CROFT/SCALES

[Waitabit]

There is a Kathleen Croft (nurse child ) on 1901 census in the home of the Johnson family, + a friend Lilian Ford aged 17.
do you have your Mothers birth certificate--does it give the Fathers occupation? Were the Parents married / widowed? These things may help find your Sarah.

A few trees on Ancestry with possible, but that Kathleen went to US.

[Jan1954]

As Brian Hobin already had a thread running with this query, I have merged the two. That way, members will be able to see what research has already been undertaken.

[Brian Hobin]

Hello, The birth certificate notes Frederick CROFT as father and Sarah CROFT formerly Scales as mother. Frederick's occupation is "Commercial Clerk Reservist on Active Service". A recent suggestion is that Lillian FORD (17) who is listed on the Census as being a friend may be the bio-mother of Kathleen. I conjecture that she may have been the girlfriend of one of the two adult Johnson sons.
Another odd thing is why the birth address of 69 Windsor Road in Ilford is not listed in the census. A recent email from that group said that they could not find it either. Nuts.

[Brian Hobin]

As Brian Hobin already had a thread running with this query, I have merged the two. That way, members will be able to see what research has already been undertaken.

Hi, could/could this begin as a new thread? I dropped out in despair some years ago but now would like to make a concerted effort to solve the mystery regarding my maternal GM.
I have new fragments of new information that I would like to relate to Kathleen CROFT and her possible mother. I am not sure that anything that I posted regarding her father is accurate. Please advise.
Regards
Brian

[Pam Downes]

Brian,

I'm not quite sure where the "not sure that anyone is listening 8-(" comes from, unless you mean that no-one seems to have replied to your post # 23.
Unfortunately, although forum members are always willing to help when they can, sometimes they find they can't add any more to a post/thread than what has already been given. As posting 'sorry, I can't help with your query' is even less helpful than not replying at all, it may seem to you that people aren't interested in helping, even though they are. Check this out by looking at the middle column of the 'today's posts' and you will see 'replies' and 'views'. Admittedly the 2500+ views haven't all happened since the 16 April but they're proof that people do read your post.

Your original thread (post #1) and your 'new thread' (post # 20) were merged so that most of the details of the family are together. There's some more in another thread
https://www.british-genealogy.com/for...s-Help-offered
Specifically posts #2 - 11 and 14 - 17, some of which is just a duplication of information in this thread.

The thing that drives forum members mad is for them to spend time looking for information only to find out a couple of days later that those details have already been found and posted to the forum in a different thread. Trust me, having more than one thread about the same person/family is not the best way to win friends.
https://www.british-genealogy.com/for...ment.php?f=589
contains the forum AUP and if you scroll down to the final message, 'rule' # 8 specifically says

8. Please DO NOT duplicate threads as this just causes confusion for everyone.

Continue in this thread with the new infomation about Kathleen and her mother.
And also use this one to correct statements you have previously made about her father. (If you refer to the original post number then so much the better - saves people having to read through the whole thread.)

p.s. Yes, it is weird that 69 Windsor Road is missing from the 1901 - along with a lot of other of the odd-numbered houses in that road. But I never commented because I can neither give, nor think of, an explanation for the omission except for 'enumerator error'. Which is no help to you with your query.

Pam

[Waitabit]

Agreed, For my part, & possibly others, I've been trying from 'round the left behind the obvious.

I tried folowiing mary Johnson for a time as she had a son age 8 on the 1881 census. His mistranscribed name of Heavidew was actually Harnden. in 1891 he was William Johnson. aged 18.
Births Sep 1872
Harnden William Bridge 2a 690

Marriages Jun 1868 Possible?
Harnden James Canterbury 2a 995
Johnson Mary Canterbury 2a 995

Marriages Dec 1876
Harnden Mary Wandsworth 1d 1035
Johnson John Wandsworth 1d 1035

This was all in the hope of finding Sarah Scales or Frederick Croft nearby or otherwise connected, not so far found.
This all took time & sadly I had to elsewhere for Family appointments.

Often answers pop up from odd places at unexpected times. I have had several such & hope we can help you to enjoy same.
Keep the Faith.

[Waitabit]

Coincidentally, it may have been her sister Jane who married a Wiliam Ford. 1876.

[Brian Hobin]

Thanks Pam for your response and advice which I will follow. I have a lot to learn which is good.
Regards
Brian

[Brian Hobin]

Oops. I just read this. Thank you for your help. This strategy is new to me and most interesting.
Regards
Brian

[Waitabit]

Marriages Jun 1868 Possible?
Harnden James Canterbury 2a 995
Johnson Mary Canterbury 2a 995

Brian, this may be just a name coincidence as the Mary of your story was still with her Parents in 1871.
Are you familiar with Ancestry dot com? or other search facilities?