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

Help needed Please

Login to Add Reply Watch This
ProfilePosted byOptionsPost Date

Rhonda

Rhonda Report 7 Apr 2005 17:20

Thanks everyone, It says on the other bit of the census on ancestry that Phoebe born 1893 is Thomas and Phoebe's daughter but I have a birth certificate showing the parents as William and Victoria Williams but Phoebe is not on the 1901 census with her Parents that is why I thought it said granddaughter. Rhonda

KathleenBell

KathleenBell Report 7 Apr 2005 16:49

The eldest daughter of the Williams is described as married, so her name wouldn't be Williams(although that is what she is down as). Perhaps she was married to the elder brother of the boarder, and the 7 year old Phoebe could be hers. Kath. x

McDitzy

McDitzy Report 7 Apr 2005 16:35

Agree with Tracy. Looks like he missed a member of the household, started to write Thomas Grimley but then rubbed it out and put Phoebe there instead. Looks like it's been rubbed out in the relationship section too, and a sort of ditto mark?

}((((*> Jeanette The Haddock <*)))){

}((((*> Jeanette The Haddock <*)))){ Report 7 Apr 2005 16:34

Snap Tracy! I went back for a second look and I would agree - she is a Williams

Gypsy

Gypsy Report 7 Apr 2005 16:34

I agree with Tracey. Her surname has been rubbed out. I cant make out what it should be though! Pat

☼ Orangeblossom ☼ - Tracy

☼ Orangeblossom ☼ - Tracy Report 7 Apr 2005 16:31

You know what, I think he got confused and realised he'd made a mistake. The surname has been rubbed out and dittoed, as has the relationship. I think she's the daughter.

KathleenBell

KathleenBell Report 7 Apr 2005 16:31

I think it says Grand-daughter and the surname looks like Grimley, which is the same as the boarder who is John Grimley. Looks like the child belongs to one of the daughters. Kath. x

Rhonda

Rhonda Report 7 Apr 2005 16:30

Thanks Esta, Rhonda

}((((*> Jeanette The Haddock <*)))){

}((((*> Jeanette The Haddock <*)))){ Report 7 Apr 2005 16:30

Kinda going with Tracy! I think the surname is Grimley like the one below and realtionship is boarder Jeanette x

Esta

Esta Report 7 Apr 2005 16:28

Bit of a long shot with a name like Williams but this could possibly be her birth Name: Williams, Phoebe Record Type: Births Quarter: September Year: 1893 District: Salford County: Greater Manchester Lancashire Volume: 8d Page: 21 Which would give you her parents name Esta

☼ Orangeblossom ☼ - Tracy

☼ Orangeblossom ☼ - Tracy Report 7 Apr 2005 16:24

Hmm... it's been rubbed out. I think her surname is Grunley. Relationship boarder? It's definitely not daughter.

Esta

Esta Report 7 Apr 2005 16:24

It's not very clear is it ? I guess it's possible ....... if it was daughter wouldn't it look like the ones above.?.... It does look different so maybe. Sorry not alot of help ! Esta

Rhonda

Rhonda Report 7 Apr 2005 16:20

Can anyone have a look at the 1901 census for me. I need a second opinion. Phoebe Williams aged 7 Pendlebury do you think it could say granddaughter next to where it says relationship to head. Thank you Rhonda