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
How to perform an Ancestry search
| Profile | Posted by | Options | Post Date |
|---|---|---|---|
|
Anne | Report | 6 Mar 2005 00:21 |
|
No idea! All I know is that he's a widower on the 1881 census and a shepherd on the farm where he's living in Swanland (near Hull) Because I'd found him on the 1881 I wanted to see what he looked like in 1871, just in case he's the father of my also missing Harriet Ann Butler aged about 4 in 1871. Think she must have been out with the sheep too! I only know that on her marriage cert she said her father was Thomas Butler, a shepherd. Anne PS Harriet is in Hull in 1881 SADLY there is another one of exactly the same age, born in Grimsby. My Harriet says she's born in Lincolnshire |
|||
|
Anne | Report | 6 Mar 2005 00:08 |
|
Well thanks, anyway for all the interesting input folks. Thomas was a shepherd so perhaps he was out with his sheep on census night! Or else badly mistranscribed. Glad I'm not the only one Glitter Baby! Anne |
|||
|
Angie | Report | 6 Mar 2005 00:04 |
|
There are only 3 thomas Butlers in 1871 and none match yours too old or too young. Angie |
|||
|
Anne | Report | 6 Mar 2005 00:00 |
|
No I was careful to select just the 1871 census record. Do you think it 'knows' I don't subscribe!! Anne |
|||
|
Anne | Report | 5 Mar 2005 23:51 |
|
I think you miss my meaning. I did click on 'exact search'. Nothing came up when I entered several bits of info - not surprised at that so gradually removed bits until (as suggested in the tips) I was left with it ONLY searching for the surname Butler - but still no results!!! On the other search (as I said) there appears to be no ranking of the info I put in at all. The first few of the 900 varied between 10 and 65 and were born in a selection of random places. Is it just me? Anne PS Yes Angela thats the one I'm trying to find on the 1871!!! |
|||
|
Angie | Report | 5 Mar 2005 23:51 |
|
Found thomas Butler in1881 census Birth year about 1841 employed as a seravant Residance was Swanland at the time of the census Birth place Brantingham District Sculcoates Angie x |
|||
|
sarahjw03 | Report | 5 Mar 2005 23:41 |
|
Before you search, click the top of the search box, where it says exact matches only!! It will then give much more relevant info! Sarah |
|||
|
Anne | Report | 5 Mar 2005 23:36 |
|
I'm looking on the 1871 census for Thomas Butler, age 30, born in Brantingham, Yorks. When I try the 'ranked in best match order' search I get over 900 random results. They're not even ranked by age let alone county of birth! When I do an exact search it comes back with no results found - even when I broaden the search out to JUST the surname Butler. Where have all the 900 gone???? Am I just being thick? I'm certainly not tempted to join Ancestry if that's the quality of the searches. HELP! Anne |
|||
|
Anne | Report | 5 Mar 2005 23:30 |
|
I don't want to subscribe to Ancestry at the moment, but I thought I could use the new joint search facility to give me a clue as the the existence of the person I'm looking for. I can't seem to do it at all!! See Below for what I'm trying to do |
|||