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

Not being lazy (honest) just exhausted

Page 0 + 1 of 2

  1. 1
  2. 2
  3. »
ProfilePosted byOptionsPost Date

Heather

Heather Report 14 Mar 2006 22:51

Hee hee, he just shot himself in the foot. I asked for the details of his 1891 and 1901 sitings and he sent that Mary Hannah Dixon who lives in Clarence Street (most likely the wife of one of my GGFx2 bros). I then sent him back the 1881 which shows this Mary STILL living Clarence Street AND the 1881 which shows my GGFx2 living with wife Maria in Elephant Lane at the same time - woo hoo, wonder what he will do when he gets that, eh!

Heather

Heather Report 14 Mar 2006 19:32

I had seen those Zoe. I actually questioned my dad - did the family ever use an 's' in their name. He said there was another big family in Rotherhithe who had the 's' but as far as he knew they werent related. Somehow, I think he may be wrong as there seems too many of them in the same area with the same work and living in the same roads - but it must go back beyond his memory of family. Im wondering if a lot of these Dixsons aswell as the Dixons are the children of my GGFx2 father - John. If they could make a mistake in the certificate and on registers - and lets face it, its a simple understandable mistake to add the 's' then I reckon theres a good chance some of them carried on using it in that way. I actually had contact on here over a year ago with a Dixson who asked me the same question. I spoke to dad and the above is what he answered. But it was nice as he remembered this ladys fathers parents and through here, and me and the other member, they sent messages to each other (bless). My dad said ask him, Didnt his mum and dad have a parrot outside their grocers shop in Lower Road - back came the answer, the ladys dad was thrilled as he had actually forgotten that but remembered when my dad reminded him (dont forget my dad was 90 at the time of this exchange - so he had a brilliant active mind and gave the chap lots of other details which pleased them both). I still think yes, the Dixon and Dixsons are one big family - perhaps one day ............... Meanwhile, as I wrote this a message popped up from the american (I sent him about 2 pages of stuff!!) It said 'Thank you' and that was it!!!! Alan - thanks for kind words.

Zoe

Zoe Report 14 Mar 2006 19:23

Heather Have you seen these: Mary H Dixson abt 1828 Rotherhithe, London, England Head Rotherhithe London Mary L Dixson abt 1863 Rotherhithe, London, England Daughter Rotherhithe London just viewing the image okay It COULD be 63 Clarence STreet - but it's not very clear mother is a laundress daughter a machinist daughters age could also be 21, 26 or 28 - will need someone who remembered to bring their glasses home from work

Alan

Alan Report 14 Mar 2006 19:07

Heather I really wouldn't worry too much about this guy. Some people never admit they are wrong. He'd rather have a dodgy tree than admit he's wrong. So let him. He publishes his iffy tree everywhere. A shame if he's leading people astray, but if they start looking and cross-checking they'll soon find out he's wrong! Stick to your guns and publish your tree where you will. Ideally on at least one of the sites he uses, then people will have the choice to believe him or you. I've found myself in someone's family tree info on the web. Everything was wrong. My kids were wrong One of my parents was wrong. It was a mess. I learnt one thing. NEVER use your mother's maiden name as a password or security check. It's getting too easy to work it out. Alan PS thanks for your help in working my rellies out...

Heather

Heather Report 14 Mar 2006 18:28

Yes Elaine, I mean I was sure it was, but you start doubting yourself. Im pleased with that stuff from Charlotte because it is double proof that my GGF had an adopted brother called Hains. I KNOW I am right, I feel it in my blood - these are my direct ancestors and I know the streets, I know my dads recollections of these people. He even told me about 'Old Janey' who his grandad had married and adopted her kids - I wish hed told me BEFORE I spent hours working out who the kids were, but there you are! Thanks guys, I know these are my people and as you say I shall tell him that I know Im right, and his two decades and trips to Salt Lake were still a waste of time!!

Unknown

Unknown Report 14 Mar 2006 18:21

Hi Heather, I really wouldn't worry what HIS tree has on it ! You have done YOUR tree, and have purchased certs along the way to verify your findings. I would tell him that you can't help him, and that your happy with the information you have gained, but if he can't except the facts that you have offered him, then he is on his own. I pity him, if he won't accept alternative information given to him for free ! Stick with YOUR tree Heather, you KNOW its right. Elaine ;-)

Heather

Heather Report 14 Mar 2006 18:17

Yes, FC, I think I will do that - he tells me 'I have spent time in Salt Lake City verifying these facts' He then went on to tell me that Maria was really Mary Ann born in 1821 - silly sod. Ive got Maria born 1824 (ok, its still out, but much more likely) to Joseph and Mary of Upper York Street, Rotherhithe. I also have them having a child Mary Anne born 1821 in Swan Lane - these records taken from the LMA. Interesting, my nan was still living in Swan Lane in the 1950's/60's when I was a kid. How much more confirmation do you need. Also in the 1841 there is a Thomas or Joseph - Im told poor image with a wife Maria and daughter Maria living NEXT DOOR to my Dixons!!! Joseph indeed had a bro called Thomas so I would have thought very likely this is either my Maria or her cousin, which would account for the way William met her. Guys, honestly, am I missing anything?

Jeanette

Jeanette Report 14 Mar 2006 18:17

but remember 1891 on ancestry is in alphabetical order thats why she appears not with them on Ancestry listing Jeanette

Heather

Heather Report 14 Mar 2006 18:10

Charlotte, many thanks for that - it is one of Williams son - in fact my GGF - Jane Reeves was his second wife - I have to say, I have this for them on my ft program: 1891 5 Elephant Lane A new wife, Jane Reeves. Are Ada and Charles her children from a previous marriage? Dixon, Ada 8 Willesden, London Daughter Rotherhithe London Dixon, Albert 12 Rotherhithe, London Son Rotherhithe London Dixon, Charles 6 Willesden, London Son Rotherhithe London Dixon, Florence 7 Rotherhithe, London Daughter Rotherhithe Lond Dixon, Jane 28 Bow, London Wife Rotherhithe London Dixon, Jane 1 Rotherhithe, London Daughter Rotherhithe London Dixon, William 40 Rotherhithe, London Head Rotherhithe London Makes me wonder why ancestry didnt pick up the Haines child as a member of the family!!! I would think this is very likely as they were such a close knit incestuous bunch, Haines is likely something to do with George, the son of Maria. Thanks for that. Born India, eh -father must be a soldier then? A new lead and a bit worrying ancestry didnt show her! Of course, this was my very first line of research - back in the days when I thought I didnt need certificates (?!!!) and I realise I would not have thought to have checkjed the image back then, just taken ancestry's family group as gospel. You live and learn.

Fiona

Fiona Report 14 Mar 2006 16:42

Hi Heather, I'd ask him to e-mail you some certificates to support his findings............does he have a birth certificate for whichever of William and Maria's children he is supposed to be related to? Fiona.

Zoe

Zoe Report 14 Mar 2006 16:41

Now funny that is..has a Haines as a niece

Charlotte

Charlotte Report 14 Mar 2006 16:33

I have just searched Elephant Lane in the 1891 census and there is a William Dixon (at least I think it is, it has been overwritten or smudged or something) R12 381 Folio 114b (Enumerators disctrict 5) 5 Elephant Lane William Dixon, aged 40, Head, General Labourer, born Rotherhithe Jane Dixon, aged 28, Wife, born Bow Albert Dixon, aged 12, Son, Scholar, born Rotherhithe Ada Dixon, aged 8, Daughter, Scholar, born Willesden Florence Dixon, aged 7, Daughter, Scholar, born Rotherhithe Charles Dixon, aged 6, Son, Scholar, born Willesden James Dixon, aged 1, Son, born Rotherhithe Emily Haines, aged 11, Niece, Nursegirl, born India Jane looks like a second wife considering the age of Albert - Charlotte

Heather

Heather Report 14 Mar 2006 16:27

Yes, she was married to a George Hains. Poor sod died aged 24 in Rotherhithe. I have told him that - it is shown on her marriage certificate as her name (thicko, wasnt she) BUT then her fathers name is shown as Joseph Silby and the witnesses are Joseph and Mary Silby. This is another point he has argued - But if she is Maria Silby why would she say her name was Hains (erm, because she was thick?) Ive also pointed out to him that the two eldest kids with my GGFx2 is even shown as Hains - it falls on deaf ears. I have told him my GGF Williams birth cert shows mum as Maria Dixon formerly Silby. He says my GGFx2 father is a William. On the marriage certificate he is shown as John Dixson (sic). He still insists Williams father is William!!!!! If you look at the census there is a William Dixon b 1821 in Richmond. I am sure he has latched on to that guy instead of the right William and has followed a line back in Richmond via the IGI. I cant make him see that there wouldnt be a lot of work for lightermen or dockers in leafy Richmond. He tells me he must be right - he has worked on this for 2 decades! I just hope he is related to the Richmond lot, I dont want him in my line! ANd he has lifted my info and put it on various websites including my mother's death details which really upset me.

Fiona

Fiona Report 14 Mar 2006 16:22

Hi Heather, So was Maria married before? Does the other person have the Hains kids in his tree? 1851. Maria 1843 should be Hains also. Emma Dixon abt 1850 Rotherhithe, Surrey, England Daughter Rotherhithe Surrey John Dixon abt 1849 Rotherhithe, Surrey, England Son Rotherhithe Surrey Marie Dixon abt 1827 Rotherhithe, Surrey, England Wife Rotherhithe Surrey William Dixon abt 1822 Rotherhithe, Surrey, England Head Rotherhithe Surrey George Hains abt 1845 Rotherhithe, Surrey, England Son Rotherhithe Surrey Maria Harris abt 1843 Rotherhithe, Surrey, England Daughter Rotherhithe Surrey

Zoe

Zoe Report 14 Mar 2006 16:15

Heather I would stick to your guns no matter what you have the certs and they follow what info you have found have they not? I trust my instincts and just get more info to prove them wrong ie birth certs of all their children to prove I have the right maiden name ect! Is he actually disagreeing on Maria's maiden name? Zoe

Heather

Heather Report 14 Mar 2006 16:12

Pete and Zoe - thats the only one I could find and SHE IS NOT my GGMX2 - she is a box maker or something. She is shown born Southwark, which is near but is NOT Rotherhithe. Neither did she have sons of these names and ages. If you lot cant find her then I shall stick to my guns and just face him out.

Pete

Pete Report 14 Mar 2006 16:09

Do you think he may have found this one? Name Estimated Birth Year Birthplace Relationship to head-of-house Civil parish County Henry Dixon abt 1858 Southwark, London, England Son St Saviours London Maria Dixon abt 1824 Southwark, London, England Head St Saviours London Maria Dixon abt 1858 Islington, London, England Daughter-in-law St Saviours London

Heather

Heather Report 14 Mar 2006 16:08

I bought units on familyrellies to look for both - Williams looks a good match but Maria -------------

Jeanette

Jeanette Report 14 Mar 2006 16:07

only this one 1881 Henry Dixon abt 1857 Southwark, Surrey, England Son 4 Allen St, Newington, London, England View Record James Dixon abt 1865 Southwark, Surrey, England Son 4 Allen St, Newington, London, England ===View Record Maria Dixon abt 1823 Southwark, Surrey, England Head 4 Allen St, Newington, London, England View Record John Hawes abt 1854 Southwark, Surrey, England Boarder 4 Allen St, Newington, London, England 1891 Record Henry Dixon abt 1858 Southwark, London, England Son St Saviours London ===View Record Maria Dixon abt 1824 Southwark, London, England Head St Saviours London View Record Maria Dixon abt 1858 Islington, London, England Daughter-in-law St Saviours London

Zoe

Zoe Report 14 Mar 2006 16:07

I just looked also and found what you did death wise. No joy on Maria though Zoe