Find Ancestors

Top tip - using the Genes Reunited community

Welcome to the Genes Reunited community boards!

  • The Genes Reunited community is made up of millions of people with similar interests. Discover your family history and make life long friends along the way.
  • You will find a close knit but welcoming group of keen genealogists all prepared to offer advice and help to new members.
  • And it's not all serious business. The boards are often a place to relax and be entertained by all kinds of subjects.
  • The Genes community will go out of their way to help you, so don’t be shy about asking for help.

Quick Search

Single word search

Icons

  • New posts
  • No new posts
  • Thread closed
  • Stickied, new posts
  • Stickied, no new posts

old thread new questions

Page 1 + 1 of 2

  1. «
  2. 1
  3. 2
ProfilePosted byOptionsPost Date

Dea

Dea Report 16 Sep 2009 18:17

It is Allden on Ancestry - transcribed in exactly the same way!

However, it is worth following as there are no births for Jane Allden c 1853 but there are the following which may be Jane Allen?



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Births Jun 1853 (>99%)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Allbon Jane Camberwell 1d 443
Allcock Jane Maria Rotherhithe 1d 461

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Births Dec 1853
ALLEN Jane Ann Camberwell 1d 438 ??????????

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Births Mar 1854
Allen Jane St. Geo's Sk. 1d 142 ??????????


I have looked on 1871 but can't trace them and have to go out just now.

Perhaps someone could have a look.

I will look back later.

Dea x

kim

kim Report 16 Sep 2009 21:36

ive ordered a birth certificate for a james allen born 1840 should come saturday but im not holding my breath.

i was praying then that this allden was them but it seems strange that the same spelling mistake would of happened 10 yrs later

kim

kim Report 16 Sep 2009 21:41

this may be a coincidence but both head and wife are named james (obviouse mistake) only when i was searching for a marriage for james allen with an unknown dalton after janeys suggestion, there was one in 1850 but it was james allen and JAMES dalton,

kim

kim Report 16 Sep 2009 22:00

i thought it might! am i right in thinking if janey is right and my james was born by a differant name, then really i dont stand a chance in finding him?

kim

kim Report 16 Sep 2009 22:33

=

kim

kim Report 17 Sep 2009 11:13

thanks yvonne, need a pick up sometimes, ive been working on this one on and off for nearly 2 yrs, keep giving up and moving on to someone else :0( x

JaneyCanuck

JaneyCanuck Report 17 Sep 2009 20:33

Even if he was born by a different name, don't despair. There can be clues and other things to be looked at. I'm sure I've mentioned, my gr-grfather was nowhere to be found before his 1883 marriage (when he was already over 30). It took months, but I did find him under the name he was born with, which was totally different.

I still have a couple of tabs open of things I was looking at re your James, just haven't got back to 'em yet. The eye surgery yesterday will keep me away for another day or two, but I will try to take another kick at him. I specialize in digging away at finding the people who tried hardest not to be found. ;) My gr-grfather was a graduate-level course in that discipline!

kim

kim Report 22 Sep 2009 20:01

just an update, i sent for the birth certificate for james patrick allen 1840 surrey and it wasn't correct, his father was not james. so back to square one.

JaneyCanuck

JaneyCanuck Report 22 Sep 2009 21:18

As promised, have poked some more, to no avail.

Have you gone through every James Allen in Surrey in 1841 born say 1811-1826, looking at the images to try to find one who was a blacksmith?

Ditto for 1851?

It's what I'd do if this were mine; since it isn't, I'd leave it to you. ;)

Of course the possibility is that James the father, if he existed, would have died before 1851, and if the later DOB for James the son from a census were accurate (1846 was it?), James the father could still have been an adolescent in 1841 ...

kim

kim Report 22 Sep 2009 21:28

thats what im doing now for the 3rd time in case ive missed one hehe x