Find Ancestors

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.

Quick Search

Single word search

Icons

  • New posts
  • No new posts
  • Thread closed
  • Stickied, new posts
  • Stickied, no new posts

Mary Jane Ash

Page 1 + 1 of 2

  1. «
  2. 1
  3. 2
ProfilePosted byOptionsPost Date

BatMansDaughter

BatMansDaughter Report 16 Jan 2010 16:37

Here's Ethels birth;



Surname First name(s) District Vol Page

Births Mar 1896 (>99%)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pitchford Ethel Loughbro' 7a 144



This would tie in



Dee x

BatMansDaughter

BatMansDaughter Report 16 Jan 2010 16:46

And this birth;

Surname First name(s) District Vol Page

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Births Mar 1902 (>99%)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Pitchford Lily Cheltenham 6a 444a




Dee x

BatMansDaughter

BatMansDaughter Report 16 Jan 2010 18:06

Hi Linda,

I can't see Mary J, James or Ethel on the 1901 census, I would suggest you maybe order one off the girls birth certs (Ethel or my preference Lily).

The marriage in 1893 of James Pitchford to Mary Jane Ash maybe the one for you.... interestingly there was a James Pitchford born in 1871 in Wolverhampton... I can see him on the 1871 and 1881 census..... the 1891 census he is not with his parents and I can't see him!!! Nor on the 1901 census........... maybe knowing his occupation would help in the search??



Dee x

Linda

Linda Report 16 Jan 2010 18:23

Hi all

I don't think he would have been a chemist, being a labourer in 1911 according to census.

It looks likely that they are the correct Ethel and Lily - though I agree they may have been with different mothers. They seemed to move around a bit but perhaps as a labourer he would go wherever there was work? There may have been two James's - or he may have had a good reason for changing his name!

I will send for one or both birth certs as you suggest - thanks so much, at least I have a little more to go on now!

xx