+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3
Results 21 to 22 of 22
  1. #21
    Starting to feel at home.
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Santa Rosa, CA
    Posts
    94
    Thanks
    14
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by olliecat View Post
    Comparing the 1851 and 1861 census ...

    1851: HO107 Piece: 1691 Folio: 281 Page: 7 (crown copyright, care of the TNA)
    Mortimer Street, Stratfield Mortimer, Berkshire
    ROGERS, John, head 30, baker, Heckfield Hampshire
    ROGERS, Elizabeth, wife, 35, Chislehampton Oxfordshire
    ROGERS, Emma M, dau, 3, Mortimer Berkshire
    ROGERS, Lora dau, 7 mo, Mortimer Berkshire
    ROGERS, Robert, father, wid, 73, late baker, Heckfield Hampshire
    Plus servants

    1861: RG09 Piece: 761 Folio: 110 Page: 17 (crown copyright, care of the TNA)
    32 Besley Street, Clewer
    ROGERS, John Head Married 40, Porter, Heckfield Hampshire
    ROGERS, Frances Wife, 39, Astley Abbots Shropshire
    ROGERS, Emma M, dau, 13, Stratfield Mortimer Berkshire
    ROGERS, William, son, 9, Stratfield Mortimer Berkshire
    ROGERS, Laura, dau, 10, Stratfield Mortimer Berkshire
    ROGERS, James, son, 2, Clewer Berkshire

    I tend to think they are the same family. The only real change is the name/age/birth place of the wife. John may have married twice. There is a death for an Elizabeth Rogers in 1856, Bradfield reg district, but an age isn't given so I'm just speculating.



    I would agree with that. Perhaps the first childs birth certificate.

    Births Sep 1847 Bradfield 6 135
    ROGERS Emma Mary
    Thanks so much, olliecat, for this -- and everyone else who's taken the trouble to respond.

    I was beginning to be thinking along the 'two-wife' option myself. There were too many inconsistencies -- for example, I found two Lora Rogers born in Bradfield, one in Q4 1847 and the other in Q3 1850. The latter is the one belonging to 'my' family since that's the birth year given in the 1851 census. But as you note, she's 'Laura' in 1861.

    Thanks also for the Camden revelation. That pretty much wraps this up I think, at least as far the two family theory. I've run into two other examples of this in my family tree and they always create problems.

    Thank you all again!

  2. #22
    Starting to feel at home.
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Santa Rosa, CA
    Posts
    94
    Thanks
    14
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dargie View Post
    There is a marriage in Windsor 1843 to an Elizabeth GARRAWAY.
    I think the birth certificate suggestion is probaby the safest option.
    Could we have two different families here?
    I think this has to be correct. Using FreeBMD and hitting the little blue page number button, I find a John Rogers listed. No other Elizabeths. Thank you so much!
    Last edited by patk; 08-03-2011 at 06:14 PM. Reason: Missed out a word

+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts