Genealogy Chat

Hi, I think you'll have to buy some certs to sort this out. I have instances of relatives being on the census as visitors or boarders. Gwynne

Usually, people are named in realtion to the head of the household. In this case, they are quoted as 'lodgers' or 'boarders' because neither is a blood relation of the head of the household, John Prior (despite the relationship to his wife). Jonathan

have spent most of the weekend trying to gather information about my Rosbrook branch. I went to the records office on saturday and discovered that susannah Wornan had married Ambrose Rosbrook in 1830. The 1841 census tells me that they had 5 children and they were living in stansted Mountfitchet, I have no information for 61 and 51 but by 1871 ambrose is living with john and Susanna Prior and their children - they are described as 'lodger' (John )wife (Susannah) and the children as son and daughter. Ancestry records show a marriage between Susannah Rosebrook and John Prior in 1866 and also show Susannah Rosebroo born in 1843 - I think she was Ambrose's daughter - so why was this relationship not noted and why were the children not listed as granchildren. Susannah (Ambrose's wife) cannot be found on the 1871 but in 1881 there is no ambrose either. However John and Susannah Prior(nee Rosebrook) have moved to Bishops Stortford and in their house hold is Samuel Prior (Lodger)aged 80 and Susan Rosebrook (lodger) aged 74 Was this Susannah.s Mum and John's dad? Only problem is susan is listed as a formally nurse - could that explain where she was on the last census? _ night duty or something?? There is obviously a relationship between all these somewhere. Would there be any reason to lie? Were they on some kind of tax fiddle? How can I sort it all out? Alice

Anyone feel like a challenge? See Below.