Genealogy Chat
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
Can anybody help me understand this???
Profile | Posted by | Options | Post Date |
---|---|---|---|
|
Barbara | Report | 24 Jan 2006 15:36 |
Zoe, I did have the 1851 refs thanks but none of the other info..It certainly looks like it could be them. At least it gives me somewhere else to look now and solves my biggest problem - Emma's birthdate. Thanks a million for all your help Babs And a thank you to everyone else for their help |
|||
|
Zoe | Report | 24 Jan 2006 15:34 |
1861 Alfred Carr abt 1855 Norwich Son Norwich St Mark Norfolk Alice Carr abt 1857 Norwich Daughter Norwich St Mark Norfolk Emma Carr abt 1851 Norwich Daughter Norwich St Mark Norfolk Frederick Carr abt 1832 Norwich Head Norwich St Mark Norfolk Frederick G Carr abt 1859 Norwich Son Norwich St Mark Norfolk Harriet Carr abt 1853 Norwich Daughter Norwich St Mark Norfolk Mary A Carr abt 1833 Norwich Wife Norwich St Mark Norfolk Mary A Carr abt 1849 Norwich Daughter Norwich St Mark Norfolk |
|||
|
Zoe | Report | 24 Jan 2006 15:27 |
Looks like Emma Carr was born 1850 Zoe |
|||
|
Zoe | Report | 24 Jan 2006 15:26 |
1871 >>>> Emma J Dye abt 1867 Heywood, Lancashire, England Daughter Norwich Norfolk Henry Dye abt 1847 Norwich, Norfolk, England Head Norwich Norfolk Henry F Dye abt 1870 Norwich, Norfolk, England Son Norwich Norfolk Mary A C Dye abt 1869 Norwich, Norfolk, England Daughter Norwich Norfolk >>Mary Ann Dye abt 1849 Norwich, Norfolk, England Wife Norwich Norfolk |
|||
|
Zoe | Report | 24 Jan 2006 15:23 |
Here they are in 1851 Emma Carr abt 1850 Norwich, Norfolk, England Daughter Norwich Lakenham Norfolk Frederic Carr abt 1830 Norwich, Norfolk, England Head Norwich Lakenham Norfolk Mary Ann Carr abt 1828 Norwich, Norfolk, England Wife Norwich Lakenham Norfolk Mary Ann Sarah Carr abt 1848 Norwich, Norfolk, England Daughter Norwich Lakenham Norfolk |
|||
|
Zoe | Report | 24 Jan 2006 15:22 |
Ok so this is them in 1881 Frederick CARR Head M Male 49( 1832) Norwich, Norfolk, England Railway Points Man Mary A. CARR Wife M Female 53 ( 1828)Norwich, Norfolk, England Dress Maker Alice A. CARR Daur U Female 23 (1858) Norwich, Norfolk, England Cotton Reeler Arthur CARR Son U Male 20 (1861) Norwich, Norfolk, England Railway Porter Emma J. DYE Grand Daur Female 14 (1867) Heywoods, Lancashire, England Scholar -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Source Information: Dwelling 11 Duke St Census Place Newton, Lancashire, England Family History Library Film 1341958 Public Records Office Reference RG11 Piece / Folio 4013 / 70 Page Number 16 |
|||
|
Zoe | Report | 24 Jan 2006 15:14 |
Hope you don't mind easier on eyes Hi all, Can anybody out there make sense of the following or at least offer some advice on where to try next please? - sorry but it's rather long and VERY confusing.... Frederick Carr born 1832 (m) Mary Ann Redford (b) 1828, March Q 1851. In 1881 they were living in Manchester with children Alice born 1858 and Arthur born 1862. Also present was grandaughter Emma Jane Dye born 1867. A search for Emma's parents revealed them to be Mary Ann Carr and Henry Dye married 1866 (LDS) but I haven't found any further trace of them (yet) Okay, fairly straightforward up to now BUT I have also found Mary Ann Sarah Carr born 1848 and her sister Emma born 1840...and their parents were Frederick and Mary Ann (nee Redford) again LDS. This can't be right because Frederick would have only been 8 years old when Emma was born !! and 16 when Mary Ann Sarah was. And they weren't married until 1851. I thought it possible that Emma Dye is the daughter of Mary Ann Carr (redford) from a second marriage until I remembered that she was still with hubby Frederick on 1881 census.... What am I missing here?? The answer must be there somewhere....Please Please Please can anybody help? |
|||
|
Shelli4 | Report | 24 Jan 2006 15:13 |
the LDS can be useless at times... I'v geard of people dying before they were born, and of having children into their 100's. Best bet is to try and confirm it using another source |
|||
|
babs123 | Report | 24 Jan 2006 15:08 |
Hi Barbara Can you list the places where they were all born? Were the marriages and baptisms extracted from records or from a member of LDS Have you the parents of Mary Ann Redford and Fred Carr, their marriages and dates of birth. Are you sure it reads grandaughter for Emma Jane? I see the muddle you are in, very strange. |
|||
|
Barbara | Report | 24 Jan 2006 14:46 |
Hi all, Can anybody out there make sense of the following or at least offer some advice on where to try next please? - sorry but it's rather long and VERY confusing.... Frederick Carr born 1832 (m) Mary Ann Redford (b) 1828, March Q 1851. In 1881 they were living in Manchester with children Alice born 1858 and Arthur born 1862. Also present was grandaughter Emma Jane Dye born 1867. A search for Emma's parents revealed them to be Mary Ann Carr and Henry Dye married 1866 (LDS) but I haven't found any further trace of them (yet) Okay, fairly straightforward up to now BUT I have also found Mary Ann Sarah Carr born 1848 and her sister Emma born 1840...and their parents were Frederick and Mary Ann (nee Redford) again LDS. This can't be right because Frederick would have only been 8 years old when Emma was born !! and 16 when Mary Ann Sarah was. And they weren't married until 1851. I thought it possible that Emma Dye is the daughter of Mary Ann Carr (redford) from a second marriage until I remembered that she was still with hubby Frederick on 1881 census.... What am I missing here?? The answer must be there somewhere....Please Please Please can anybody help? |