James Hitchcock
Notes about the page layout and content are at the end. Change the display type here:
4346
1.0 James Hitchcockmale
Pedigree
Birth: about 1836, at Horne, Surrey
Census
Baptism: 29 May 1836 at Horne, Surrey
Parish Reg
Additional information:
Baptism Record
2531Married:
Sarah Leney
at Crowhurst, Surrey 17 Dec 1864
IGI
b.
about 1844, at Crowhurst, Surrey
Birth: about 1865, at Lingfield, Surrey
Census1500Married:
Lizzie Razzell
about 1888
BMD
b.
about 1867, at Horley, Surrey
Birth: about 1888, at Horley, SurreyCensus
Birth: about 1889, at Horley, SurreyCensus
Birth: about 1891, at Horley, SurreyCensus
Birth: about 1892, at Horley, SurreyCensus
Birth: about 1894, at Horley, SurreyCensus
Birth: about 1866, at Tandridge, SurreyCensus
Birth: about 1867, at Sandring, SurreyCensus
Birth: about 1868, at Tandridge, SurreyCensus
Birth: about 1870, at Tandridge, SurreyCensus
Birth: about 1871, at Sandring, SurreyCensus
Birth: about 1879, at Godstone, SurreyCensus
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 like, 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