Re: Getting started
- From: "JohnB" <johnbooth@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 16 Jan 2006 07:05:38 -0800
Jenny M Benson wrote:
> In message <1137415703.783726.108220@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
> JohnB <johnbooth@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes
> >Good suggestion but unlikely to be the case as William is listed as
> >"son" and is older than Samuel and Peter, while Thomas (my Grandad) is
> >also listed but is younger than S&P being aged 4! Could they possibly
> >be adopted?
>
> I presumed William was older, that's why I suggested he was the product
> of an early marriage of John's, rather than being the son of John and
> Hannah. Is Thomas not the son of John and Hannah and therefore full
> brother of Henry and Matilda?
>
> Forgive me if I've got this all wrong.
> --
> Jenny M Benson
It's all coming together. I hadn't gone to the "original" as they're
sometimes difficult to read - and had relied on the transcription,
which I now know isn't always accurate. I found over the weekend that
my wife's GGF Sudlow was transcribed as Ludlow, her G-Aunt Ailsa was
transcribed as Alisa and one of the MOUNCEYs I'm looking for was
Lucretia mis-transcribed as Juetta - and I've seen other obvious
errors. I'm learning :-) I suppose some of the fun is trying to guess
how things might be mis-spelt!
.
- References:
- Getting started
- From: JohnB
- Re: Getting started
- From: BJO
- Re: Getting started
- From: JohnB
- Re: Getting started
- From: BJO
- Re: Getting started
- From: JohnB
- Re: Getting started
- From: Jenny M Benson
- Re: Getting started
- From: JohnB
- Re: Getting started
- From: Jenny M Benson
- Getting started
- Prev by Date: Re: SMITH
- Next by Date: Re: Marriage on Christmas Day?
- Previous by thread: Re: Getting started
- Next by thread: Re: Getting started
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading