Genealogy Chat

Top tip - using the Genes Reunited community

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

New Military Records

New military records

Was your ancestor a war hero?

View thousands of brand new military records, including Chelsea Pensioner records, Military Nurses, Prisoners of war and much more.

View military records today

Icons

  • New posts
  • No new posts
  • Thread closed
  • Stickied, new posts
  • Stickied, no new posts

really stuck ! sarah bennett

Page 1 + 1 of 4

  1. «
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. »
ProfilePosted byOptionsPost Date

michelle

michelle Report 9 Sep 2012 22:34

ok thankyou i will try that, really appreciate your help.

JustJohn

JustJohn Report 9 Sep 2012 23:04

I wonder if marriage and baptism found here are both correct. It looks to me as if James and Elizabeth formerly MEDCALF may have had 3 children
Jane b c 1887
Sarah b 1889
Alice b 1892 d 1895 (aged 2)

And James d 1900 aged 48

So earlier children (Lizzie, Tony or Torey, Mary Ann or Marianne etc) could be a mixture of children from earlier marriages. Looks as if maiden name of Elizabeth was WEAVER or TEAVER and father was Richard, labourer.

JustJohn

JustJohn Report 10 Sep 2012 09:32

Elizabeth Louisa WEAVER born 5 July 1851 4 Fuller (?) St, B Green (parents Richard (rag man) and Harriet. Bt 3 Aug 1851 at St Matthias B G.

Md 10 Sept 1871 to Tory METCALF at Stepney St Thomas . Bach & spin of full age (doubt that was true). Think both were 19 or 20).

Tory is lighterman, son of William METCALF, also a lighterman, of Stepney. Elizabeth Louise WEAVER was also of Stepney, dau of Richard WEAVER, marine store dealer. Wit were Stephen GRANGER and Emma Matilda GRANGER (prob sister and brother in law of bride as they were telling age fibs).

Tory was 33 when he died, which I think was Dec Q 1884 in St George East. Elizabeth was a widow at 1887 wedding.

Son Tory MEDCALF (sic) married Dec 1901 Q in Holborn, I think.

JustJohn

JustJohn Report 10 Sep 2012 10:17

Tory METCALF (sic) born 6 June 1880 at 90 Anthony St, St George in East. Parents Tory and Elizabeth. Tory a lighterman on river. Bt 11 July 1880 at St George in the East.

Sister Mary Ann born 8 Nov 1877 in Watney St (Tory & Lizzie, waterman). Bt Watney St Christ Church 2 Dec 1877.

Cannot find family on C1881 yet. Or any other baptisms (Emma, 18, in C1891, Elizabeth (Lizzie) 10 in C1891, 18 in C1901)

JustJohn

JustJohn Report 10 Sep 2012 10:42

Emma Matilda METCALF born 23 June 1872 at 40 Watney St, Stepney (Tory and Elizabeth, waterman). Bt Watney St Christ Church 21 July 1872.

Marriage 13 Sept Bethanl Green St James The Less.
James WINTER, 23, carman, 75 White St, BG, father Robert WINTER, engineer
Emma METCALF, 23, father Tory METCALF (decd).
Wit John & Harriet WHALE.

Gins

Gins Report 10 Sep 2012 11:09

Why have you started another thread about this


http://www.genesreunited.co.uk/boards/board/genealogy_chat/thread/1310029

JustJohn

JustJohn Report 10 Sep 2012 23:10

Thankyou Gins :-( :-( :-( :-(

What was purpose of that post? Seems to have killed further discussion on this particular thread. :-P Shall we cut and paste to previous thread :-S :-S

Gins

Gins Report 11 Sep 2012 06:30

The point of my post John, was to give people a link to another thread, with info on it.

GR state that you should not post multiple threads about the same person/family

Feel free to carry on helping, its your choice as it is anyone elses. Im not 'telling' anyone what they can and cant do but people do have a right to know there is another thread

JustJohn

JustJohn Report 11 Sep 2012 09:38

Gins. Thread was going quite well. Then a thunderflash gets thrown in. And the thread stops. Rules are for the guidance of the wise. Strict obedience is usually folly. Genes is not part of a totalitarian state.

It is so discouraging for those who are posting for first time or are "newbies" to these boards. So totally unnecessary. If you are so upset, why not send a PM to Michelle? I doubt she wanted to break such a vital rule.

ChristinaS

ChristinaS Report 11 Sep 2012 11:03

These two marriages seem to tie in with Sarah Bennett's siblings on the 1891 census.

Name: Emma Bennett - liv. 45 Cornwall St.
Age: 31
Estimated Birth Year: abt 1874
Spouse Name: Mark Davis - liv. 24 Mary Anne St.
Spouse Age: 34
Record Type: Marriage
Event Date: 28 Aug 1905
Parish: Stepney St John the Evangelist
Borough: Tower Hamlets
Father Name: James Bennett - coachman dec'd
Spouse Father Name: Samuel Davis


Register Type: Parish Register
Name: Jane Bennett
Age: 20
Estimated Birth Year: abt 1887
Spouse Name: Richard William Cole
Spouse Age: 20
Record Type: Marriage
Event Date: 4 Aug 1907
Parish: Paddington St Peter
Borough: Westminster
Father Name: James Bennett - carman
Spouse Father Name: Thomas Cole

ChristinaS

ChristinaS Report 11 Sep 2012 11:28

Mmm - now I'm not so sure about the above two marriages. On the 1911 census, Emma claims to have been born in Earls Court, and Jane has put Paddington.

:-|

Ok, so now I've read the thread PROPERLY I can see that James and Elizabeth didn't marry til 1887, so the above Emma can't be their daughter.

Gins

Gins Report 11 Sep 2012 16:13

John

I will post what I think is appropriate – thank you

When you have more experience of helping others, then you will begin to learn how frustrating it is to help someone and then find the info has already been found by others on another thread.

In this case, I tried to help Michelle but she went on to start another thread, which in my eyes, totally discounts my help/posting.

There is no reference to that other thread and ‘proof’ of the marriage (Which I had already given her) made on this thread, which I find misleading.

It’s OK for me to spend my ‘subs’ and time helping (a lot may I add) but I am not allowed to comment or ask a question!

If I send a PM to a poster who has multiple thread(s) then the people who might be wasting their time duplicating info will not see it.

I haven’t broken any rules and in my book ‘rules’ apply to all of us

Michelle had only to come back and say she didn’t understand, she wouldn’t have been sent to the ‘Gulags’


PS: If you were so upset by what I posted, you could have sent me and Michelle a PM

MarieCeleste

MarieCeleste Report 11 Sep 2012 18:13

John your comments are rude, sarcastic and far from constructive.

The guidelines are there for a purpose, which you will come to understand when you have spent more time helping out on the boards. Nobody is trying to enforce rules, just courtesy and common sense.

JustJohn

JustJohn Report 11 Sep 2012 19:45

:-\ :-\ :-\ Any chance of getting back to what this thread is all about?

Gins

Gins Report 11 Sep 2012 20:05

I was never working on this thread, so I presume your question is rhetorical

michelle

michelle Report 11 Sep 2012 22:12

i have just checked my messages - am so sorry to have caused any upset as i have appreciated help. Like i stated when i first came on my son has special needs and is my 24hr priorirty and i have two daughters too. I obviously made a mistake and didnt mean for this. sorry.

michelle

michelle Report 11 Sep 2012 22:17

Just rereading everything and i really do thank you all for your help, i am not great with computers so as i am new its taken me a few days to get to grips. sorry again i didnt mean to cause an argument i just didng get how to continue what i had asked. I will leave you all to help others who are better clued up then me, but thanks for the starting points.

michelle

michelle

michelle Report 11 Sep 2012 22:44

Hi just for you all that have helped my mothers cousins tried to do the family tree and she has just contacted me - i didnt know she existed but she confirmed that sarah bennetts mother was married to someone previous to james bennett.

SylviaInCanada

SylviaInCanada Report 12 Sep 2012 04:26

John ..............


The message that Gins posted was much more of a pointer to helpers that there WAS another thread, and that they should go look at that thread to see what had already been found, so they do not waste time duplicating searches.



As you will learn .........


................... no thread is one person's prerogative for helping ..........

.............. and ANYONE can post, whether it be help, or information such as Gins posted.


Helpers welcome such information!



In this case, it really would have been better if Michelle had continued on the original thread.


It is also against GR's own T&C's to post more than one thread on the same person


Your remarks are way out of order. I feel that you really owe Gins a heartfelt apology for raging at her over something that EVERY helper on this site does.




sylvia

JustJohn

JustJohn Report 12 Sep 2012 08:47

Sylvia As a newbie myself, I was trying with others to answer questions that Michelle had asked. No knowledge of any previous thread, which in actual fact was a short reply (a helpful one) from Gins.

Yes, if I was Gins I would be upset that quite a long thread had then developed on a second thread. But most of us would not have said anything. I think we learn that from experience in life, and boards can often not reflect real life.

Refer you to post on 10 Sept at 2310. Made a suggestion to Gins about cutting and pasting the one item from old thread to new thread. No answer, just a justification of why she had stopped the thread in mid flow with something that she expected apologies from. I would like to see Gins original reply to Michelle on this thread without foraging back for an dead thread. Is cut and paste against these obviously very rigid Genes guidelines? :-S :-S Then Michelle could cancel original thread and we would all be happy. Do guidelines not allow for that?

And they are GUIDELINES - not Rules. A very big difference. Guidelines help us, not tell us. And some of these less essential guidelines should lie beneath the surface and not be thrust in the faces of new people on the block, IMHO. Just wait a month or two till we have settled in. You have been here for more than a couple of months yourselves. I don't mind anyone having a go at me now, but a month ago I could not see that, for example, getting my terminology wrong eg threads, posts, boards, chat was any reason for people to shout "read the rules first" and similar. Family history is a hobby. Many years ago, it used to be great fun - and progress was very very slow. But always polite.