Timeline for Finding name changes and surname usage for children?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
13 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 20, 2019 at 11:01 | vote | accept | Darren | ||
| Mar 30, 2019 at 19:13 | history | edited | Jan Murphy♦ | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
shortened title
|
| Mar 30, 2019 at 19:05 | comment | added | Jan Murphy♦ | Please let's not answer questions in the comments. | |
| Mar 29, 2019 at 23:51 | history | edited | Darren |
edited tags
|
|
| Mar 28, 2019 at 18:53 | comment | added | AdrianB38 | School records? Church records? Just ideas.... | |
| Mar 27, 2019 at 22:23 | answer | added | Jan Murphy♦ | timeline score: 2 | |
| Mar 27, 2019 at 21:54 | comment | added | Darren | You can certainly rewrite if you deem necessary. The question is asking for what particular recordswould be available, rather than an answer of "any records which list a person by name". I realise the records would have their name. | |
| Mar 27, 2019 at 21:51 | comment | added | Darren | Census details are not available and electoral rolls do not have any of the adults before the first child appeared on them. | |
| Mar 27, 2019 at 21:51 | comment | added | Jan Murphy♦ | I understand what you are asking, but the question as written in the title is not likely to attract good answers for the site. If I were to answer the question very literally my answer would be "any records which list a person by name". But you've also tagged the question as research-methods, and that's more likely to get a decent answer. Can we rework this question a little to make it more answerable? For the title, think of a way of phrasing it that is likely to turn up in a Google search. I also think shorter titles are better because they're more sharable (see discussion on Meta). | |
| Mar 27, 2019 at 21:48 | comment | added | Darren | Paternity is not the question here. Francis is certainly the father. After digitising the records, and the update of record in 1930, QLD BDM are unsure what name would have been used. They assume Margaret's married name. | |
| Mar 27, 2019 at 21:36 | comment | added | Darren | I have looked at both Trove and National Archives. I have also searched in NSW as that is where Margaret and Francis married in 1935. | |
| Mar 27, 2019 at 12:20 | comment | added | bgwiehle | Are there residential clues? Was Margaret living with James all those years, or was she, and some or all of the children, with Francis? | |
| Mar 27, 2019 at 10:22 | history | asked | Darren | CC BY-SA 4.0 |