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
sorry me again!
| Profile | Posted by | Options | Post Date |
|---|---|---|---|
|
Robyne | Report | 10 Aug 2005 19:54 |
|
How likely is it that LDS has got something wrong? I have been looking for a John Sleight marrying a Martha, around the 1850's. I have found a marriage in the right place in 1848 for John Slight and a Martha. How likely do you think its the people i have been looking for? |
|||
|
Unknown | Report | 10 Aug 2005 19:59 |
|
Very likely, names were spelt wrong lots of times, often our rellys could not read or write so could not check the spelling. Hence census and registrations varied in spelling. eg my Grandad is Howse on birth cert, Howes on marriage cert, and it changed regularily on the census. Good luck |
|||
|
Christine in Herts | Report | 10 Aug 2005 20:11 |
|
I would reinforce that. People haven't always been particularly bothered about spelling of anything - including names. So long as people spoke it correctly, that was all that mattered Going back to the C17, I have an image of the probate copy of my gx10-g-father's Will. He gives his surname as NULAND, but his son is named - in teh same document - as NEWLAND. We have a father in the ancestral chart called COCK, but his son was using COCKS a few years later. I was looking up some census and directory info to help someone on the board the other day... TROLLOPE came with double and single letters and with/out the E at the end. Older versions were clearly linked but noticeably differently spelt. Christine |
|||
|
Robyne | Report | 10 Aug 2005 20:18 |
|
excellent thanks! |
|||
|
Half | Report | 10 Aug 2005 20:23 |
|
Hi Please stop saying you are sorry, just remember that other members are also taking advantage of the information given to you!!!!!!!!!!!!! My family of Rooney are also spelt Roney as they were illiterate with heavy Irish accents!!!! Take care |
|||
|
David | Report | 10 Aug 2005 20:25 |
|
This entry on the IGI is a controlled extract, which are usually reliable. But it's not a case that the LDS have got it wrong. They have copied what's in the parish register. Our ancestors being by and large illiterate, the parish clerk wrote down what he thought he heard, spelling it how it he thought it should be spelt. Slight/Sleight would both sound the same. If it's in the right place I wouldn't think there was much doubt. |
|||
|
An Olde Crone | Report | 10 Aug 2005 22:30 |
|
There was no standardised spelling in this Country until the 1875 Education Act. So there was no right or wrong way to spell ANYTHING - you just made a stab at translating onto paper what the person had said. A relly of mine was a Churchwarden for 8 years in the late 1700s - he spelt his OWN name in five different ways in those eight years, so not much chance he got your rellies right! Olde Crone |
|||
|
Seasons | Report | 10 Aug 2005 23:10 |
|
Just a query about your Slights/Sleights. Whereabouts are yours from? I have a Margaret Slight/Sleight who married a John Hope and had daughter Barbara in 1830 in Berwick upon Tweed, Northumberland. Whether that is where they come from I can't tell as they were deceased by 1861 and I can't find them in the 1841 or 1851 census. |
|||