Page 2 of 2
Re: John Wakelam b abt 1858
Posted: Thu Apr 02, 2015 10:38 pm
by grangers14
I am sure there has been a mistake... it has happened a lot as we know
We could add and add a not may be? Just to say how it has seemed to be?
Jo
Re: John Wakelam b abt 1858
Posted: Mon Apr 06, 2015 4:13 pm
by BC Wench
Like you say Jo, on the 1851 census, the illegitimate children could be Major’s children
1861 Census: Red Hall, Lower Gornal, Sedgley.
Major Hale, Head.UM, 27, Excavating? Labourer
Mary Wakelam, live together.UM, 32, Nailer
Esther Wakelam, Dau.Illigit, 5
John Wakelam, Son.Illigit, 3
Elizabeth Wakelam, Dau. Iligit, 1?
(All born Sedgley)
But, if Mary married that Benjamin Bate in 1846, those illegitimate children would surely have had the Bate surname instead of Wakelam, as would Mary.
I think it would be best to archive this now, what are your thoughts?
Re: John Wakelam b abt 1858
Posted: Tue Apr 07, 2015 7:18 pm
by grangers14
Yep may be BC Wench.
Marys family info from marriage needs adding I will do it if you dont have time. Thank you for adding.
Jo
Re: John Wakelam b abt 1858
Posted: Thu Apr 09, 2015 1:55 pm
by grangers14
I have added fathers name and changed Marys to Bate and not Wakelam.
Jo