Genealogy Chat
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
talk about early marriages!???!
| Profile | Posted by | Options | Post Date |
|---|---|---|---|
|
Karen | Report | 22 Jun 2006 06:36 |
|
Obviously error/ mistranscription----think this definately taking early marriages to extremes!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 1881 census John EDWARDS Head M Male 35 Bilston, Stafford, England Coal Miner Emma EDWARDS Wife M Female 33 Bilston, Stafford, England >>>> John EDWARDS Son M Male 3 Bilston, Stafford, England <<< William EDWARDS Son M Male 9 m Bilston, Stafford, England Price St Bilston, Stafford, England RG11 Folio 2814 / 29 Page 16 karenx |
|||
|
Jess Bow Bag | Report | 22 Jun 2006 07:00 |
|
What it says on the image is william is 9 M, ( 9 months old) |
|||
|
Unknown | Report | 22 Jun 2006 07:12 |
|
Not sure why you think that would be an early marriage? Even if the baby was 9 years instead of 9 months, his mum would have been 24 when she had him. nell |
|||
|
Sarah | Report | 22 Jun 2006 07:49 |
|
Come on Karen - what was YOUR mistranscription? I can't see a problem with what you've typed either. sarah :-) |
|||
|
Crafty | Report | 22 Jun 2006 08:12 |
|
Karen, It doesn't say married next to the childrens names on the image...that bit has been left blank. It only says married next to the parents names. John is 3 years old and William is 9 Months old. Sue |
|||
|
Helen Henderson | Report | 22 Jun 2006 09:16 |
|
I can see what Karen is getting at! On Ancestry if you view the record rather than the image it does say that both boys are married! Just goes to show that you should always look at the image rather than the transcription. Helen |
|||
|
Pippa | Report | 22 Jun 2006 10:58 |
|
Ok I checked the image for myself as there seems to be a bit of a dispute. As far as I can can tell there is only a marriage condition in the correct column for the parents and William's age in the age column is 9 mo ( 9 months). I can understand however that adding months into the age mix for a census thst is already confusing do to mis-transcriptions and blatant lies by our ancestors makes our interpretation even harder. |
|||
|
Jess Bow Bag | Report | 22 Jun 2006 11:02 |
|
If you click on the indivual record, rather than the family group or the image its self, under marital status, it does say married. was just an observation on the posters part, lets not chuck out dummies out , Eh? |
|||
|
Sarah | Report | 22 Jun 2006 11:15 |
|
Oops, Sorry Karen - I didn't notice the M on your posting - must get these glasses fixed!! Sarah :-) Yes, just a tad young!! |
|||
|
Karen | Report | 23 Jun 2006 17:51 |
|
sorry everyone only just got back on here. pc/connections playing up. Not my lot -but noticed it on another page-- So it definately pays to look at images!! yes -not a problem with the parents only the M after both the kids cheers girls :) karenx |
|||