|
Sorry I find it hard to understand the rule of only one post per family. How's one supposed to trace subjects belonging to the same family? I wasn't aware that I'd multi posted.
There was no need for other researchers to weigh into this thread and give me a bashing. I guess I'll have to rethink my renewal when it comes up.
|
|
the reason is that when people multi-post fellow researchers are often unaware and duplicate research which is not really fair - we are not giving you a "bashing" or "weighing in", we are trying to help
seems to me this site only exists through the work of fellow researchers as basically GR do nothing to assist other than provide a platform
|
|
"How's one supposed to trace subjects belonging to the same family?"
Um ... by including them in the thread about that family. ;)
"Other researchers", you know, are just other paying users of this site like yourself. We live with the constant (multiple times daily) experience of finding that information in one thread has been "found" all over again by another one of us in another thread about either the same person, or a child, or a parent, or a sibling ... It is extremely frustrating, and we live in the hope that people who use the boards will familiarize themselves with the rules and practices before asking for our help with their questions. We get over it, but I guess we do expect people to say at least "oops, sorry, I didn't realize ...".
Now, any thoughts about that Ann Quick in 1871? There isn't one to match in 1861, or a good match in the births index.
|
|
Okay, I still not sure that I abused the rules as I read them. Clearly I've gone wrong somewhere. "oops, sorry, I didn't realize ...".
Ann Quick means nothing to me but I'll keep her in mind.
I think we'll leave it there. Thank you.
|
|
Of course Ann Quick means nothing to you. My question was whether you think it's possible she is Eveline etc., going by a name she acquired somehow in childhood.
My reasons included the fact that there is no other record of Eveline to be found, and the fact that this Ann Quick also doesn't seem to have any other records. When that happens, it's worth considering that this is the person one is looking for. It's the only way I figured out who my gr-grfather really was. Ernest Augustus Monck did not exist before 1881, but before that there was an Ernest Augustus Hill who looked just like him, and who disappeared in 1873. Sure enough, eventually (many months later, actually), enough things added up that the identity between the two was firmly established. If I hadn't searched widely and twigged to the coincidences, and then dug into them, I would still not know what my mother's surname really is. ;)
I have spent quite a lot of time trying to find these people, or any one of them, in 1861. I'm wondering whether the child may have been left, say, with her mother's parents, but no luck on that either.
The fact that she was baptised as a child of Charles Quick doesn't mean she actually was. On the other hand, it's possible that she was his child, but one (or both) of the parents was married to someone else at the time, explaining the delay before they married. All sorts of things are possible and not uncommonly actually happened. Ruling any of them out without investigation wouldn't be wise.
Just to add, for further info:
Births Jun 1853
Quick Ann Clerkenwell 1b 43
-- has independent existence in 1871:
Name: Ann Quick
Age: 17
Estimated birth year: abt 1854
Relation: Servant
Where born: Clerkenwell, Middlesex, England
Civil parish: Islington
i.e. is not the one I am referring to in 1871:
Name: Ann Queck
[Ann Quick]
Age: 16
Estimated birth year: abt 1855
Relation: Servant
Where born: Sohs, Middlesex, England
[Soho, Middlesex, England]
Civil parish: Clapham
|
|
I had this tab open as I went to reboot Firefox just now, and had looked at your earlier thread, so was just curious.
Oh, actually, I see there have been numerous threads, all containing different little drabs of info, one I see with several replies and no response (perhaps you replied by private message). That thread, in 2009, is presumably the one where this birth
Births Mar 1855
Cooke Evelyne Smith Marylebone 1a 468
referred to here
http://www.genesreunited.co.uk/boards.asp?wci=thread&tk=1205029
(still the multiple posts) "cropped up before".
Patrick 16th February 2010 04:25
I'm looking for any information on Eveline Frances Amelia Lezer QUICK. She was born 4 March 1855 and christened some years later on 28 Feb 1864 at St Anne Soho, Westminster, London. She shows up on the IGI but I'm unable to find any census records relating to her. There is a possibility that she changed her name to Evelyn Ledger COOKE (reason unknown). Does anyone have knowledge of her please.
What that thread doesn't mention (another does) is her marriage:
Marriages Mar 1873
COOKE Evylin Ledger St. Geo. H. Sq. 1a 540
Pay George St Geo Han Sq 1a 540
Name: Evelyn Pay
Age: 26
Estimated birth year: abt 1855
Relation: Wife
Spouse's name: George Pay
Where born: St Johns Wood, Middlesex, England
Condition as to marriage: Married
Civil parish: Edmonton
County/Island: Middlesex
Street Address: Bush Hill Park Bush Hill House Coachmans Cott
George Pay 31
Evelyn Pay 26
Albert H. Pay 7
Frederick Pay 3
Evelyn M. Pay 1
Is this the person you are actually trying to trace??
So the search for Charles Quick is based on the hypothesis that Evylin Ledger Cooke who married Pay was Eveline Frances Amelia Lezer QUICK [Lezer probably mistranscribed Leger?] who was baptised 9 yers later as the child of
Marriages Dec 1859
Cooke Frances Hendon 3a 121
Quick Charles Henry Hendon 3a 121
?
It was asked in an earlier thread whether you have the Cooke+Pay marriage certificate, and what it says for the father's name.
Given the configuration of the name Eveline Frances Amelia Lezer [Leger?] Quick / Evylin Ledger Cooke, I would tend to think that the L name was the father's surname and the parents' weren't married. As I said above: The fact that she was baptised as a child of Charles Quick doesn't mean she actually was.
|
