+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3
Results 21 to 29 of 29

Thread: Rolph

  1. #21
    Settling in
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Location
    West Midlands
    Posts
    18
    Thanks
    5
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default

    Yeah I 've Gorton a little further as I stated looked at plenty of wrong leads on Joseph. The rest to date don't match. As I said he's not part of the hitchin boys nor Martha and robert rolfe of monken Hadley. As he died 1858. There's nothing ON 1871 census for Sarah and Joseph yet they remained in Peckham/Camberwell untill deaths. As previously stated in all likey hood he wasn't baptised. And only lived maybe in one of the barnets untill marriage
    I HAVE LOOKED AT THE MARRIAGE WITNESS BUT CAN'T MAKE OUT THE FEMALE JUST IN CASE SHE WAS HIS FAMILY MEMBER. There are other rolph s in Camberwell at the same time as s@j but can't find a connection. It's only Joseph I have to know about . I know about the rest to be honest. And have no problems with getting back to the 9th centurie. But I guess commoners wasn't documented as kings and queens so on and so forth.

  2. #22
    Super Moderator almach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    3,362
    Thanks
    526
    Thanked 1,131 Times in 1,052 Posts

    Default

    I HAVE LOOKED AT THE MARRIAGE WITNESS BUT CAN'T MAKE OUT THE FEMALE JUST IN CASE SHE WAS HIS FAMILY MEMBER.
    Looks like Sarah Louthin.
    Alma

  3. #23
    Super Moderator almach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    3,362
    Thanks
    526
    Thanked 1,131 Times in 1,052 Posts

    Default

    There's nothing ON 1871 census for Sarah and Joseph yet they remained in Peckham/Camberwell untill deaths
    Pam, posted the details from the 1871 census at #2
    Alma

  4. #24
    Super Moderator almach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    3,362
    Thanks
    526
    Thanked 1,131 Times in 1,052 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Peter Goodey View Post
    1851 Census

    St Paul, Bedford. Joseph Rol???, 15, apprentice tailor, born Barnet

    HO107/1752 f 70 p 13
    The more I look at the above census the more I cannot understand why you seem certain it isn't for the right Joseph.

    He's the right age, from the right town and is an apprentice tailor!
    Alma

  5. #25
    Settling in
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Location
    West Midlands
    Posts
    18
    Thanks
    5
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default

    Because he married somebody else and didn't die in 1879.

  6. #26
    Super Moderator - Completely bonkers and will never change. Pam Downes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    (now) Sussex, England
    Posts
    7,037
    Thanks
    1,731
    Thanked 1,609 Times in 1,309 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lozjoned View Post
    Because he married somebody else and didn't die in 1879.
    Then please tell us who he married (and when!) and when (and where) he died. Plus any other details you have about him with regard to the census, or any other records.
    Just saying 'he's not the one' doesn't help.

    Did you read the thread to which grisel posted the link in post #20?
    I seriously think that at the moment you need to take a little time to 'start again'. When I've had a break from research and can't remember where I got up to with a particular family I start at say the 1911 census, and work my way back again. It's surprising how much information is now available compared to even two years ago, and it's also surprising how many errors I find because I didn't record things correctly the first time. (Truthfully, five errors in seven entries in a parish register is not good record-keeping. )
    Don't look at a person and automatically say ' oh he's the one born in 1750 in Penzance' - you need to prove it.
    Really read what's been said in the threads, make notes, and see if you can match person A to one of those notes, person B to another, etc.
    Hopefully you can re-visit the library to look at the actual images of various documents such as the census and add in missing details which have not been typed in replies. (For instance, the full address of 123 High Street Walthamstow, instead of just Walthamstow.)

    ADDED: I would also suggest that you have a look at the other threads regarding Rolphs (not all of them relevant to your family, but you can just ignore them. )
    From the banner across the top of the threads click 'quick links', and then select 'advanced search'.
    Enter Rolph as a keyword, scroll down and change the date to 'anytime'. Click search.

    Pam
    Vulcan XH558 - “Don't cry because it's over, smile because it happened.”

  7. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Pam Downes For This Useful Post:

    burt (03-07-2018), Lesley Robertson (03-07-2018)

  8. #27
    Super Moderator - Completely bonkers and will never change. Pam Downes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    (now) Sussex, England
    Posts
    7,037
    Thanks
    1,731
    Thanked 1,609 Times in 1,309 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by grisel View Post
    https://www.british-genealogy.com/th...olph-of-peckha
    Thought this rang some bells. There are several old threads about this family. This is one.

    Thanks, grisel, that was a star find.

    Pam
    Vulcan XH558 - “Don't cry because it's over, smile because it happened.”

  9. #28
    Settling in
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Location
    West Midlands
    Posts
    18
    Thanks
    5
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default

    Hi thank you for the tip
    But I must say something some of the comments made i feel have been quite rude. I'm not a fool. Or a child to be spoken to in such mannar. I know whom I have followed in to the graves Joseph wise. I won't make someone fit my family tree just because other people think it's a sure thing.neither should I have to prove it which is in effect what I've been told to do. Really! I think not PERHAPS some people need to re read the comments posted because I'm sure if I had the audasity to responde like that it would not have been well received. im not a fool neither am I here to be spoken to in such manner. Nor bullied. What an awful site this is with certain people on it.

  10. #29
    Super Moderator Lesley Robertson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    4,541
    Thanks
    697
    Thanked 1,537 Times in 1,194 Posts

    Default

    I have come new to this thread today, and I must admit that I had a lot of trouble sorting out what exactly was definitely known from records rather than assumed from supposition or estimates. Especially where there appears to be more than one person of a similar name, age and trade, it is essential to be very clear about what information has come from documents or official transcriptions, and what has come from other users.

    Several people have spent quite a lot of time trying to help on this thread, but it's not easy to do so when they have to keep asking for information that would pick the target out from a group of candidates. Your post 8 is an example of this - why not say who the alternative guy married so that he can be eliminated from other data sets when people are searching. I'm sure that you can see that message 10 isn't exactly a helpful reply to a request for information? I would have given up at that point.

    It is not always easy, when you have been close to a search for some time, to see what might confuse people new to the family. "The hitchin boys"? What does that mean? The rest of that message seems to have become corrupted.

    I'm not going to carry on - I'm trying to help you see why some folk are getting frustrated when they are giving up their time to try and help, and therefore need to understand why you have dismissed a candidate that looks possible. You are obviously also getting frustrated since some of what you have said has also come across as rude, especially this last message.

    PS Please don't worry about age differences being likely. They were a lot more pragmatic about age (and indeed marriage) 200 years ago than we are in the 21st century. A widow with a child needing a home might be very happy to accept a nice breadwinner, despite an age gap. A pleasant widow with a nest egg who might be a good cook or housekeeper would have obvious attractions for a hardworking man...

  11. The Following User Says Thank You to Lesley Robertson For This Useful Post:

    Ladkyis (03-07-2018)

+ 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
Select a file: