Genealogy

[Jon MW]

They're the not the only two people here, it's weird though - doesn't make sense.

[pokefast]

They're the not the only two people here, it's weird though - doesn't make sense.

Now i'm even more confused if thats possible!

Are you refering to the 1901 census when there appears to be yet another "wife" for Thomas?

There does appear to be a Daughter also called Rosa in the 1881 census but she the disappears too,is that it?

[Jon MW]

They're the not the only two people here, it's weird though - doesn't make sense.

Now i'm even more confused if thats possible!

Are you refering to the 1901 census when there appears to be yet another "wife" for Thomas?

There does appear to be a Daughter also called Rosa in the 1881 census but she the disappears too,is that it?

lol - no.

I haven't looked at them all

I looked for:
1. Death for Rosa
2. ReMarriage for Thomas
3. Marriage for Alice - assuming she married him in Foleshill, there should be a marriage between Thomas Colledge and Alice (whatever her maiden name is) between 1881 and 1891.  That assumption means you could miss something and there might be another way of explaining it - but it does throw up something 'odd'

They're looking at the same records but I found www.freebmd.org.uk easier to use for this than Ancestry

[pokefast]

Yeah very odd indeed Jon.You would have thought that there would be a record of either the re marriage of Thomas or the death of Rosa or even a remarriage of Rosa but there is none.

Can't think there is a transcripting error on 2 or even 3 events that could of occured. 1 yes but not more.

The only bit of information ( subject to verification ) that i don't have on Rosa is her death,I have her maiden name ( Lilley ) i have her parents names ( not mothers maiden yet ) I have her birth record and her record of Marriage to Thomas in 1870.

My tree is not directly affected by the extra wives of Thomas as i'm sure that Rosa is Mary's mother but i do need Rosa's death record ( i'm very ocd about such things!!! )

Its a pity that there is no mothers maiden names on birth records in those days because i could have traced the supposed 2nd wife of Thomas.

Another interesting thing is when i put Rosa Colledge's details into my tree yesterday i was then linked to 2 other trees with Rosa on them and both are the same Rosa and both have no death date either despite both trees having all the death information of everyone else in the same generation.

Two things surely must be certain though:

1) She must be dead ( otherwise she'd be 164 years old by now )

2) There must be a record of her death somewhere.

Is it possible that Thomas wasn't actually married to this Alice but just listed as "wife" on the census?

[Jon MW]

This was the odd thing I found

What does it mean? Does it mean anything?

Marriages Dec 1889

Surname	First name(s)	District	Vol	Page
BUCKINGHAM	George	Foleshill	6 d	864
Colledge	Alice	Foleshill	6 d	864
Ford	Mary Ann	Foleshill	6 d	864
PEEK	Thomas	Foleshill	6 d	864

[pokefast]

This was the odd thing I found

What does it mean? Does it mean anything?

Marriages Dec 1889

Surname	First name(s)	District	Vol	Page
BUCKINGHAM	George	Foleshill	6 d	864
Colledge	Alice	Foleshill	6 d	864
Ford	Mary Ann	Foleshill	6 d	864
PEEK	Thomas	Foleshill	6 d	864

Just checked those out Jon they can be ruled out.

Alice Colledge is from Bedworth, and may yet prove to be related but she was born in 1865 in Foleshill.
Thomas Peek was born in Warwick in 1869.

These two did indeed get married as your record shows but after checking the 1891 census they are both happily living in Foleshill with baby Peek.

Did find another transcripting error though. In the original document it has Thomas Peek as born in Warwick,which matches his birth. But in the transcription it has his birthplace as foleshill.

Take more care transcribers!

So where do i go from here?

I could i suppose search for Rosa's death after 1891 but if she too re married she'd no longer be a Colledge upon death.

I've also emailed the 2 owners of the trees that also contain Rosa for any leads just awaiting response.

[Jon MW]

Waiting to see if the owners of the other trees is a good idea.

A big problem here is the number of variations on names you could have here: Rosa, Colledge and even Thomas could be listed with a number of slightly different variants of their names or variant spellings - and that's even before you take into account that he might be Colledge Hughes - or just Hughes (Thomas Hughes - that wouldn't be a good variant to narrow down).

[pokefast]

Waiting to see if the owners of the other trees is a good idea.

A big problem here is the number of variations on names you could have here: Rosa, Colledge and even Thomas could be listed with a number of slightly different variants of their names or variant spellings - and that's even before you take into account that he might be Colledge Hughes - or just Hughes (Thomas Hughes - that wouldn't be a good variant to narrow down).

Yeah i know what you mean Jon.

On his wedding index he is listed as Thomas Colledge Hughes the reason for this i think is his mothers name,subject to verification was Eliza Hughes before she married.

And even on one census Thomas and Rosa are down as "Collidge"

In the death searches I've tried Rosa as Lilley,Colledge,College,Coledge,Collidge and Colidge but so far nothing.

Although yet to be confirmed,judging by the fact that the other 2 trees have no death details ( and both are fairly comprehensive trees one goes back to early 1500s in places ),means they are too having these problems,although it could also mean of course that they are being less anal about it as me as Rosa isn't one of their direct descendants.

But i do need this info!

Its fairly logical that she's dead and that she must be buried in the local area somewhere so if i may visit the place that holds Bedworths burial records if i knew where that was lol!

Gonna go back to the death indexes again and see if i've missed anything.

[pokefast]

By golly i think i've got it!

Went back to the death Indexes and decided i wouldn't use a surname for rosa. So i just typed in Rosa and year of birth 1844 and death date 1886 +/-5.

And there on the second page is Rosa Colledge Hughes death in Foleshill in 1887.

Guess she must have taken the complete name of Thomas at the wedding?

[Jon MW]

Sounds good.

Simples.

And lucky that she didn't get listed as Roselie College Huws instead

[pokefast]

Sounds good.

Simples.

And lucky that she didn't get listed as Roselie College Huws instead

No shit!

Now searching for Thomas marriage to Alice via looking under Hughes instead of Colledge.

[pokefast]

More issues.

I've found a Thomas Colledge Hughes that married in derby in 1888. However when you click on view record and then click the page number it comes up with an odd number of people ( 5 ) 3 men and 2 women none of whom are an Alice!

Alice Alice where the Fck is Alice?

There are 102,000 Hughes in the marriage records for the period but surely Thomas Colledge Hughes must be unique?

[Jon MW]

...However when you click on view record and then click the page number it comes up with an odd number of people ( 5 ) 3 men and 2 women none of whom are an Alice!
...

The records on the page are the records of who got married on that day in that location.

i.e. they will have an even number

So when it shows an odd number it means not every record is transcribed.

...
There are 102,000 Hughes in the marriage records for the period but surely Thomas Colledge Hughes must be unique?

He could be listed as Thomas Hughes, Thomas Colledge Hughes, Thomas Colledge, Thomas Collidge, Thomas Collidge Hughes, Thomas College, Thomas College Hughes etc etc etc

[pokefast]

...However when you click on view record and then click the page number it comes up with an odd number of people ( 5 ) 3 men and 2 women none of whom are an Alice!
...

The records on the page are the records of who got married on that day in that location.

i.e. they will have an even number

So when it shows an odd number it means not every record is transcribed.

...
There are 102,000 Hughes in the marriage records for the period but surely Thomas Colledge Hughes must be unique?

He could be listed as Thomas Hughes, Thomas Colledge Hughes, Thomas Colledge, Thomas Collidge, Thomas Collidge Hughes, Thomas College, Thomas College Hughes etc etc etc

So what are my chances of finding out who this Alice is?

Any advice on doing so?

It was easier to find his first marriage index my using Rosa Lilley but i'm now in a chicken and egg!

[Jon MW]

If the record it's on just hasn't been transcribed then you might as well just wait for them to get round to it - it's not clear cut though, it might be a problem to do with how it's been transcribed.

Either way, then wait and come back to it is a good course.

There really should be the odd line or two in your family tree that you can just work back to the early 19th century without any hassle.