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.

Quick Search

Single word search

Icons

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

A bit weird?

ProfilePosted byOptionsPost Date

Berniethatwas

Berniethatwas Report 12 Feb 2012 21:25

Thanks - good to get another point of view.
Joy, not that I know of, but could be 2nd or 3rd.
Young chap Jones - quite possible - trust me to be suspicious!
B

Jonesey

Jonesey Report 12 Feb 2012 21:16

I have come across a similar situation in the past. It transpired that a child was given an additional forename that was actually the surname of one of their god parents.

As Jane and Leah were sisters it is quite possible that they acted as a god parent for their siblings child.

Joy

Joy Report 12 Feb 2012 20:45

James and Joseph are cousins? good friends?

Berniethatwas

Berniethatwas Report 12 Feb 2012 19:28

This is not a request for further information - I have it - just calling for some conjecture.

1846 Jane Kingcome married James Billett
1858 Jane's sister Leah Kingcome married Joseph H. Collier.

1860 Jane has child #6 named Maude Mary Collier Billett
1861 Leah had child #1 named Jane Billett Collier.

Why on earth would you do that?
Were there 'goings on' going on?

B