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.

Boards

Quick Search

Single word search

Tools

Findmypast DNA Banner

Icons

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

I'm quite lost with this one

Login to Add Reply Watch This
ProfilePosted byOptionsPost Date

KathleenBell

KathleenBell Report 12 Jun 2007 18:49

Having looked at both the 1841 and 1851 census entries, I don't think they are the same William. William on the 1841 is said to be 9. On the 1851 he is 16. I know ages can be wrong, but they don't seem like the same people to me. His mother is also alive on 1851 census, so where was she on the 1841? Kath. x

*~Lizbeth~*

*~Lizbeth~* Report 12 Jun 2007 18:47

I don't think William is actually Elizabeth's son, as she was married to Elisha (alone in a workhouse 1841), but William put 'Thomas' down as his father. There is also an Alexander listed as Elizabeth's son, who i know definatley wasn't (he was actually her grandson) Liz

*~Lizbeth~*

*~Lizbeth~* Report 12 Jun 2007 18:34

Kathleen, that does sound quite plausible. Do you think that by 1851 Thomas could have died aswell, hence being with other family?

KathleenBell

KathleenBell Report 12 Jun 2007 18:33

On the entry that Gail found it says that William was born in county (Middlesex) but that Thomas was not. It doesn't give relationships, but it's quite likely they are father and son. As they are in the Workhouse, perhaps William's mother died. Kath. x

MargaretM

MargaretM Report 12 Jun 2007 18:25

Now I'm a lttle confused, too. Am I reading it wrong? Did you say William and Rachel were married in 1862 but you found them on the 61 census with their daughter?

Researching:
Great grandmother Dorothy Bean nee Abbott (1858-1908)

*~Lizbeth~*

*~Lizbeth~* Report 12 Jun 2007 18:19

Yes Margaret, they married after the birth of their first child, not sure why.

*~Lizbeth~*

*~Lizbeth~* Report 12 Jun 2007 18:15

See below.

imp

imp Report 12 Jun 2007 18:15

This one on the 1841 Thomas Pethers abt 1786 Isleworth Middlesex William Pethers abt 1832 Middlesex, Isleworth Middlesex Thomas is above William on the census. William Pethers Age: 9 Estimated birth year: abt 1832 Where born: Middlesex, England Civil parish: Isleworth HO107; Piece 658; Book: 9; Civil Parish: Isleworth; County: Middlesex; Enumeration District: Union Workhouse; Folio: 42; Page: 8; Line: 15; GSU roll: 438775. Gail. x

*~Lizbeth~*

*~Lizbeth~* Report 12 Jun 2007 18:07

Would appreciate any help on this one! I’ve got a William Pithers (or Pethers) married to Rachel Plumridge in 1862. Up until then, I had thought that my William was the son of an Elizabeth and Elisha, as found in the 1851 census (mistranscribed as Pittiers). But, when I got the marriage cert, William’s father is down as Thomas, a labourer. Now I can find William in 1861, with Rachel and their daughter Mary Ann, but before that, I am quite lost. I can’t seem to locate any census info which would back up the fact that William’s father is Thomas. The only thing I have found is an IGI entry for 1834 giving William’s parents as Thomas and Mary Ann, Paddington. Can anyone help? Im really confused with this one. Liz