You are here: Desborough > Surnames > Langman > Edwin Langman (1849 - )

Desborough People
Edwin Langman

 

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

Display


   9035 1.0 Edwin Langmanmale

Birth: about 1849, at Chatteris, CambridgeshireCensus

Pedigree
   9036
Married: Mary Lucy Eayrs  about 1872BMD
b. about 1848, at Brigstock, NorthamptonshireCensus
Birth: about 1876, at Openshaw, LancashireCensus

Additional information:
9038
Married: Mary Ellen Gentle  1899BMD
b. about 1874, at Harlton, CambridgeshireCensus

   90393.1 Winifred Edna Langmanfemale
Birth: about Mar 1901, at DesboroughCensus

   167153.2 William Harold Langmanmale
Birth: about 1903, at DesboroughCensus

   167163.3 Philip Thomas Langmanmale
Birth: about 1908, at DesboroughCensus

   167173.4 Alice Evelyn Langmanfemale
Birth: about 1910, at DesboroughCensus

   167183.5 Frederick Edward Langmanmale
Birth: about Jan 1911, at DesboroughCensus

 


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