You are here: Desborough > Surnames > Monk > Ada Monk (1839 - )

Desborough People
Ada Monk


Notes about the page layout and content are at the end. Change the display type here:


   17446 1.0 Ada Monkfemale
17451 Father: Thomas Monk   b. about 1808 at Foxton, Leicestershire
17452 Mother: Elizabeth [not known]   b. about 1809 at Great Easton, Leicestershire
Birth: about 1839, at Foxton, LeicestershireCensus

Married: Isaac Yeomans  at St Thomas, Birmingham, Warwickshire 05 Aug 1860IGI
b. 07 May 1832, at Desborough  d. about 1885, age: 53y

Birth: Jan 1861, at DesboroughCensus
Married: Susan Wearenear  01 Dec 1888Mrg Cert
b. about 1856

   174543.1 Walter G Yeomansmale
Birth: 1890, at Chelsea, LondonCensus

   174482.2 Lucy Yeomansfemale
Birth: about 1863, at Great Bowden, LeicestershireCensus

   174492.3 Tom Yeomansmale
Birth: about 1874, at Brawith, YorkshireCensus

   174502.4 Robert Yeomansmale
Birth: about 1880, at Husbands Bosworth, LeicestershireCensus



The numbers at the right of the page are unique reference numbers.

The source follows each piece of information. If the source is underlined a full citation will be shown when you hover over it. Click on any link to switch to that person's details page.

Estimated dates of birth (treat with caution - they could be decades out!)
:- where there is a marriage or children recorded, the date is estimated at 16-18 years before the earliest date;
:- where there is only a burial known, if the person or their spouse is described as "old", the birth is estimated at 50 years earlier; if they are described as "very old", the birth is estimated at 60 years earlier; if neither, the birth is estimated at 18 years earlier.

Estimated dates of death are given as a visual aid to point up whether or not they survived their spouse.

Before 1752 the calendar year started on 25th March; dates where the year appears as, eg: "1650/51" show the year as it would have been given at the time (in this example 1650), and the year by the modern calendar (1651). Jan-Mar dates before 1752 which don't show this "double-dating" are from secondary sources which haven't made clear which dating system has been used.

Source Codes

top of page