Genealogy Chat

I have a Thomas Dudley from the Parish Records of St Lawrence's Foleshill christened 30/10/1760. His children that I know about were John (28/7/1793) and Elizabeth (19/11/1809) - again from the parish register transcripts. (see below)

I've next got him in 1841 living at Bell Green with Elizabeth and her husband Thomas Perks (I've ordered their marriage cert to be on the safe side) His age is given as 70 which doesn't exactly match, but I'm certain it is he. In 1851 he is listed with granddaughter Mary A. Orton and John Orton still in Bell Green, his age is now 84, he is described as a pauper and his place of birth is given as Spain, British Subject! Is it likely that he is romancing at this point, and am I safe glossing over the age discrepancy? Mark

I have found that ages do vary a lot, I think i've seen on here before that people very often had no idea what their true age was. The census used to round them up (or down) too I believe.

He did well getting to 84 anyway! What worries me is that he might not be the Thos of the parish record, because if he was born in Spain in 1767 (why!?) he can't be my Thomas. Mark

Another way of looking at it is are you sure the parish record is for the right Thomas? jay

Looking back at it I'm not 100% sure of the tree I thought I had built - it was pretty much the first thing I did when I first came on here, made easy by the fact that the Dudleys stayed put in Foleshill for centuries (my father was the first to leave of our line!) Could somebody look at what I have and tell me if I have made bricks without straw? The parish baptisms read: 14 Jan 1759 Sarah dr of Thomas and Mary 30 Oct 1760 Thos son of Thos and Mary 23 Aug 1762 Mary dr of Thos and Mary 28 Jul 1793 John son of Thos and Sarah 19/11/1809 Elizabeth dr of Thos and Sarah In marriages we have: Thos Dudley and Mary Carpenter m 31/10/1757 - witnesses Abraham Carpender, JH Thos Dudley and Sarah Hall m 20/05/1793 witnesses Thomas Coltman and Wm Hutchinson Census info is lacking apart from the two references to Thomas. HELP!!! Mark

Are these the only Dudley refs in the PR, Mark? Or did you just extract the ones you thought relevant to your line? I ask because it was fairly unusual to have just 3 children: mother could have died, family could have moved to next village, any of the children could have died Jay

Hi Janet, Those are all the 18th century births, the rest are the children of John and Hannah or John and Sushannah (who I believe to be the same person - John Dudley m Sushannah Burton in 1812 ) There are a couple of births that worry me - Mary Ann and Martha b 1819 and 1821 to Thos and Mary (nee Smith). Mary Ann went on to marry Luke Orton - the witnesses were Thomas Dudley and Martha Dudley, so I've just realised that the Thomas living with them is likely not to be my Thomas, unless Sarah died after 1809 and Thomas remarried Mary Smith in 1818. Mark

I was wondering about Gibraltar? Jay

Sorry, Mark, I updated my previous post. Any burials? Jay

Janet, There are a few possible burials: Elizabeth 13 Sep 1812 Widow Faithfull 1825 9 months John 1821 10 months Mary 1764 dr of Thos and Mary Mary 1793 wife of Thos Saml 1766 son of Thos and Mary Thomas 1782 of Bell Green Club Burial Thomas 1804 Do the physical parish records contain any other information do you know? Mark

Sorry Mark, had to go out. If it is a printed transcription, it should tell you whether it has been transcribed in full, or just main details noted. I do find that the original registers vary from place to place, but certainly the ones I've use recently have had a bit more detail, including age at death, whether bride & groom are otp etc. Anything on IGI to give you clues of other Dudleys in the same area? Jay

Mark - if you want more people to read this thread you should change it to: 'Thomas Dudley - could he have lied about his s*x?'

Very funny Paul! I did think abgout it, but didn't want to shock Merry and Co! Mark PS Janet - I'm trawling through IGI now - I'll be back as soon as I can!

Mark on the 1841 ages were rounded down anyway so if he were 74 he would be shown as 70

But Heather, if he was baptised 1760 as per the PR he would be 81 in 1841 and 91 in 1851! Perhaps its not him at all! Mark

Oh, thrown a bigger spanner in the works then - sorry! I only read your first message! Does seem a bit iffy then, doesnt it.