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
Help please with Durham census
Profile | Posted by | Options | Post Date |
---|---|---|---|
|
gemqueen | Report | 5 Oct 2007 18:34 |
Hi I can't find a John Lambton Longstaff/Langstaff b 1834 in Hunwick Durham. Son of Lambton Longstaff and Mary Hewitt. |
|||
Researching: |
|||
|
imp | Report | 5 Oct 2007 18:50 |
So Just for reference - hopefully I have the right one....... |
|||
|
gemqueen | Report | 5 Oct 2007 18:53 |
Could be. You are right for the reference. I can then ind Jane on all censuses up to including 1901 but no John. |
|||
Researching: |
|||
|
Carrie | Report | 5 Oct 2007 18:59 |
So in the 1871 Is son Thomas Longstaff (married) a different son or could be Janes hubby? |
|||
|
gemqueen | Report | 5 Oct 2007 19:01 |
Carrie |
|||
Researching: |
|||
|
gemqueen | Report | 5 Oct 2007 19:11 |
Carrie - just reread your last post. As Thomas married Dorothy in 1865, I was wondering why he would be at the home of Lambton and Jane so you could be right in that they wrote Thomas instead of John. |
|||
Researching: |
|||
|
Carrie | Report | 5 Oct 2007 19:13 |
I have just found Thomas and wife Dorothy (Dorathy) in 1871 Durham so it must be a mistake and John has been put down as Thomas |
|||
|
gemqueen | Report | 5 Oct 2007 19:19 |
Carrie - Yes this is Thomas and Dorothy confirmed. I have wills etc to prove their line but it was John Lambton that I was having probs with. Is there any way I can confirm this error or do I just accept that it was. lol |
|||
Researching: |
|||
|
Carrie | Report | 5 Oct 2007 19:24 |
No, I doubt there is anyway of confirming but its very strong proof that an error had been made seeing as we found the Correct Thomas, lots of errors were made back in those days, my own 3xGRGF was down as his brother Thomas in 1881 instead of his own name of Collinson, his brother Thomas had died a few years back.? |
|||
|
gemqueen | Report | 5 Oct 2007 19:31 |
I thought I'd found him as a boarder in 1881 census aged 50, he was a tailor, which is what he was as an apprentice in 1851 aged 17. Ages don't match but I have been told that ages aren't neccessarily correct on the censuses anyway. But why would Jane be a widow ( on Ancestry she is a windower!!!!) on her census for 1881? |
|||
Researching: |
|||
|
K | Report | 5 Oct 2007 19:43 |
I think this is the John you found in 1881 with his brother William in 1841. William is listed as a cooper in both 1841 and 1881 |
|||
Researching: |
|||
|
Carrie | Report | 5 Oct 2007 19:50 |
Could this be his death? |
|||
|
gemqueen | Report | 5 Oct 2007 19:54 |
K - Thank you. I'll have a look at this one now. |
|||
Researching: |
|||
|
gemqueen | Report | 5 Oct 2007 19:59 |
Carrie - I don't think so as his last child was b1880 |
|||
Researching: |
|||
|
gemqueen | Report | 5 Oct 2007 20:12 |
K - Had a look but the dates of births for John and Jane don't fit. |
|||
Researching: |
|||
|
gemqueen | Report | 5 Oct 2007 21:13 |
Right - I think I've cracked it. John Lambton Longstaff died in 1865 and therefore never married. |
|||
Researching: |