Notes |
- The death certificate for Constant CHURCH, names her Elizabeth BACHMAN, as does the 1881 Census; however, there is some question as to whether she is the Elizabeth BACKMAN b. 17 Dec 1821 or b. 21 Nov 1827.
On the one hand, her age at death, as reflected on her marker, and her civil and SSAC death records, would place her birth in 1821. On the other hand, we have the following:
a. Various other censuses consistently place her birth in 1825
b. The three sources which place her birth in 1821 can probably be traced to a single source--the informant of her death, daughter-in-law Nellie BACKMAN
c. Her SSAC burial record places her month of birth in November, and her 1901 Census entry gives her day and moth of birth as 21 Nov [1825], which is the exact day and moth of birth of the latter Elizabeth BACKMAN above
d. It is believed that Elizabeth BACKMAN 1821 m. Langshaw CLARKE in 1842.
So, on balance, I believe that the weight of evidence points toward her being Elizabeth 1827. [Bob H]
- The death certificate for Constant CHURCH, names her Elizabeth BACHMAN, as does the 1881 Census; however, there is some question as to whether she is the Elizabeth BACKMAN b. 17 Dec 1821 or b. 21 Nov 1827.
On the one hand, her age at death, as reflected on her marker, and her civil and SSAC death records, would place her birth in 1821. On the other hand, we have the following:
a. Various other censuses consistently place her birth in 1825
b. The three sources which place her birth in 1821 can probably be traced to a single source--the informant of her death, daughter-in-law Nellie BACKMAN
c. Her SSAC burial record places her month of birth in November, and her 1901 Census entry gives her day and moth of birth as 21 Nov [1825], which is the exact day and moth of birth of the latter Elizabeth BACKMAN above
d. It is believed that Elizabeth BACKMAN 1821 m. Langshaw CLARKE in 1842.
So, on balance, I believe that the weight of evidence points toward her being Elizabeth 1827. [Bob H]
|