You are here: Desborough > Surnames > Goodman > Benjamin Goodman (1853 - )

Desborough People
Benjamin Goodman


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


   6245 1.0 Benjamin Goodmanmale
6249 Father: Joseph Goodman    b. about 1822 at Wellingborough, Northamptonshire
6250 Mother: Elizabeth March    b. about 1822 at Rothwell, Northamptonshire
Birth: about 1853, at Wellingborough, NorthamptonshireCensus
Baptism: 07 Mar 1861 at Wellingborough, NorthamptonshireIGI

Married: Louisa Cobb  1878BMD
b. about 1854, at Little Harrowden, NorthamptonshireCensus

   62472.1 Frederick Goodmanmale
Birth: about 1880, at Wellingborough, NorthamptonshireCensus
Baptism: 26 Aug 1883 at DesboroughIGI

   62482.2 Emily Elizabeth Goodman   also known as Emma Goodmanfemale
Birth: about Nov 1880, at Wellingborough, NorthamptonshireCensus
Baptism: 26 Aug 1883 at DesboroughIGI

   76322.3 Sidney Goodmanmale
Baptism: 01 Aug 1883 at DesboroughIGI



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