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
1901 CENSUS, Henry / John Henry CONSTABLE
| Profile | Posted by | Options | Post Date |
|---|---|---|---|
|
Derek | Report | 25 Feb 2008 08:31 |
|
A rough day yesterday, tearing hair out trying to get a starter for ten on a branch of my tree. |
|||
|
FamilyFogey | Report | 25 Feb 2008 08:59 |
|
For those doing a look up for Derek please be aware I have searched the death indexes during the wartime period 1939-1945 and given details for a death of a John H Constable in 1943 aged 54 and for a Henry Constable in 1944 aged 81 both in Croydon. |
|||
|
Derek | Report | 25 Feb 2008 09:11 |
|
Hi Alexandra, I have ordered Ellen's death certificate as well as the 1902 marriage certificate this morning. What is likelyhood of that age 54 being wrong in the listings? |
|||
|
FamilyFogey | Report | 25 Feb 2008 09:14 |
|
Well the informant of the death would give the age - and sometimes they got it wrong. Imagine if his wife wasn't the informant and someone guessed his age? |
|||
|
Juliet | Report | 25 Feb 2008 09:23 |
|
Could this be him 1891? |
|||
|
Derek | Report | 25 Feb 2008 09:24 |
|
Not 100%. The only living relative said yesterday that the family were fragmented and were always at war with each other! He has little to go on but did say they were from the Croydon area of Surrey. |
|||
|
Derek | Report | 25 Feb 2008 09:26 |
|
Don't think so Juliet, the name I was initially given was 'Henry' but that has widened to 'John Henry'. My relation did say he was known as Henry. |
|||
|
Juliet | Report | 25 Feb 2008 09:28 |
|
Understood, but name on marriage details states John Henry. Maybe it was only later that he decided to call himself Henry. |
|||
|
Juliet | Report | 25 Feb 2008 09:31 |
|
Ok found him on 1901 same family but listed as Henry. |
|||
|
Juliet | Report | 25 Feb 2008 09:35 |
|
Looking at the listing he was a painter and decorator as was his father. Presumably he became known as Henry when younger John was born. Just a thought. |
|||
|
Derek | Report | 25 Feb 2008 09:35 |
|
Would his trade be listed at all Juliet? My cousin said he was a Carpenter but could turn his hands to most crafty things - Even built my cousin a rocking horse! |
|||
|
Derek | Report | 25 Feb 2008 09:36 |
|
Does sound like him doesn't it. |
|||
|
Juliet | Report | 25 Feb 2008 09:38 |
|
The trades are listed on the original images. I should imagine that carpentry was a natural extension to decorating. Don't forget he was only 22 in an ever changing world at that time. |
|||
|
Juliet | Report | 25 Feb 2008 09:43 |
|
Have to go out now but hope I've given you something to work on. If he died in the war he should be listed on the War Graves Commission site. I've been trying to get on but it appears to be down at present. Good Luck - I'll check back later. |
|||
|
Derek | Report | 25 Feb 2008 09:48 |
|
A big thank you Alexandra and Juliet, most helpful and appreciated. |
|||
|
Derek | Report | 25 Feb 2008 09:58 |
|
By the way, I looked on the Commonwealth Wargreaves Commission site last night, nothing doing there to Henry/John Henry |
|||
|
FamilyFogey | Report | 25 Feb 2008 10:55 |
|
Well as you said yesterday Derek he was too old to be a serving member of the armed forces during WWII and we did look on the CWGC yesterday and found no likely suspects. |
|||
|
Juliet | Report | 25 Feb 2008 11:05 |
|
I agree with Alexandra. It is definitely 64, there is a break in the 6 which makes it look like 5 but on closer inspection it is a 6. This would agree with the date of birth being 1879 as in the previous listings. |
|||
|
Derek | Report | 25 Feb 2008 11:11 |
|
Well, with your help I am now on my way with this. Without your help I would have been floundering! |
|||
|
Juliet | Report | 25 Feb 2008 11:17 |
|
I have an Ancestry sub and it has proved invaluable. You just have to have patience. Best of luck. |
|||