Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

3 Neutral

About chm

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Lydia Peel was chr 26/2/1826, at St Marys Rc Church, Blackbrook, St Helens according to a Peel I have exchanged information with. He may have had others but that was the only one I'd have been interested in and took note of.
  2. chm

    HMCTS Wills

    I ordered one some months ago, I think it cost more than £1.50 then, and it took a few days to process but was well inside the 10-day limit, and the download worked fine once they'd processed it. Probably Ratty's right, and they're hardly going to hire more staff for a temporary rush of will requests because they dropped the price. The search on the probate site is a bit overgenerous with its error messages Ratty but I've been using it a lot - just the index gives enough information to be useful often without sending for the will - and it's never given me an error I couldn't understand why I'd gotten with a bit of thought and could fix by retyping it - not like the crem deceased search with its server errors!
  3. That street list is a great resource! It would be nice if Ratty would add her story about where Ell Bess Lane comes from to the page about it.
  4. chm

    1876 Birth

    Irish and Scottish civil registration records are both available online now (https://civilrecords.irishgenealogy.ie/churchrecords/civil-search.jsp and https://www.scotlandspeople.gov.uk/search-our-records) and I can't see a marriage for them in either. Not sure how complete they are, and I didn't check the parish records on either site which are also available. There was one Elizabeth Bonney marriage in Dublin, and no Bonneys at all turned up in the list of fuzzy matches when I searched in Scotland. Good luck with it, it looks like a really tricky one. Corinne
  5. Thanks Hort. I'm the Corinne referred to in the thread, I was very active on GenesReunited back then, but I can't remember if I saw it before or not! My email and internet security seem to get snitty about this website a lot, a lot of the notifications end up in Spam folders and Kaspersky is convinced this is a phishing site, sigh.
  6. Yikes! I was hoping it was better than that on ages. Although there's one Highcock death where I've known for a while the index was messed up - Ronald James H Highcock died in 1948 aged 36 hours, and the crem records which often just put 0 for a young child even if they're older than 0 are quite specific about the 36 hours, but the original printed GRO index listed his age as 36 not 0. As well as misspellings, I've found some where the mother's maiden name is listed as her current surname, and some where her previous married surname is given rather than her maiden name.
  7. I couldn't agree more! And of course if people moved far then the way words were pronounced by those around them could be different, and that could affect how their name was written or said. But trawling through microfilms of the whole of Lancashire, or the whole of England, is rather beyond me, and fortunately over time, more and more records are becoming available online. Meanwhile, I just try to be very cautious about what conclusions I draw.
  8. Is this your family in 1911? https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:XWYM-322 I think you might possibly have the wrong John Lee. If you look at this family: https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:XWY9-2W6 you will see there is a John Lee with just the same age & birthplace, and his father Joseph Lee had married a Highcock (Mary Ann Highcock, 15 May 1897, St Nicholas Sutton). Looking at the GRO index, there are a few John Lees born around then registered in Prescot, but no others whose age is bang-on 13 for the 1911 census, and none who match with an Elizabeth born around then and have the same mother's maiden name. Now that I've looked at a good few of the entries in the new index, I strongly suspect there are some mistakes in it, unsurprisingly, and there is an Elizabeth Lees birth of the right age with mother's maiden name unlisted, which normally means she's an unwed mother, but could be an error here perhaps. This looks like your John in 1901 - William is still with the same sister Catherine, but son John from 1911 is called his nephew here! https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:X9LV-SC1 Phoebe's mother's maiden name is also blank in the GRO index. I have no idea whose children they were now! If I find out more I will add it.
  9. The parents of James Highcock (born 1788) were probably George Highcock & Mary Lomax, but I haven't got a christening record for James in my notes, so it's possible in my opinion that he was someone else's son. All the other children of George & Mary I have christening records for. From the christening records of those children, they were living in Bold in 1781, Rainhill in 1783-4, and Parr 1798 and 1814 (from the burial of son Thomas). James birthplace is given in census variously as Sutton or Parr, so would fit with him being part of this family whereas the other two Highcock families having children around this time - Thomas Highcock & Mary, and Samuel Highcock & Elizabeth Stanley - were based at Knowsley. It's clear that the christening records of some of Samuel & Elizabeth's children are missing, and it's tempting to say maybe they were nonconformist and James' christening is missing because he was one of their children. But they had a son James who died in 1794 so it's unlikely James b 1788 is theirs unless he was actually born after 1794. Thomas & Elizabeth also had a son James, who was christened in 1794. I haven't come across any record of him, dead or alive, after that. So if James (born 1788 from his age at burial) was born after 1794, he could in principle be the son of either Thomas or Samuel, though the birthplace and large age discrepancy tend to suggest otherwise. However people's reported age in Victorian times did seem to get less accurate the older they got, and in 1851 his age was given as 60, which would give a birth year of 1791, which is significantly closer to 1794. Unless someone's found more records than I have, or had their DNA tested, I guess it'll have to stay as probable rather than certain that he's George and Mary's son. The parents of George are, again, as far as I'm aware, uncertain because there's no christening record been found for him. The only Highcock couple known from the records to have married and be having children in Prescot around this time would be Samuel Highcock & Elizabeth Marsh. Where do you get Samuel's age estimate from? All I know about him is he was married in 1744. I'm somewhat reluctant to even go as far as saying he's probably their child, because I'm not sure how complete the records I've been able to access are. For instance there was a James Highcock, husbandman of Winstanley, who administered the wills of his uncle & aunt in 1744; if he married in some church whose records I haven't had access to, and had children, George could have been one of them. If they were Catholic, records may not have been made in the usual way or may not have survived. I have a few records of earlier Highcocks than that, but nothing that links Samuel Highcock (who m. Elizabeth Marsh) closely to any in particular; a Thomas Highcock of Wolfall Hearth is mentioned who would have been roughly the right generation to be his father. The earliest records I have found document that Thomas Hickock of Melling, schoolmaster got married on 26/10/1672, under the auspices of Hardshaw Quaker Meeting at the house of James Ffletcher in Knowsley, to Elizabeth Lathwaite of Knowsley, spinster (witnesses Peter Lathwaite, James Lathwaite, William Leigh/Lee, James Ffletcher, Thomas Tarbock, William Hatton, Mary Ffletcher, Hannah Boult, & others). He died 6/9/1697 and was buried 8/9/1697 at Hartshaw Quaker burial ground. Any idea where that is? Would it be another spelling of Hardshaw? I'm not sure if that would be the same couple as the final Thomas & Elizabeth you mention, or not. If it is, then their estimated birth year would need adjusting. If you have found early records that I haven't, I'd be delighted to see what you've got. With that spelling, it's also possible Thomas of Melling was a Hick-cock not a Highcock.
  10. No worries, I wasn't asking anyone to put themselves out looking things up, I was just trying to answer Jeff's question Yes, the earliest I've got is Thomas Highcock of Melling marrying Elizabeth Lathwaite of Knowsley in Knowsley in 1672. I guess that's more likely to be the closer Melling in West Derby rather than the farther away Melling in Lonsdale, given that they don't specify, but it could be either. But anything before George Highcock & Mary Lomax gets pretty frustrating to try and piece together because there are so many gaps in the records and even the ones that do exist are so lacking in detail.
  11. Almost all of the records of Highcocks that I can't fit into the family tree are either infant births/deaths (which I'm hoping the new information in the GRO index will help me sort out), 20th century records, a lot of which probably relate to people who are still alive so better not to discuss them publicly, or stray Highcocks in other parts of the country - there was a little cluster of them in Gloucestershire for a while for instance. The rest is pretty mostly pre-1837 stuff, here are a few examples: Ann Highcock m. William Webster, 22 Jun 1786, Huyton Lancs - the only Ann I know about who was alive and of an age to be married in 1786 was the daughter of Samuel Highcock & Elizabeth Marsh, christened in 1744 at Huyton. So she would have been getting married for the first time aged 42 - rather unusual for those days, but possible - or it could be another Ann whose christening hasn't turned up yet. 30 May 1819, Prescot St Mary's: Ann daur George Mary Hicock Prescot lab - the only couple I'm aware of that this could have been was George Highcock & Mary Lomax, but she was aged 59! I guess Ann was christened as their child, but she may have been the illegitimate child of a daughter. There were 3 William Highcocks born in 1882: one was the son of Richard Highcock & Elizabeth Duxberry; another was the son of John Highcock & Ellen Tunstall; and the third died aged 2 in 1885. There was also a William Highcock born in late 1883, the son of John Highcock & Alice Arnold. I think one of these married Alice Kay and another married Ada Friar, but I'm not sure which married who. I think the second one was the likeliest to have married Ada Friar, and I haven't yet looked up the address of the first William's family in the 1911 census yet, which might disentangle them if it matches an address from the Absent Voter's list in 1918. Wigan, Michaelmas, 1736. - ref. QSP/1418 FILE - Warrington and Liverpool - settlement of Mary orphan of Thomas Highcock. - ref. QSP/1418/12 - date: c1736 I have no idea who either of these was. I think my records of the early Highcocks have a lot of gaps. I've got the records of the Quaker ones of Knowsley; but in the pre-19th century ones the spelling Hicock or Hiccock gets used a lot, and it's hard to be sure whether you're looking at something that's meant to be pronounced Highcock or Hickock. Some records may not have survived, and others aren't easy to get hold of, and if people travelled a distance from their place of origin they can be impossible to trace.
  12. Any idea if the owner would mind me attaching the photos to the people's profiles on WikiTree?
  13. Nice photo! It's often not easy to get the writing that clear on old inscriptions. Did you take it?
  14. Yes, that agrees with the notes I've got about them. I didn't have the death year for Rachel so thanks for that; Mary looks like she may have died in 1919 in Fylde, where she was living in 1911. I think William probably died in Sep qtr 1938 (the other William Highcock born around the same time died in 1950 and is buried at St Helens Cemetery with his wife). And Edward was buried 22 Jan 1899, St Thomas Eccleston, aged 17 years, of 85 Greenfield St.
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.