Genealogy Chat

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

Advice/Opinions needed

Login to Add Reply Watch This
ProfilePosted byOptionsPost Date

Neil

Neil Report 7 Sep 2008 11:13

Any further suggestions/advice or am i now in the area of assumptions/best fits?

Neil

Neil Report 6 Sep 2008 23:56

Actually yes his first son is called richard - hadn't even thought of that!

2nd Son is called James after mother's father. 3rd son called Samuel John which has no links so far.


Thanks for that great idea!

Heather

Heather Report 6 Sep 2008 23:54

Does the naming pattern help? I mean does the William you believe to be the right guy have a Richard as a son?

Neil

Neil Report 6 Sep 2008 22:53

Firstly here is the info. William Voisey married Charlotte Baker in Cullompton, Devon in 1830 (I have a copy of the parish register entry). On the 1841 census they are both down as being 30. In 1851 William is down as 47 (born Cullopmton) and Charlotte as 43 (Born South Molton).

Charlotte can be found on the IGI as being Baptised in 1808 in South Molton.

Cullompton is not on the IGI but i have found a transcription on Genuki.

Now this is the bit i get stuck on. There are 2 Williams baptised around the right period. Firstly William baptised 1807 son of Richard and secondly William baptised 1810 son of William.

Both of course fit the bill but i am inclined to think the 1807 one is the correct one based upon the following (assuming they were baptised around birth anyway!):

1. The marriage entry does not say they were given consent by anyone so, in theory, were over 21. As it was William's home parish i would have thought this to be true. Sadly neither witness is helpful!

2. The 1841 census rounded ages down so 1807 born = 34 which ties up with the 30 on the census. However this is also true of the 1810 baptism.

Does anyone have an suggestions as to how i can take this any further? If that is even possible.


Edit: Actually - looking at the transcriptions they have dates of birth so my assumption about baptism being around birth is correct.