Find Ancestors

Thanks to you too JaneyCanuck. I realise now that there was a "conversation" going on between you and the other contributors. I certainly didn't intend to leave you out of the thank you acknowledgements and hope I didn't cause offence.

It never ceases to amaze me how well the people on this site work together to help although I'm sure that there's a little bit of internal rivalry going on! As a relative newcomer, it feels to me like you are all members of a help group "talking" to each other across the internet airwaves and I am very grateful for the help given to me personally.

The best ones are conversations, for sure. And most of us have suspicious minds after so much of this -- children born to unmarried parents (I lose track of them in my tree, although my own direct ancestors seem to have waited for the marriage to be born), people with fake names for a variety of reasons (I have two of them just in my own recent tree, my dad's father and my mother's grandfather) -- that we know just where to start looking, and what for. ;)

And very often it works just like clockwork: X finds something, Y says hmmmm, Z runs with what Y finds, all madly off in all directions til one gets there ... and there you go, in five minutes, Bob is your uncle ... or at least your parent's step-sibilng. ;)

Oh, and then you get an error message when you try to post ...

To Bruce: if you have something to say to me, perhaps you would send me a PM. I don't really give a flying * how things "seem" to you, whoever you might be (I don't recall seeing you helping on anything in nearly four years on these boards, while Mike, Jax and I and the rest work together daily, including on this thread that you seem to have made no contribution to). I strongly suggest that you refrain from this kind of negative personal commentary about other members, and I recommend that you delete that post or edit it to remove that commentary, or I shall ask that it be done for you.

Back to our regularly scheduled conversation, now!

Oooer! Now you're getting scary. I didn't mean to start a cyber war of words over my request.

Still need to find the family in 1901

Unfortunately the one posted is for Charles W and Susan J instead of Charles Henry and Susan.

Well fine, Mike. ;)

1901

Name: Ethel Lingwood
Age: 16
Estimated Birth Year: abt 1885
Relation: Visitor
Gender: Female
Where born: London, Middlesex, England

Civil parish: Lambeth

Anton Prince 37
> Emily Nixon 67
Ethel Lingwood 16
Aida Mays 23
William Atkins 46
John Foster 23


Emily Nixon is mother-in-law of Anton Prince.

Anton Prince is Head, married, Hotel Waiter, born Germany (German Subject), whose wife seems not to be at home.

I have found them in 1901 thank you, living in Edmonton. Unfortunately, there are a couple of transcription errors but I have cross referenced all the names listed and other information that I have confirms the correct address for the family. One of the errors is that Charles Henry's wife was Susan and not Sarah as transcribed.

Ethel Violet does not appear with the family in 1901 and so I have yet to locate her but I believe she was in service and living away from the family.

JaneyCanuck, This is interesting. Emily Nixon b.1833 was Ethel Lingwood's grandmother. I don't recognise any of the other names but I will certainly investigate Anton Prince. Emily had Susan (Ethel's mother), Sarah J. (who never married) and another daughter called Elizabeth who was a general servant living away from home in 1881 (aged 20). Perhaps she is the daughter who married Herr Prince. I will certainly investigate that line of enquiry. Thank you.

I should have mentioned they're all unrelated boarders except for Anton and Emily, who I assumed was Ethel's grandmother. ;)

Couldn't see a Prince-Nixon or Anton-Nixon marriage on a very quick search at FreeBMd, but the spelling of his name, both surname and given name, may have varied considerably.

I too have found discrepancies with the spelling of Nixon (a common surname) e.g.Nixen. It makes life difficult but oh so rewarding when you find someone.

You don't want to be sending me PMs ... makes me irritable. ;)

Address in 1901, I'd closed the image but still had the search result tab open, fortunately!

Multi-household dwelling, have to go back to previous page ...

26 Brook Street.

Ethel shows no occupation, btw.