• Welcome to Family History Forum 🔎

    Dive into a community where unraveling family history is a shared passion. Here, real people collaborate, offering advice, insights, and support in navigating the rich tapestry of genealogy. Engage in vibrant discussions, pose questions, or celebrate your latest findings on our active message boards.

    Whether you're piecing together ancestry or breaking through brick walls in your research, our forum is your essential resource 📚

    Join fellow family historians in this journey, where every story uncovered strengthens the bonds that connect us all 🔗

    Family History UK
  • Do you love Genealogy? Why not write for us? we're looking for volunteers to write articles for Family history. Please contact us for further information.

Possible birth

ptjw7

Loyal Member
Posts
1,692
Likes
193
Location
dovercourt but born Enfield
#1
I'm not sure that I am looking for a birth but -
A Frederick Thomas Jarrett married a Edith Victoria Pilcher Dec quarter of 1924 in Canterbury reg district.
I found them on the 1939 list and there is a blacked out entry meaning the person was still alive in 1991.
I am assuming that it could be child but I cannot find any children listed for the couple although thinking about it it could be a relative I suppose.
Any other suggestions!

Peter
 

emeltee

Loyal Member
Posts
6,607
Likes
374
Location
Liverpool
#2
Was Edith a spinster when they married. If she was a widow then the name showing on any birth registrations woild be her maiden name and not Pilcher, if you see what I mean.

There are 3 Jarrett birthe registered in Canterbury between 1924 and 1939. Two have the mothers maiden name as Andrews and one as Gambell.

Emeltee
 

ptjw7

Loyal Member
Posts
1,692
Likes
193
Location
dovercourt but born Enfield
#3
Nice idea Emeltee,
but found marriages for the Andrews and Gambell and found both in 1939!
I also tried doing a search for a Pilcher marriage to an Edith V but no joy.
So I assume it must be a relative, could be any one just visiting.
Not important to my tree but of passing interest but it does highlight the main problem with the 1939 list - the blanked entries may or may not be children!

Peter
 

Similar threads

Top