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
Is this likely
| Profile | Posted by | Options | Post Date |
|---|---|---|---|
|
Janet 693215 | Report | 4 May 2004 16:01 |
|
I think that William was possibly not Johns son.Perhaps Sarah had been widowed or perhaps he was just a child she had out of wedlock.In those times women were often married for convenience and to avoid the workhouse.(Men also did the same if they were left with children to care for)The only hope you have is if you or someone can check the parish register for you.It may contain the fathers name. |
|||
|
David | Report | 4 May 2004 15:44 |
|
I have a dead end in my tree in the early 1800's. I sent for the marriage certificate for a William Habberfield, hoping to find his father. On the certificate the father's name is not very clear, but from its length its obviously not Habberfield. On the IGI I have found a William Habberfield baptised to Sarah habberfield (no husband mentioned). Through other sources I have a Sarah Habberfield marrying a John Stone, 12 months after William's baptism. The name on the marriage certificate could well be John Stone. But wouldn't William have changed his name to William Stone once his parents got married |
|||