Find Ancestors
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
WILLIAM OR JOHN ?? BURGESS 1860 BETHNAL GREEN
| Profile | Posted by | Options | Post Date |
|---|---|---|---|
|
Gai | Report | 16 Jan 2011 19:27 |
|
I think I have got myself in a bit of a pickle trying to untangle the many BURGESS in Bethnal Green. I have managed to unravel quite a bit but I am stuck on this one - I suspect the record I need has been mis-transcribed. |
|||
|
Chris Ho :) | Report | 16 Jan 2011 19:59 |
|
Name: John Burgess |
|||
|
Gai | Report | 16 Jan 2011 20:07 |
|
Thanks Chris. I didn't expect quite so old - the William John in the 1871 census is 11 years old. I'll widen my search! |
|||
|
Chris Ho :) | Report | 16 Jan 2011 20:16 |
|
Name: John Buyers |
|||
|
Gai | Report | 16 Jan 2011 20:21 |
|
Thanks Chris - I did manage to find that one - eventually! This is the correct marriage, John's father John is a Baker. It's the reason I came to doubt the 1861 census I had already found. |
|||
|
Chris Ho :) | Report | 16 Jan 2011 20:22 |
|
Births Sep 1860 (>99%) |
|||
|
Vicci | Report | 16 Jan 2011 20:40 |
|
1861 possible |
|||
Researching: |
|||
|
Chris Ho :) | Report | 16 Jan 2011 20:49 |
|
1871 |
|||
|
Vicci | Report | 16 Jan 2011 20:51 |
|
the above census record does seem to fit with the marriage record of 1857 |
|||
Researching: |
|||
|
Chris Ho :) | Report | 16 Jan 2011 20:53 |
|
great minds Victoria ;-)) |
|||
|
Gai | Report | 16 Jan 2011 20:55 |
|
Victoria - that's the 1861 that I had but have now discounted - the occupations don't add up - "my" John was a shoe/bootmaker as were most of his family except his father who was baker. |
|||
|
Chris Ho :) | Report | 16 Jan 2011 20:58 |
|
Name: Angelina Burgess |
|||
|
Chris Ho :) | Report | 16 Jan 2011 21:07 |
|
Name: William John Burgan |
|||
|
Gai | Report | 16 Jan 2011 21:08 |
|
Victoria - the marriage of John and Elizabeth in 1857 is correct - the witnesses are John's sister Sarah and her husband Joseph. |
|||
|
Gai | Report | 16 Jan 2011 21:12 |
|
Ha! Crossed postings! Well done, Chris - you are a STAR !! Now, where are they in 1861 - ?? |
|||
|
Gai | Report | 16 Jan 2011 22:01 |
|
Well, I've looked for all the neighbours of John the baker (his father) in Barnsley Road and they are not there! No. 23 is occupied by an entirely different family. |
|||
|
Chris Ho :) | Report | 16 Jan 2011 22:10 |
|
No luck here either I'm afraid, theyr'e either well hidden or he was 'minding' the shop perhaps, lol :-) |
|||
|
Vicci | Report | 16 Jan 2011 22:19 |
|
I don't think you can discount the 1861 record, everything else fits. |
|||
Researching: |
|||
|
Chris Ho :) | Report | 16 Jan 2011 22:35 |
|
Also, as the 1861 census was taken on the night of 31st March, the 10mth age given for John W wasn't far out. |
|||
|
Gai | Report | 16 Jan 2011 23:35 |
|
Thanks both - you may be right but I thought I had found the "general dealer" family in a later census - I can't find them now though! I will bow to your better judgement and accept that John W and William John are the same person and that a boot maker can be a general dealer if only for a year or two! |
|||