Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ

Family TreesΒ  permalink

1851 Census for Warwickshire

This discussion has been closed.

Messages: 1 - 8 of 8
  • Message 1.Β 

    Posted by docjoyce (U2115297) on Thursday, 29th September 2005

    Still searching for a William Henry Cox
    born in Birmingham on the 1851 census for
    Warwickshire. He would have been aged
    between 4 and 7 and stated on the census
    as a visitor, relative or even stepson.
    I have his parents and siblings on the
    1861, 1871 and 1851 censuses, but he does
    not show up on the 1851 with them.

    Any help with this one, will be so greatly
    received and appreciated.

    Joyce

    Report message1

  • Message 2

    , in reply to message 1.

    Posted by busybeaver (U1788915) on Thursday, 29th September 2005

    Have you tried ringing Birmingham Archives. The 1851 census is name indexed they may help you.
    You can also ask via e mail. Just Google Birmingham Records for contact info

    Report message2

  • Message 3

    , in reply to message 2.

    Posted by docjoyce (U2115297) on Friday, 30th September 2005

    Thanks busybeaver

    I will give them a try, this little man
    has to be somewhere.

    Report message3

  • Message 4

    , in reply to message 1.

    Posted by Stepney Boy (U1760040) on Friday, 30th September 2005

    Hi Docjoyce,<BR /><BR />Sad to say there is the other possibilty that he died young. There is a death registered in the June 1/4 of 1851 in Birmingham of a William Henry COX but no age given.<BR />Regards<BR />Spike<QUOTE' USER='DocJoyce' USERID='2115297'>Still searching for a William Henry Cox <BR />born in Birmingham on the 1851 census for<BR />Warwickshire. He would have been aged<BR />between 4 and 7 and stated on the census<BR />as a visitor, relative or even stepson. <BR />I have his parents and siblings on the <BR />1861, 1871 and 1851 censuses, but he does<BR />not show up on the 1851 with them.<BR /><BR />Any help with this one, will be so greatly<BR />received and appreciated.<BR /><BR />Joyce<BR /></QUOTE>

    Report message4

  • Message 5

    , in reply to message 4.

    Posted by docjoyce (U2115297) on Saturday, 1st October 2005

    Hi Spike

    Thanks for the reply and showing interest again
    in my 'lost' William Henry Cox, very much
    appreciated.

    Don't forget I do have him on the 1861,1871, 1881 and 1891 censuses, but not that vital 1851.

    Joyce

    Report message5

  • Message 6

    , in reply to message 5.

    Posted by Stepney Boy (U1760040) on Saturday, 1st October 2005

    Hi DocJoyce,<BR /> Got my wires crossed Will bear him in mind.<BR />Regards<BR />Spike<QUOTE' USER='DocJoyce' USERID='2115297'>Hi Spike<BR /><BR />Thanks for the reply and showing interest again<BR />in my 'lost' William Henry Cox, very much<BR />appreciated.<BR /><BR />Don't forget I do have him on the 1861,1871, 1881 and 1891 censuses, but not that vital 1851. <BR /><BR />Joyce<BR /> </QUOTE>

    Report message6

  • Message 7

    , in reply to message 5.

    Posted by Stepney Boy (U1760040) on Saturday, 1st October 2005

    Hi DocJoyce,<BR /> Got my wires crossed<SMILEY TYPE='doh' H2G2='Smiley#doh'/> Will bear him in mind.<BR />Regards<BR />Spike<QUOTE' USER='DocJoyce' USERID='2115297'>Hi Spike<BR /><BR />Thanks for the reply and showing interest again<BR />in my 'lost' William Henry Cox, very much<BR />appreciated.<BR /><BR />Don't forget I do have him on the 1861,1871, 1881 and 1891 censuses, but not that vital 1851. <BR /><BR />Joyce<BR /> </QUOTE>

    Report message7

  • Message 8

    , in reply to message 1.

    Posted by docjoyce (U2115297) on Sunday, 2nd October 2005

    Please ignore this information about finding
    William Henry Cox on the 1861 and 1871 censuses,
    as I have just found the very same family on the
    1881 census. This means that it was the wrong
    William Henry Cox all along, and I am no longer searching for that one on the 1851 census. I already have the
    real William Henry Cox living with his wife and
    family in Plymouth on the 1881 census. Still need to find him now on the 1871 though and if possible the 1861. I will post my details about him at a later time.

    Joyce

    Report message8

Back to top

About this Board

The History message boards are now closed. They remain visible as a matter of record but the opportunity to add new comments or open new threads is no longer available. Thank you all for your valued contributions over many years.

or Β to take part in a discussion.


The message board is currently closed for posting.

The message board is closed for posting.

This messageboard is .

Find out more about this board's

Search this Board

Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ iD

Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ navigation

Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ Β© 2014 The Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.