Army and claimed disability pensions for war service between 1914 and 1920 and did not re-enlist prior to the outbreak of the Second World War. The records are unlikely to contain information on individuals who did not claim a war pension. etc
[Both these series exclude officers, and exclude soldiers of the household cavalry & guards regiments. I can't check Ancestry, but I think indexing is not complete for either series. Maybe it's substantially complete for wo364, but it would appear the records for denied pensions haven't been tackled yet.]
Anyway, it's clear these are the entire service/pension records of WW1 soldiers who weren't in WW2, so any 1901 service should be there.
Re nok - in the examples I've seen, which are mostly Ontario, or the 4 western provinces, this is always the wife if married, but if single, I've seen a maybe 2-1 preference for naming the mother when both parents are available; after that, it's usually siblings. Now, admitedly, these people, although mostly either UK born or having a UK born parent, are liable to somewhat behave differently from Englishmen, especially as a substantial minority have their UK origin outside England. I haven't had so much experience matching English WW1 records with the 1911 census, as England has a 100 y closure, not a 92 y one, so their preceding census has only recently come online (and then there's no free images except in Ireland).
The later Canadian censuses either ask date of birth or month and year of birth. I'ld guess there's just as much lying re age on the Canadian censuses as on the English ones - maybe more: new country, new age. Anyway, they nearly always do not lie about the day of the year, just the year. There was substantial lying re dob on Canadian WW1 attestation papers. Canada's only surviving CEF member was an underage soldier who lied about his age, but, by 1917 the 1916 casualty lists were known, and underage soldiers were no longer sent overseas, and those who were training in England, like this guy, were kept there, and not sent to France.
|
|
Thank you mgnv.
Now I see why the service records are included ,even though they are pre ww1.
|
|
I have the marriage cert of
Robert william farnsworth and elizabeth BREWER.
So it was the other elizabeth on the same page,so much for my powers of deduction.
And I think I have found william farnsworth/brewer 1880 hull
Births Mar 1880 (>99%)
BREWER William Sculcoates 9d 192
True not an August birth but I shall try to get a new crystal ball as well as sending for that BC.
And in 1881??
1881 England Census
about William Bruer
Name: William Bruer
Age: 1
Estimated Birth Year: abt 1880
Relation: Nurse Child (Nurse)
Gender: Male
Where born: Hull, Yorkshire, England
Civil parish: Kingston-Upon-Hull
County/Island: Yorkshire
Country: England
Street Address: 12 St James Place
Education:
Employment status:
View image
Registration district: Hull
Sub-registration district: Myton
ED, institution, or vessel: 30
Neighbors: View others on page
Household Members:
Name Age
Mary Ann Johnson 45
William Bruer 1
His mother and uncle william{born sheffield 1858} were in the workhouse in 1871 as parents died 1866 and 67.
Still looking for elizabeth brewer in 1881,and as she says sheffield in 1861 and barton lincs in 1871 it may take a while.
thanks for all your help Janey and mgnv
|
|
Well done!
I feel like a useless appendage here, so I'll just wander off clapping with one hand ...
|
|
You are far from useless Janey.
With a Hop,Skip and a Jump.
There is still the mystery of the westwood branch ,on the maternal side,to sort out!!
Mary ann westwood married Amos webster in 1883.
She was born 1861 birmingham.
On her marriage cert her father is William westwood{brass founderer}
One witness is Alice westwood.
I can only find a Mary ann westwood and Alice ester westwood{1859}with father JOHN,brass founderer,all the williams are doing other jobs and no alice with them.
Oh and after 1861 I followed alice forward to find the husband of ann,father of alice and mary ann.
1861 England Census
about Alice Ester Westwood
Name: Alice Ester Westwood
Age: 2
Estimated Birth Year: abt 1859
Relation: Daughter
Mother's Name: Ann
Gender: Female
Where born: Birmm, Warwickshire, England
Civil parish: Birmingham
Ecclesiastical parish: St Mark
County/Island: Warwickshire
Country: England
Street Address:
Occupation:
Condition as to marriage:
View image
Registration district: Birmingham
Sub-registration district: Lady Wood
ED, institution, or vessel: 25
Neighbors: View others on page
Household schedule number: 81
Household Members:
Name Age
Ann Westwood 29
Alice Ester Westwood 2
Mary Ann Westwood 2 Mo
B
x x x
|
|
I have still had no luck locating mary ann westwood with a father called "william" who is a brass founderer.
Any offers gratefully recieved from anyone and all that may be bored tonight.
thanks
B
|
|
The Westwood household in 1881 (where was John in 1861?):
John Westwood 59 - brassfounder
Ann Westwood 49
Alice Westwood 22
Edward Henry Westwood (2 months - is it likely he's actually a son?)
William Walters 48
Eliza Walters 46
Mary Alice Walters 8
Annie Sophia Walters 6
Any chance the kids just didn't know their father's name? If the parents were deceased, that wouldn't be unusual in that day.
But Mary Ann married only two years later ...
Have you found marriage and births for that household?
The only Alice Est* I'm seeing is:
Births Mar 1860
HOLTON Alice Esther Aston 6d 264
and not seeing an Alice Westwood of any sort to suit.
Births Mar 1861
WESTWOOD Mary Ann Birmingham 6d 46
WESTWOOD Mary Ann East Birmingham 6d 40
?
And the only possible marriage to suit looks like this one:
Marriages Dec 1860 (>99%)
Brookes Joseph Birmingham 6d 273
? Danks Ann Maria Birmingham 6d 273
Pressdee George Birmingham 6d 273
Prigg Sarah Ann Birmingham 6d 273
Prigg Sarah Jane Birmingham 6d 273
? Westwood William Birmingham 6d 273
|
