You are here: Desborough > Surnames > Tailby > Mabel Amelia Tailby (1872 - )

Desborough People
Mabel Amelia Tailby

 

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

Display


   3170 1.0 Mabel Amelia Tailby   also known as Maud Mabel Amelia Tailbyfemale
866 Father: William Deacon Tailby   b. About Jun 1848 at Desborough   d. 1934
3167 Mother: Amelia Rose Mee   b. about 1847 at Cheltenham, Gloucestershire   d. 06 Jan 1913
Birth: 1872, at Milverton, WarwickshireBMD

Pedigree
   16987
Married: William Dean  1895BMD
b. about 1873, at Selston, Nottinghamshire

   169882.1 Dorothy Hannah Deanfemale
Birth: about 1897, at Manton, RutlandCensus
Baptism: 21 Feb 1897 at DesboroughIGI

   169892.2 Millicent Rose Deanfemale
Birth: about 1898, at Manton, RutlandCensus
Baptism: 10 Apr 1898 at DesboroughIGI

   169902.3 Reginald Tailby Deanmale
Birth: about 1905, at Barrow on Soar, LeicestershireCensus
Baptism: 23 Apr 1905 at DesboroughIGI

 


Notes

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