Slightly less confused

But only slightly ......

Followed up on Ruth Culpin, who married William Andrew and went off the Antipodes. And I found her death registration in Victoria, in 1862, aged 38 years.

And, bless the Aussies, there are her parents: John Culpin and Elizabeth.

Now to find a John & Elizabeth in the right temporal and geographical area.....

More soon.

A really rubbish day

Today I tried to find some Pinckneys .... as you do.

Chap called George. Born in November 1881; married in 1909; died 1952.

Of those three events, only the latter two can be found on the registers. He was supposedly born to Isaac and Amy - seven years before they actually married. And I can't find him in any census. His wife appears in 1911 .... as the head of the household, with only her sister for company.

I can't help wondering about the parent's marriage. Isaac was in the Navy, which might account for absences but, given that they married in 1888 by licence, could they not have done that during one of his returns ..... They had another two children between the-problematic-George and their wedding!

More soon.

Now I'm confused ...

So there I was, furkling around on Rootsweb and I found a Ruth Culpin who was born in the nearby county of Huntingdon.  The daughter of John & Elizabeth, she married William Andrew and emigrated to Australia a couple of years later.

Apparently ......

I can find her in the 1851 census, in the workhouse in Huntingdon, recorded as an unmarried farm labourer born in Steeple Gidding (I'll spare you their spelling!); I can find her marriage in 1852; and I can find two children born to a Ruth Culpin in Huntingdon in 1846 and 1851, both of whom died as infants. 

But I can't find Ruth's christening, so I can't find her parents.

I can find two Culpins christened in Steeple Gidding: Catherine (1828) and Caroline (1831), both the daughters of John and Elizabeth.  I then found these girls in the 1841 census, still in Steeple Gidding, living with the family of William Hospital (that's what it says).

And I'm even more puzzled and confused.  Because there is an Elizabeth Aspital in the tree, who married Charles Culpin in St Ives in 1809.

I think the next move (or one of them) is to go and look on Ancestry.com, the worldwide version, which I can access at the library; then I can search the Australian BMDs.  The Aussies, bless their little cotton socks, very kindly put the parents' names on the death registrations so, if I can find Ruth Andrew, I may get a clue .....

More soon.

Is it me?

I'm going to whinge today (just for once) .....

Ordinarily I enjoy using Ancestry (the UK version) and I appreciate the details it can give me.  But sometimes it drives me completely nuts.

For two reasons:- firstly, I keep getting directed to the "New Search" page.  Now, just to be clear here, I do not like the new search; I much prefer the old one.  Maybe it's just what I'm used to but I certainly get better results with it.

And, secondly, it's getting very literal with its "exact" searches.  If I want to search for Sarah Ann, I invariably do not put in the Ann as, in my mind, it limits the search parameters too much.  It used to then spit out all the Sarahs, Sarah Anns, Sarah Elizabeths etc.

And, sometimes, it still does that.  Great.  But not always.  And that's why it's driving me nuts.  Please, Ancestry, make your mind up.  Why can you not find Sarah (Ann) in her own right, yet you happily point me to her husband Edwin whose wife, coincidentally, is Sarah (Ann) ???

Aaaaaargh!

More soon.