Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 14, 2017 14:19:47 GMT -5
Good evening
I have been trying to match the elderly Elizabeth Quicks who appeared in the 1841 census and then not in the 1851 census. I thought I had them all done until I found an Elizabeth I had not recorded. In the 1841 census 70 year old Elizabeth Quick was at Ayr Street, St Ives.
Likewise there was a marriage at Zennor in 1799 between Matthew Quick and Elizabeth EDDY.
Is this the Elizabeth from Ayr Street?
Trinklady
|
|
|
Post by Cornish Terrier on Sept 14, 2017 16:28:21 GMT -5
I would very much doubt it. It appears that I did have that marriage in my database at one time many years ago but it is no longer the case and currently I do not know which Matthew Quick or which Elizabeth Eddy were involved. But I do have a suspicion that Matthew Quick may have been the one baptized at Towednack in 1769 to Henry Quick and Elizabeth Ninnes. He died at St Ives in 1803 and was buried at Towednack but is the only Matthew it seems who could possibly have been involved in that marriage. The problem with that marriage is that the register is not openly available and the BTs show only the two names and the date of the event. I therefore have no idea of the witnesses or any other details that might offer a clue to the identities of the parties involved. The one thing I have that might be of some help is the details of each of the Elizabeth Quicks buried at St Ives between 1841 and 1851. 1. 30th March 1842 Elizabeth Quick of Union House Penzance age 37 - she was the daughter of Andrew Quick and Elizabeth Stevens baptized 1804 St Ives 2. 9th May 1842 Elizabeth Quick of St Ives age 68 - Elizabeth (nee Trenerry) married Robert Quick at St Ives 17th February 1803 3. 29th September 1843 Elizabeth Quick of St Ives age 29 - Elizabeth (nee Hall) married Thomas Quick at Lelant 24th April 1838 4. 4th January 1846 Elizabeth Quick of St Ives age 25 - spinster daughter of Paul and Mary Quick and baptized at Devonport in 1820 5. 30th August 1849 Elizabeth Quick of St Ives age 74 - Elizabeth (nee Stevens) married Robert Quick at Zennor 3rd January 1807 6. 14th June 1850 Elizabeth Quick of St Ives age 97 - baptized St Ives 1755 daughter of Richard Quick and Ann Matthews, never married. If the Elizabeth at Ayr in 1841 was recorded as age 70 and IF her age was 'accurate' according to the rules of that Census (i.e. rounded down to the nearest five years) then we should expect that she was born sometime during the period 1765 to 1771. However it is possible that she said she was age 70 when in fact she was a little younger in which case she could be the Elizabeth buried in 1842. Even if that criteria is not met I still have just two Elizabeth Quicks born/baptized between 1759 and 1799 who might be the person you are querying but I should point out that I still have a couple of Elizabeth Quick marriages and burials that could involve either of them prior to the 1841 Census:- Elizabeth daughter of Henry Quick and Elizabeth Ninnes baptized at Towednack 11th May 1766 Elizabeth daughter of John Quick and Elizabeth Benny baptized at St Ives 3rd August 1766 (both of her brothers went to the Illogan/Redruth area so it is also possible she followed them) I doubt that either of these two could be the person at Ayr in 1841 and I still doubt the Elizabeth Eddy who married Matthew Quick in 1799 would be either. If her husband was the Matthew who died in 1803 then there appear to have been no children. Because of that it is also possible that she, and possibly Matthew Quick, were older people and, even though apparently not recorded in the register, possible widowed. If Elizabeth was a younger person and widowed in 1803 then in all likelihood she remarried. After checking my spreadsheets again I can see that I have identified all of the Elizabeth Quick deaths and burials at least for the period from 1837 onwards so I think there are just a couple of more things I can offer. 1. Although you have not found this Elizabeth Quick of Ayr in the 1851 Census it does not mean that she was dead. I know that I have several persons who died after the 1851 Census but who cannot be found in that Census and I seem to recall one of those was and Elizabeth Quick as well. 2. I have a burial at Towednack in 1807 for an Elizabeth Quick age 55. I have not yet identified her but I have noted that she 'might' have been the Elizabeth Eddy who married Matthew Quick at Zennor in 1799. (see note above re older marriages) 3. I had one FreeBMD death for an Elizabeth Quick in the March Qtr of 1854 that I had not satisfactorily identified. At the time the new GRO Index was not available so given I had no age to work on and could find no burial I had tentatively identified her as Elizabeth Cogar who married John Quick in 1853. But having now checked the GRO Index I have discovered that this Elizabeth Quick was age 86 and therefore born around 1768. She might therefore be the Elizabeth at Ayr in 1841! And as the death was in the March Qtr of 1854 she could have been born in 1767. It is also no stretch of the imagination to suppose that this might also be one of the two Elizabeths shown above that were baptized in 1766. CT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 14, 2017 16:46:25 GMT -5
There were two elderly Elizabeth Quicks also buried in 1847.
I have them as Elizabeth, nee Hollow, wife of William of Trevessa, aged 82 years, buried 25/12/1847
Also Elizabeth nee Quick, wife of James of Trevessa, aged 78 years, buried 28/1/1847.
Trinklady
|
|
|
Post by Cornish Terrier on Sept 15, 2017 0:18:56 GMT -5
I am fully aware of that ................ but the topic under discussion was St Ives so I listed all the Elizabeth Quicks living and buried at St Ives during the period you asked about!
CT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 15, 2017 0:46:30 GMT -5
Good morning
In fact, the topic under discussion was:
and I simply thought that to assist others who might be following the topic that it would be useful to add those two Elizabeths as they appear in the category I first stated.
For clarity can I please refer to:
The equivalent BMD index has the age as 28. This aligns very closely to the 27 year old Elizabeth who appears in the 1841 census at the Workhouse. Do you have some information that would clarify this CT?
Trinklady
|
|
|
Post by Cornish Terrier on Sept 15, 2017 7:40:27 GMT -5
I have checked the GRO Index and it does indeed show the age as 28. However, the St Ives Parish Register clearly shows that Elizabeth Quick of Union House Penzance age 37 yrs was buried at St Ives 30th March 1842.
I should point out that the fact that this Elizabeth was of the Workhouse when she died in 1842 does not necessarily mean she was there back in 1841.
Assuming the Elizabeth in the Workhouse in 1841 is a different Elizabeth then the most likely suspect I can find is Elizabeth (nee Hogg) who married Thomas Quick at Cardiff in Wales in 1832. She had a daughter, Catherine Smith Quick, born at St Ives 28th January 1841 and Elizabeth herself registered the birth on 6th February 1841. Neither Elizabeth nor her daughter can be found in the 1841 Census but Thomas Quick remarried in 1853 to Elizabeth Harvey May at Mylor. Catherine Smith Quick lived until 1919 when she died at the County Asylum at Bodmin age 80.
There was one other child to Thomas and Elizabeth, a son Thomas William Quick who was born at St Ives in 1833 and buried there in 1839. Thomas Quick was a master mariner and eventually settled in Feock where he died in 1872.
I know the GRO Index has lots of errors and I suspect that the age for Elizabeth in 1842 might be another but unfortunately I have so far found no way of viewing the images they use and therefore no easy way to make corrections.
Whilst I can't be certain of it I do suspect it was probably the wife of Thomas Quick who was in the Workhouse in 1841. It would certainly be much easier if I were able to locate her daughter in 1841.
One last point before I finish - I suggest you read my last long post again regarding the Elizabeth Quick who was buried at St Ives in 1854 at the age of 86. She could not be found in the 1851 Census yet clearly she must have been somewhere. While your project is a worthwhile idea it is by no means foolproof and you need to keep it in mind that there are people who for some unknown reason do not appear in the Census when they were clearly still alive. Likewise there are people for whom no baptisms can be found yet other records tell us when and where they were born. This is true of St Ives, Towednack and Zennor as I have found to my chagrin! For example - a brother to my 3xgt-grandfather was born at Towednack about 1800 and he consistently stated these details in the Census but no baptism can be found.
CT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 8, 2017 4:06:54 GMT -5
Good evening
I am interested to know why it is that you assume that it is the GRO index that is incorrect and not the Parish entry?
For some further clarity I have located the death register entry for Elizabeth in 1842. Death occurred on the 28th March at the Union Workhouse, Madron. Elizabeth Quick is recorded as a 28 year old pauper who died from "inflammation of the chest". The informant was Jos Roberts, occupier of the Union Workhouse, Madron. So perhaps it is more than likely that the age of 28 is correct and this is the 27 year old Elizabeth at the Work House in the 1841 census? One thing to note is that initially the place of death was given as Union House, Penzance, which appears to be similar to the burial entry, however Penzance is crossed out and replaced with Madron and acknowledged as so by the Registrar, John James. It is interesting to note that Elizabeth died at Madron but was taken to St Ives for burial suggesting a link to St Ives perhaps?
I also have the death entry for the Elizabeth mentioned above who died in 1854.She was indeed recorded as being aged 86 years old. She died at Barnoon in St Ives which is therefore surprising that she is not a burial at that cemetery?? She died of old age. The informant may be of interest in establishing a connection as it was William Toy of Barnoon. It is unclear what type of accommodation Elizabeth had.... perhaps if it was a hospital then William Toy could have been employed there. He is not the medical attendant as there was not one in this death. Finally her occupation is probably just going to create confusion... she is recorded as being the widow of Henry Quick, a miner.
Trinklady
|
|
|
Post by sue on Oct 8, 2017 8:04:04 GMT -5
Hi
I think you will find that Barnoon Cemetery had not yet "opened" in 1854 i.e. it didn't exist, and that burials prior to the existence of Barnoon Cemetery were in local churchyards (& immediately prior to Barnoon's existence on other local church property.) I seem to recall one of my GGGGmothers, also a Quick, was one of the very 1st burials at Barnoon in 1857, although like many there is no headstone.
Sue
|
|
|
Post by Cornish Terrier on Oct 8, 2017 8:26:30 GMT -5
Purely because the GRO Index we see online is a transcript and I have found multitudes of errors already. Just like FreeBMD is a transcript for which I have probably submitted hundreds of corrections over the last few years. I also know that there are errors in Parish Registers but in this case I am using an image of the original register and therefore begin by expecting the information to be correct unless proven otherwise. But now down to cases. You indicate you have seen the entry in the Death Register - might I ask where you were able to obtain this? I have many entries I would like to check in that particular resource and have not been able to source a copy anywhere. But in the case of Elizabeth Quick 1842 the information you have provided solves one problem but opens up another. If we now accept that the age recorded in the St Ives Burial register is incorrect and that the GRO Index and Death Register are correct then the only person this can be is Elizabeth (nee Hogg) wife of Thomas Quick who later died at Feock. Her daughter Catherine Smith Quick was born in January 1841 but is not found in the Census until 1851 so if Elizabeth had fallen ill and been placed in the Union House then her daughter may have been with her. Elizabeth Hogg was baptized at St John's, Sully, South Glamorgan 13th October 1813 so would have been age 27 in March 1842. There were no further children, she cannot be found anywhere in 1851 and her husband remarried in 1853. Although born at Towednack husband Thomas Quick was a master mariner resident at St Ives when he married and both children were born at St Ives so it is logical that Elizabeth would have been buried there. I am updating my database to show it was Elizabeth Quick nee Hogg buried at St Ives 30th March 1842. it is a little curious that Elizabeth is recorded as being born 'in County' when she was actually born in Wales but perhaps that was not known to anyone but Elizabeth at the time. It is perhaps a little curious also that Elizabeth is regarded as 'a pauper' but that description certainly would not be likely to apply to the daughter of Andrew and Elizabeth Quick. And it is their daughter Elizabeth who becomes the new problem. Born in 1804, named in her father's Will in 1836 and now it seems not found in the 1841 Census. The Penzance Poor Law Union was formed in 1837 and the Workhouse itself built at Madron in 1838. You may find some interesting reading in the following:- www.workhouses.org.uk/Penzance/www.cornwalls.co.uk/photos/penzance-union-workhouse-madron-2025.htmAnyone dying in the Workhouse would normally be removed to the home Parish for burial although there were burial grounds I think at most of the Workhouses. Not surprising at all given Barnoon Cemetery did not open until 1855. Early burials would have been in St Ives Churchyard but once that was and until Barnoon opened burials apparently took place in nearby Parishes. You are right - it does cause a little confusion. The only Henry Quicks with wives named Elizabeth were too early for this one however I do have a probable solution for the problem. This Elizabeth cannot be found in the 1851 Census and after another check I cannot seem to find her in 1841 either. However in my spreadsheet I have two candidates for the 1854 burial:- 1. Elizabeth baptized 3rd August 1766 St Ives to John Quick (id unknown) and Elizabeth Benny - both siblings went to Illogan. No burial identified for her mother and her father was a mariner and I have no birth or death information for him. 2. Elizabeth baptized 11th May 1766 Towednack to HENRY Quick and Elizabeth Ninnes - she has always been the more likely of the two and I wonder if perhaps 'widow of HENRY' might have been misinterpreted. 'Daughter' of Henry Quick could certainly apply in this case. Henry Quick was born at St Ives in 1727 and married Elizabeth Ninnes (also born St Ives) at Towednack in 1753. Children were all born at Towednack and Ludgvan and some buried at Towednack. When sons Henry (1755-1805) and Matthew (1769-1803) died they were buried at Towednack but 'of St Ives'. Likewise when Henry himself died in 1811 and Elizabeth in 1801 they too were buried at Towednack but recorded as 'of St Ives' indicating that the family had resided at St Ives for some time. I think it is almost certain that Elizabeth in 1854 is probably the daughter of Henry and Elizabeth rather than 'widow of Henry'. CT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 11, 2017 1:00:35 GMT -5
Good morning
Thank you once again for your good work. However, I think you are too quick to dismiss your earlier assumptions. True, the death entry shows 28 and largely points to the 27 year old in the 1841 census. But both the 27 and 28 would most likely have come from the Work House records and it would be easy enough for that to be incorrect at the original source. So therefore, it may be that those at the place of burial were more aware of Elizabeth's age and they knew her to be 37, supported by the fact that you have seen the original there. Both scenarios are eminently possible and that allows for the 1841 census to be correct in not showing the birth in Wales. As for her being ill in 1841 that may be true, and then again maybe not, but I would sure like to know where Catherine the baby is in 1841.
As for the 86 year old Elizabeth I would still want to be sure that a possible husband Henry was not from outside of Cornwall before settling on that error in the death entry. I would like to know a bit more about the informant also. I quickly came to the same conclusion as you regarding her possibly being a spinster but with there being no evidence of that I am not prepared to accept that she is a spinster.
Trinklady
|
|
|
Post by Cornish Terrier on Oct 11, 2017 6:26:18 GMT -5
Catherine Quick would have been only six months old at the 1841 Census so I would expect she should probably still be in Cornwall. As she appeared in the 1851 Census then obviously she must have been somewhere in 1841 but I have not been able to find her. I even tried checking the possibility she may have been in Wales possibly with her Hogg grandparents. I suspect therefore that it was her mother in the Workhouse and that Catherine may possibly have been with other family or friends and enumerated under another name. As her father was a master mariner he was probably at sea as he also is not found in 1841. I am more happy with the 1842 burial being Catherine's mother than Elizabeth daughter of Andrew Quick particularly with the latter benefitting from her father's Will on a few years previously. We know Catherine's mother had died prior to 1851 and there were no further children after Catherine and if you work from the GRO Indexes then she would have to be the 1842 death whereas Elizabeth daughter of Andrew Quick was alive in 1836 and then about age 32. She and younger brother Paul Quick are the only two members of that family not accounted for and both appear to have been unmarried at the time of their father's death. It is possible that wherever Paul went perhaps so too did Elizabeth.
Elizabeth Quick age 86 in 1854 - Even FS does not produce another possible marriage that could account for the information you provided so I am still inclined that the inference may have been that she was the daughter of Henry Quick rather than widow as written. And the informant at her death, William Toy, is undoubtedly the William Toy with wife Elizabeth and daughter Elizabeth age 8 living at Ayr Terrace in 1851. Ayr Terrace is just above Barnoon Cemetery and both William Toy and his wife were born in Helston according to the 1851 Census. And this Elizabeth is undoubtedly the same Elizabeth Quick living at Ayr Lane in 1841 between the households of Paul Curnow and James Rosewall. Her age was recorded as 70 but due to the fact adults ages only were only required to be recorded down to the nearest five years then she could have been born anytime from 1766 to 1771 thus making her anywhere from 83-88 in 1854. Her location and her age both place her as most likely the daughter of Henry and Elizabeth Quick born in 1766 and unless something absolutely concrete is found I am not prepared to go off chasing phantom marriages.
CT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 11, 2017 9:41:28 GMT -5
Hello again
I have a few questions to ask you concerning your last post? I was wondering that seeing that Thomas, Elizabeth and Catherine can not be found in the 1841 census (leaving the workhouse out for the moment) is it possible that they are all together somewhere.. on his ship perhaps? or in transit somewhere? I thought that I may have found a clue in FreeBMD which shows a death for an Elizabeth in 1839 - March quarter. I checked on the GRO site and they did not have the Elizabeth mentioned - rather they had a second Jane in the same register as that quoted by FreeBMD. The ages of the two Janes match two burials from the OPC site. I checked the index image for FreeBMD and it certainly shows an Elizabeth. I was hoping that the 1839 death might have removed one of the options. Can you explain how that difference between the two indexes would occur please?
Regarding the second Elizabeth and the view that the entry may be in error, if that is accepted then an equally possible error could be her husbands name? Which would bring back the possibility that she is the wife Elizabeth Eddy, widow of Matthew whose father was Henry? You indicated that she would have remarried but can we be certain of that?
Trinklady
|
|
|
Post by Cornish Terrier on Oct 11, 2017 18:03:04 GMT -5
It is always 'possible' that Thomas and his entire family 'might' have been somewhere at sea at the time of the 1841 Census - they certainly do not appear to be anywhere on dry land in England or Wales. If they were on a vessel and it was in port then they should appear in the Census anyway. But although we know Thomas Quick was a Master Mariner we can only presume that he plied his trade around the coastal waters of Britain. The fact that Thomas did not appear in the 1841 Census certainly implies that he was at sea but we have no knowledge of how long he might have been away. I don't know about anyone else but I certainly would not seriously consider taking a child of less than six months old on a sea voyage just for the heck of it. Emigration is one thing but a jaunt around the coast with a child so young would be another matter altogether in my opinion. But I have a question for you at this point! At the start of this conversation it was you who inferred that I was in error in claiming that the information in the Parish Register was correct. (i.e. age 37) You cited both the Census and the GRO Index and were quite happy it was those sources that must be correct yet now you have changed your opinion and seem to be saying that I was probably correct in the first place! Well, just as a matter of interest, the Parish Register for Feock shows that Thomas Quick (father of Catherine Smith Quick) was age 75 when he was buried at Feock in 1872. He was, in fact, only 67 which is a little closer to the age (66) recorded in the GRO Index! Yes, I claimed age 37 as correct and assigned that death to Elizabeth daughter of Andrew Quick but at the time I did that I did not have the luxury of being able to consult the GRO Index and nor did I have the death certificate. With both now available I am much happier that the Elizabeth who died in 1842 was the mother of Catherine. The only explanation I can offer for this is that there are multiple copies of the index. Given they are handwritten and the date of creation of the copies is unknown I would suggest the only answer would be 'transcription error'. The handwriting is all very neat and uniform which suggests all entries were copied in the same hand and around the same time and as there is also an Elizabeth Stevens on the same page (27) it is quite possible that this could be the source of the error - particularly if that name appeared before Jane Quick on the original document. That type of error is far from uncommon in the Parish Registers. Both FreeBMD and Ancestry have the same images for this period so they cannot be the originals used to create the GRO Index which, as you have pointed out, clearly has another Jane in place of Elizabeth. And the fact that there are burials matching the two Janes then I should think it is the GRO Index that would be correct. In the first place I don't yet have access to a copy of the marriage record of Matthew Quick to Elizabeth Eddy to see if there are any witnesses that might help identify either Matthew or Elizabeth. And although Matthew son of Henry does seem the logical choice even that identification cannot be absolutely proven just yet. Secondly, I think I have all the Eddy people from that period in my database and there is not one possibility that I can find who would be a close enough match in age to be considered. I also have an Elizabeth Quick buried at Towednack in 1807 age 55 who I have not yet identified. She has always been a possibility to have been this Elizabeth Eddy and I do have an Elizabeth Eddy baptized at Zennor in 1754 who could be a close match. As for the remarriage of Elizabeth - I believe my opinion was that she 'could have remarried' rather than 'would have'. CT
|
|
|
Post by Cornish Terrier on Oct 12, 2017 3:36:55 GMT -5
To try and get this problem a little closer to solution I have tried something a little different. We know that Elizabeth wife of Thomas Quick was still alive in February 1841 as she was the person who registered the birth of her daughter Catherine Smith Quick. We also know that she must have died sometime before 1853 when husband Thomas Quick remarried.
Problems:- 1. Thomas Quick and daughter Catherine can not be found in the 1841 Census 2. Elizabeth Quick is'possibly' the Elizabeth Quick age 28 in the Union Workhouse 3. The 1842 St Ives burial gives 37 as the age of Elizabeth Quick 4. The Census and the GRO Index give the age as 27/28 for the same person 5. If age 37 is correct then this burial must be that of Elizabeth daughter of Andrew and Elizabeth Quick of St Ives 6. If age 27/28 is correct then the only person I believe this can be is the wife of the abovementioned Thomas Quick.
So the one concrete fact to work on is that Elizabeth wife of Thomas Quick died sometime between 1841 when she registered the birth of her daughter and 1853 when Thomas Quick remarried.
That daughter Catherine cannot be found in 1841 'could' be explained by her being only a few months old and may be with persons other than her parents and possibly enumerated under a different name. Or she could have been in the Workhouse with her mother and either not recorded or maybe simply recorded as an unnamed infant.
It is interesting to note that Thomas Quick can also not be found in the 1851 Census implying that, as a mariner, he was at sea again as he probably was in 1841. Yet his daughter Catherine is at her father's house at Devoran in Feock with a Grace Quick age 21 (born Towednack) who is recorded as 'neice' of the householder.
This Census entry is a little confusing on Ancestry as the transcribers have Catherine recorded as daughter of Thomas and Jane. However the Thomas and Jane referred to are the Mitchel family who were actually in the house previously enumerated. Grace Quick is recorded as niece of the Head of House and Catherine as daughter of the Head of House so they are in fact neice and daughter of Thomas Quick and no relation to the Mitchels who were born in Feock and Egloshayle respectively.
The implication here would seem to be that Elizabeth Quick was already deceased or, at a stretch, with her husband.
BTW - 'Grace Quick' is not actually a Quick. I believe she is really Grace Quick Trewhella whose mother Grace was a sister to Thomas Quick. The only Grace Quick born in Cornwall between 1819 and 1836 was the daughter of Edward and Grace at Paul who was born about 1828 but baptized in 1833 at Paul.
So what I have done is taken the GRO Index and, hoping that all Elizabeth Quick deaths are included, have selected all Elizabeth Quicks who died between 1841 and 1853 and whose recorded age would be a close match to Elizabeth (Hogg) Quick:-
1842 March Qtr Penzance Union Elizabeth Quick age 28 - born about 1813/14 If the age here is correct then it seems this can ONLY be Elizabeth nee Hogg, wife of Thomas Quick master mariner and mother of Catherine Smith Quick.
1843 September Qtr Penzance Union Elizabeth Quick age 29 - born about 1814 West Briton Friday 6th October 1843 reports that Elizabeth wife of Mr Thomas Quick age 30 died at St Ives 28th September 1843. This is Elizabeth Hall who married Thomas son of Richard and Elizabeth Quick at Lelant in 1838. Their son Richard was buried two weeks later on 17th October 1843. Thomas Quick appeared in the 1851 Census as a widower with his parents but thereafter has not yet been found.
1843 December Qtr Tiverton and Dulverton Elizabeth Jane Quick age 32 - born about 1811 Appears likely to have been the wife of a John Quick who was at Tiverton in 1841 with sons John and George. In 1851 this same John has a new wife named Ann.
1846 March Qtr Durham and Lanchester Elizabeth Quick age 33 - born about 1812/13 This is Elizabeth nee Jelbert who married Richard Quick at Illogan 27th May 1832. The family was at Cockfield in Durham in 1841. Richard Quick was buried at Easington Colliery, Durham 2nd October 1849 - son Richard William buried also at Easington 21st December 1849 - daughter Susan buried at Wingate, Durham 22nd November 1843 and son John Henry also died at Durham in 1858.
1852 March Qtr Leighton Buzzard Elizabeth Quick age 41 - born about 1810/11 In 1851 Elizabeth was with husband Thomas Quick a railway policeman at Linslade in Buckinghamshire. Thomas Quick was born at Leighton Buzzard.
Whilst still not absolutely, positively and conclusively proven the above certainly indicates that in all probability the only Elizabeth Quick the 1842 death at Penzance Union could be is the mother of Catherine Smith Quick.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 12, 2017 10:13:41 GMT -5
Good day to you.. lovely day here in Penzance today
At the start of the conversation CT I inferred no such thing.. what I did do was ask you why you had selected the Parish entry over the GRO index and earlier I had asked a question simply for clarity... I have never said that I have selected one over the other - and in fact when dealing with a person of your considerable experience what I was trying to do was get you to explain why you had selected what you did... this site is about learning... every time someone adds a little bit of information there is a need for each of us to reconsider our position. That is what I have done here.
Years ago when I first looked at this I could not identify the 1841 census entry for 27 year old Elizabeth. Years later when GRO released the age of death I then said to myself that the 27 year old in the workhouse is probably the 28 year old who died a year later. As for the Parish entry I had assumed that the 37 was a transcription error and was most likely 27. Then later again you said that you have viewed the parish entry and it was in fact 37. So now there were two pieces of evidence... one as strong as the other.. so my next question simply was...could they both be correct in that they reflect the information that each person was given and subsequently entered into the record book. The work house believed she was 28, the St Ives parish believed she was 37.... nothing I have seen so far proves one over the other.
So CT, it is simply a process of growth in knowledge and in turn turning that knowledge into a possible outcome.
Trinklady
|
|