formatting link
?action=view¤t=Thomas.jpgI don't think you need a DNA test on this one.
- posted
11 years ago
OT DNA tests
Loading thread data ...
- Vote on answer
- posted
11 years ago
formatting link
>> I don't think you need a DNA test on this one.
So what happened to him? Made it through the war & then died so young?
- Vote on answer
- posted
11 years ago
formatting link
>
formatting link
>
The roof collaped at Bentley colliery.
- Vote on answer
- posted
11 years ago
? Brian
- Vote on answer
- posted
11 years ago
I know. You cannot see it.
It's two photos. I am scanning all the old family photos and there is a photo of my nephew (aged 5) and a photo of his great great Grandad (aged 5) and it looks like the same person.
Adam
Brian Gaff wrote:
formatting link
>
formatting link
>
- Vote on answer
- posted
11 years ago
formatting link
> >
formatting link
> >
Sad. I expect his widow was left to starve too.
- Vote on answer
- posted
11 years ago
formatting link
> > >
formatting link
> > >
She was, but she did not.
- Vote on answer
- posted
11 years ago
formatting link
> > > >
Fought in WW1 as well I suppose?
- Vote on answer
- posted
11 years ago
Possibly but also very possibly not: coal miners were in a "reserved occupation" so were not called up; and some of the many who volunteered were sent back to their pits when it was realised that they were worth more digging coal than digging trenches.
- Vote on answer
- posted
11 years ago
Subject to my faults in my rapidly deteriorating mental arithmentic that means the *average* age of the parent when each generation was born was
- They didn't hang about in your family.
- Vote on answer
- posted
11 years ago
Indeed many miners volunteered as they thought fighting a war had better conditions than coal mining.
I would have to check to see if he was or was not.
- Vote on answer
- posted
11 years ago
That is 5 years longer than the Barnsley average:-)
It was quite common in those day AFAIK. There was not the availablity to the pill until my Mums generation (and then you could only get it if you were married).
But I suspect your mental arithmetic is wrong and you have added a generation in your calculation:-)
Jim 5 was in 1905. William was born in 1919, Jim aged 19 when Robert was born. Robert was born in 1944, William aged 25 when Robert was born. Daniel was born in 1972, Robert aged 27 when Daniel was born Thomas was born in 2006, Daniel aged 35 when Thomas was born
At a rough guess with the dates of their bithdays. But I am knackered so I could be wrong!
William and Thomas are first borns (info that makes a difference as to the the age of the parent)
- Vote on answer
- posted
11 years ago
Sorry, yes, I divided by the N generations rather than N-1.