You are here: Desborough > Surnames > Bennett > Charles Newman Bennett (1861 - )

Desborough People
Charles Newman Bennett

 

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

Display


   3180 1.0 Charles Newman Bennettmale
1198 Father: William Bennett
994 Mother: Rowena Manton   b. 15 Aug 1841 at Desborough
Birth: about 1861, at DesboroughCensus

Pedigree
   3416
Married: Ada Elizabeth Binley  about 1884BMD
b. about 1867, at Tur Langton, Leicestershire

   60432.1 Alfred C Bennetmale
Birth: about 1885, at DesboroughCensus

   92402.2 Emily L Bennettfemale
Birth: about 1886, at DesboroughCensus

   60442.3 Albert Bennetmale
Birth: about Sep 1890, at DesboroughCensus
Baptism: 23 Mar 1902 at DesboroughIGI

   92412.4 Frederick Bennettmale
Birth: about 1894, at DesboroughCensus
Baptism: 23 Mar 1902 at DesboroughIGI

   92422.5 Oliver Bennettmale
Birth: about 1897, at DesboroughCensus
Baptism: 23 Mar 1902 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