*Completed* -Hannah Poole b 1861

Northern Lass · Post by **Northern Lass** » Mon Feb 09, 2009 8:56 am

So can any of this go on do we think?
and if so anyone fancy entering it?

dianel · Post by **dianel** » Mon Feb 09, 2009 2:39 pm

Dunno if it should go on yet. Still feels a bit circumstantial.

Northern Lass · Post by **Northern Lass** » Mon Feb 09, 2009 4:53 pm

dianel wrote:Dunno if it should go on yet. Still feels a bit circumstantial.

I agree Di it doesnt quite Gel yet although I do think that we have something

I am going to look up this marriage...

1888
POOLE Thomas CORNFIELD Elizabeth Dudley, St Andrew Dudley Register Office 205/009/64

see who the father is for him and then perhaps we can run again.

So if noone minds I am going to archive it for the moment pending look up

Unless otherwise advised this topic will be moved to archived section within 24 hrs
:wink:

Northern Lass · Post by **Northern Lass** » Tue Feb 17, 2009 3:36 pm

Ok have done this look up
I think that Thomas Poole who married Elizabeth Cornfield is the sister of Hannah Poole.
You may remember that on Hannahs marriage in 1880 the witnesses were Thomas Poole and Elizabeth Cornfield.
Hannah and Thomas both enter a Joseph Poole as father and he is a miner.
He may be alive in 1880 ie not down as deceased and dead by 1888
so a death may be useful- we could pin him down re age maybe...?

The age for Thomas Pools appears to match that one in 1861.....and 1871

linell wrote:

1861 Blackheath Family Nailers all born RR
Eber Lowe HD M 23
Rebecca Wife 23
Sarah Jane D 1
Elijah Son 1 month
Joseph Lowe Lodger U 32
Mary Ann Poole Boarder U 26
Thomas Poole Boarder 5
Joseph Poole Boarder 2

1871 Blackheath
Ann Lowe Widow 40
Thomas Lowe Son 14
Joseph Lowe Son 11
Hannah Lowe D 8
Sarah Lowe D 1

here is link
http://bcconnections.tribalpages.com/tr ... =475005555

wot do we all think

can we sort this one out!

oh and guess wot....Elizabeth Cornfield is a5 baggies direct link!
somat Grandparents
:wink:

linell · Post by **linell** » Tue Feb 17, 2009 6:37 pm

Hi NL, I think we should put Thomas, Joseph, Hannah and Sarah (see 1871) down as children of Joseph Poole and Mary Ann. We can enter the Census details so anyone can see that the family was a bit of a miss-match? What does everyone else think? Linell.

Northern Lass · Post by **Northern Lass** » Tue Feb 17, 2009 7:18 pm

I agree if anyone fancies doing that or I will add tomoz

obviously Joseph and hannah and Thomas are already on so it is just the other ones
:wink:

linell · Post by **linell** » Tue Feb 17, 2009 7:31 pm

Ok NL, have the Sherratt stuff to add, so will do both. linell.

Northern Lass · Post by **Northern Lass** » Tue Feb 17, 2009 7:32 pm

You are a star! :wink:

ta chuck xx

linell · Post by **linell** » Wed Feb 18, 2009 10:36 am

Done as much as I am sure about NL:- http://bcconnections.tribalpages.com/tr ... =533379770

Northern Lass · Post by **Northern Lass** » Wed Feb 18, 2009 11:42 am

thanks Linell :wink:

Ok Completed with thanks

Unless anyone has anything else they would like to run with on this topic I will archive it shortly
should you wish it to be brought back pm a mod

Genealogy Forum UK

Completed -Hannah Poole b 1861

Re: Hannah Poole b 1861

Re: Hannah Poole b 1861

Re: Hannah Poole b 1861

Re: Look up done -Hannah Poole b 1861

Re: Look up done -Hannah Poole b 1861

Re: Look up done -Hannah Poole b 1861

Re: Look up done -Hannah Poole b 1861

Re: Look up done -Hannah Poole b 1861

Re: Look up done -Hannah Poole b 1861

Re: Look up done -Hannah Poole b 1861