WARWICK-L Archives

Archiver > WARWICK > 2011-08 > 1313780897


From: Michael Wells <>
Subject: Re: [WAR] CHATTERLEY in Studley
Date: Sat, 20 Aug 2011 07:08:17 +1200 (NZST)
References: <1313700108.32549.YahooMailNeo@web96005.mail.aue.yahoo.com><001a01cc5e38$309eba30$91dc2e90$@martin@lineone.net><1313744132.45924.YahooMailNeo@web96009.mail.aue.yahoo.com><F39109AD2C4A4ED08D76BA4E43F5787D@JanetHP>
In-Reply-To: <F39109AD2C4A4ED08D76BA4E43F5787D@JanetHP>


Hello Janet
 
Thank you for sorting that out for me, the curse of using a second name that doesn't occur elsewhere.  Still it occurs in my own family; Dad, Alfred Thomas was always Tom; and uncle Ernest Frederick was always Pete!!!
 
Now I can move on to some more bits from Peter so more questions.
 
Thanks again

Mike

Hello Mike,

I couldn't find an appropriate George CHATTERLEY in the 1851 census so looked on the GRO Death Registration Index and he appears to have been named Thomas George CHATTERLEY (June qtr 1855 at Alcester reg district).

So looking again for a Thomas George on the 1851 census have come up with:

HO107/2075, folios 53/4 , pages 23/4
Studley Common

  Thomas    CHATTERLEY  Head  Mar  29  Needle Maker  Warwickshire  Studley
  Ann                  do            Wife    Mar  27 Staffordshire  Handsworth
  Jane                  do              Daur              8 Warwickshire  Studley
  Thomas            do              Son              5 do              do
  William              do              Son              3 do              do

Checking on the 1861 census for this family (in Feckenham, Worcestershire by now), all the above are present except Thomas jnr, so it does look as though this could be the correct family.

HTH

Janet

This thread: