Genealogy Chat

Sorry Kate, Her maiden name is Elmer,married in 1880,Stockport district. The 81 details for her hubby,George Wells are for Heaton Norris,Lancs,and he was working on the railways at the time. Most of the Elmer kids though Norfolk born finished up in Lancs in 81 and Lincoln by 1901. Horribly mistranscribed on numerous occassions they have been really awkward to place,i'm trying to mop up the missing images,about 6 left for the set,but really head scratching time now. Glen

So are you saying that Hall wasn't her maiden surname? Sorry, I didn't look at the surname on the image that closely as I didn't realise. Just having another look to see if it could really say Wells... no, the first letter definitely looks like an H rather than a W if you compare it to the other names on the page. Kate.

Hubby in the 81,recorded as a visitor,the George Elmer is brother to my missing Elizabeth. Agnes Elmer abt 1860 Lincoln, Lincoln, England Wife Heaton Norris Lancashire George Elmer abt 1859 Billingford, Norfolk, England Head Heaton Norris Lancashire George F. Wells abt 1860 Wells, Norfolk, England Visitor Heaton Norris Lancashire Glen

The address is a set of office buildings for the railway,her husband was working for the railways at the time. I have had problems in the 81 with her sisters,working as servants and the names being incorrectly recorded,but this one is the furthest out when you take marital status etc into consideration. So far i have the 61 image with her parents,and the 1901 but nothing inbetween. Glen

I had a similar problem. 2 people married 1875 but in 1881 census he is a lodger and she gives her previous married name and is a widow. However his brother is staying with them also as a lodger and wonder if they were keeping the marriage quiet-she was 20 years older than him.

So when you say, 'mistranscription', do you mean by the ancestry (LDS) transcriber (no) or by the enumerator? I can believe the enumerator putting 'Unm' instead of 'Mar', but he wouldn't have put in her maiden surname by mistake, would he? So it can't really be a mistranscription, rather, if you definitely have the same person on the census and the marriage certificate, then either she was pretending not to be married (like my great-grandmother in 1901, so it could happen), or the family she was staying with made a mistake filling in the form. Kate.

1881 England Census Record about Elizabeth Hall Name: Elizabeth Hall Age: 31 Estimated birth year: abt 1850 Relation: Visitor Household: View other family members Family and neighbors: View neighbors Gender: Female Where Born: North Elmham, Norfolk, England Civil parish: Manchester County/Island: Lancashire Country: England Street address: Railway Offices Hunt Bank Education: Employment status: View image Occupation: House Keeper Source information: RG11/3992 Registration district: Manchester Sub registration district: Market Street ED, institution, or vessel: 5b Folio: 24 Page: 4 (click to see others on page) GSU Number: 1341953 View Original Record View original image View Elizabeth had married George Wells in Stockport in 1880,he is found as a visitor in Stockport,the image quoted shows Elizabeth as unmarried. Opinions please,thanks Glen

Elizabeth Wells b1853 North Elmham,could the following be a mistranscription? Glen