Many thanks for all your help with my past searches im now looking for Rachel Jackson and the records show grave number 34 section 1N and William Copley grave number 10 section J1 not sure which letters and numbers are which, Any help appreciated
The Map given out by Bereavement Services at City Road, (They administer all the Municipally owned Cemeteries) does not seem to show the reference numbers that you have. My suggestion is to call or e-mail Bereavement Services (if they are working) and ask about the reference numbers you have.
Sorry if you have already done this but if you click on site map on th list on the left and scroll down to the title saying Maps, click on Cemetery maps and click on burncross you will see two sections:-
One section is A1 to Q1 numbers 1 to 24 the othe section below the path is A1 to Q1 numbers 25 to 47 so I am assuming the people you are interested in are in those sections but I have not the maps which show how they are numbered. Sorry.
They are numbered fromleftto rightA1 to Q1. Theses are the ROWS. Our records incorrectly calls these SECTIONs. They should be called ROWS.
The grave NUMBERS run from top to bottom,that is 1 down to 24 in the top section then 25 onwards down the bottom section.
J1 IS THE 10TH ROW FROM THE LEFT, N1 IS THE FOURTEENTH ROW FROM THE LEFT OR YOU COULD COUNT IS AS 4TH FROM THE RIGHT.
Sorry the capitals were unintended.
Dave
John, yes they do and that is very easy to check for yourself.
In Burials over to the left put BURNCROSS in the first box and I in the SECTION box. Because they use the letter I you will get all the graves on that ROW..
Dave
Im really confused now not sure if i have the correct information anymore my grandparents were joseph and Laura jackson they are buried in Burncross Josephs mother was rachel and she married william copley in 1890. On rachels marriage certificate it looks like her father is John, and williams dad is Charles. Any help would be much appreciated they were from the high green area
Morag
When Rachel died she was called Copley, not Jackson. So you have the correct grave at Row N1 grave number 34 for a Rachel Copley.
Does the marriage definitely say her father was John not Joseph? What was her fathers occupation on the certificate?
Dave
Hello
If anybody can help with this
On 1881 census Rachel Jackson is down as Rachel Colton husband George Colton
Mother Mary jackson.children Ada Colton,Thomas colton.ada died aged 9 1886,
On 1901 census Rachel and William Copley married children down as named Jackson
Cannot find a marriage for Rachel and George Colton think he died 1888/9,
Nothing found for 1861 1871 census
Think Rachel's mum came from norfolk.rachel stated Wentworth not sure on father
Cannot find a birth for Rachel 1860.
According to the 1861 and 1871 census Rachel's parents were John and Lucy Jackson both born in Norfolk. Lucy's maiden name possibly Rudd.
GRO ref: Rachel Rod Jackson 1860 J Quarter Rotherham mmn Rod
Ada and Tom registered GRO as Jackson in Wortley 1877 and 1879 respectively.
Rachel married William as Jackson in 1890.
Thank you for that Catherine
So the 1881 Colton census is incorrect one we have,
Was there any chance of Rachel's marriage to a Jackson seeing her maiden name is Jackson is that correct.
Not sure we can rule out the 1881 census. In the 1891 census is Tom Jackson registered Wortley 1879 no mmn. George 1881 and Joe 1883 also registered Wortley no mmn.
Ok Catherine
I will leave the 1881 census for now
As all the names match,just a different mother on there called Mary Jackson and states norfolk.born about 1829.
"Does the marriage definitely say her father was John not Joseph? What was her fathers occupation on the certificate? "
you've picked up on a very common problem when reading old documents from England ... They commonly shortened words and names to fit the space allowed in the form and then it was adopted into common use everywhere! Transcribers often misinterpreted how the shortened name looked especially with some of the script they used!
For example
Joseph may have looked like this
Joʰ and sometimes that superscripted h may have had a small line under it
This could make it look very much like John to a transcriptor's eye!