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

Icons

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

Re Registered birth?

Page 1 + 1 of 2

  1. «
  2. 1
  3. 2
ProfilePosted byOptionsPost Date

Kay????

Kay???? Report 21 Mar 2018 19:47


The lady that married Mr Christal was still down as single in 1939 and not with any Goodliffe.

robert

robert Report 22 Mar 2018 13:48

Recap- all five children born to Huby- Father, Goodliffe, between 1928 and 1936.
now established birth records have Huby or Goodliffe on them.
No marriage evident between Huby and Goodliffe.
Huby/ Christal marriage London 1948.

With the above now resolved, thanks to all those who very kindly help in sorting it out,
I can attach these leaves to my expanding tree,
:-D

Again I would Like to thank you all for your input

JoonieCloonie

JoonieCloonie Report 22 Mar 2018 17:42

Hi Robert, I just thought I'd add about the marriage prohibition, since seeing it in action can help.

My grx3 grandparents - about the most "respectable" in my tree, him a prosperous tradesperson - never married. She was the widowed sister of his deceased wife, so they could not marry. (This was in about 1820.)

I descend from the second "wife", and I have been in touch with a descendant of the only child of the first wife, who provided me with this info back before things were available on line. Unlike most second-family situations, he and I have the exact same ancestral lines, since our female ancestors were children of the same parents. :-)

(As it happens, the two women and their numerous siblings were the last people born in England with their surname. The surname became extinct when their brothers died young without offspring.)

Funny how in some cultures, it is considered an obligation to marry a widowed relation, but here it was prohibited. To ward off convenient accidental deaths and suicides, I guess!

robert

robert Report 23 Mar 2018 13:39

Hi Joonie, your more likely right , there was probably a lot of cohabiting within family's
as was the case in both our forebears, makes one wonder just how prevalent it was
back then :-) , it would be interesting to find out how common it was, probably never
know : :-(

Anyway thank you for sharing that with us

mgnv

mgnv Report 24 Mar 2018 05:15

Today, about 2% of marrs in England are between first cousins.
The rate has been the same for over 100y.

I read a paper on medical ethics a couple of years back.
I think it was for kidney transplants where family members give the best match.
About 3.5% of UK fathers who volunteered were found not to be genetically related to the child. The paper's author contacted similar euro hospitals and found their rates ran between 2 - 4%.. None of the fathers knew this, so the ethical problem is how fully should their "not really a close enough match" result be explained.