How much can we assume when tracing our ancesters ? (General)

by slowhands , proud of his ancient Dean Forest roots, Friday, February 04, 2011, 11:16 (5046 days ago) @ chrise

how much we can put down to assumption when using records of our ancesters found in various sources.

Simply, based on all the material you have at hand, you can assume as much or as little as you like - however it pays to make a note of those assumptions so that when you go back in a few weeks/years, or because a new source of information comes to light - you can then challenge those assumptions and make adjustments if necessary.

Most times it comes down to a gut feeling / experience of what is the "best fit" or most logical.

Dont be too put off by spellings or census ages that vary - this is normal :-)

http://www.forum.forest-of-dean.net/index.php?mode=thread&id=14889

<><><><>

Given the information above is it reasonable for me to conclude that Emma LAKE/LEAKE and Emma GRAFTON are the same person and that William Charles Lake BENNETT (1863) is the illigitimate (and therefore biological son) of William Chareles BENNETT (1841) and Emma LEAKE/LAKE (GRAFTON) ?

Emma LAKE/LEAKE and Emma GRAFTON are the same person - seems a reasonable assumption

(and therefore biological son) of William Charles BENNETT (1841) - a cautious assumption, always difficult to be sure of the DNA/Blood line when a child is declared illigitimate, unless a Bastardy Bond exists

Was there a divorce between John LAKE/LEEK and Emma GRAFTON?
I've done a search (web) from the national archives for a divorce of LAKE/LEAK(E)/GRAFTON but with no luck
How was Emma able to marry again if she was not divorced ?

Do we know that John LAKE/LEEK survived and, is not dead and buried ?

--
Ἀριστοτέλης A Gloster Boy in the Forest of Dean ><((((*>