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

Lost Welchs in 1901 census

Login to Add Reply Watch This
ProfilePosted byOptionsPost Date

Sarah

Sarah Report 24 Jan 2004 21:02

Hello All I am hoping that someone might have a suggestion as to how I can find my grandfather, great uncle and great aunt as they appear to have disappeared between their births being registered in East Retford, Notts in the 1890s and the 1901 census. Their names are: Henry Lakeland Welch registered Jun 1890 Lister Welch registered Dec 1892 Dorothy Welch registered Mar 1895 I have tried various combinations with the names e.g Welsh, Walsh and Harry, Harold, Lester, Dolly etc but can't seem to come up with any matches. All I seem to be doing is using up money viewing other Welchs (who may well be related but until I find these Welchs I can't be sure!). I know that Henry became a dentist and by 1926 was in London but can't work out where the family might have been inbetween. I hoped that the 1901 census details would have helped me to find my great grandparents but am now stuck. Any suggestions would be much appreciated. Thanks. Sarah

Geoff

Geoff Report 24 Jan 2004 21:51

You will find Henry Walsh, Lister Walsh and Dorothy Walsh aged 10, 8 and 6 (all born Retford) living in South Manchester in 1901. I suspect that must be them. Also George (38) and Trevor (3).

Sarah

Sarah Report 24 Jan 2004 22:31

Thanks Geoff I thought that I had tried every variant but obviously not.. This certainly seems to be them! Thanks again. Sarah