Puzzle solutions

Puzzle corner solutions

Turnbull/Bethell

The transcriber of this Inscription decided that the surname was BETHELL and transcribed that in uppercase. The data inputter thought that the surname could be TURNBULL so checked both people with both surnames and found nothing.
Marion is an unusual name and a search on that produced a few results including TURBILL. A double check on the death of Thomas; and a triple check on their marriage sorted it out.

Saunderson

Initially the surname was suspect but that proved to be correct. The son’s year/age was obviously wrong but took some time to sort out due to the mismatch of his
mother’s name.

Cowton

This appeared to be a simple problem but nothing worked. Since Dorothy is a relatively unusual forename a search for a marriage between Dorothy and Thomas between 1947 and 1958 produced a workable list. Scanning through that found GOWTON. Double checked the death; and triple checked with the first marriage, except that she appears to be Ann H rather than Hannah.

Eroll

Checking the death with the obvious spellings, and with the phonetic spelling, produced nothing. Deaths were then searched with Margaret + 1941 + Northumberland. Scrolling down the results identified a Margaret ROLL aged 63. The marriage entry confirmed that the husband is Charles E ROLL, not Charles EROLL.

Steel

The first step is to calculate the year of birth for everyone. It is then obvious that George cannot be the son of either Richard or James. Neither can James be the husband of a daughter of Richard. James appears to be the problem. Check his death and he is not there in 1962. The [30] indicates that the stone is difficult to read so the year of death may be wrong. Another general search locates a death in 1902 for James aged 30.
Using this to revise the date of birth for James shows that George is the son of James; and James is of the right age to marry a daughter of Richard. A search for a marriage to Sarah STEEL fails; but a search for a marriage to Sarah produces a workable list. They probably married just before the birth of George and testing those show that James married with Sarah STEELE.

Gleadhill

This appears to be a straightforward search. Check the death of GLEDHILL in 1915/1916. It fails. Re-read the question. The data inputter has indexed the name incorrectly. Correct the error in the spreadsheet and try again with GLEADHILL. It still fails. Try with phonetic surnames and the obvious name is GLADHALL. The name is close; the location and date are correct; but an age of 50 for a private!!!!
Try the cwgc with the various surnames. They fail. Try George + 30/12/1915 and the first name is George GLEADHALL, a Private in the Devonshire Regiment, but with no age. Have a look at the attached documents and the headstone instructions have the surname typed as GLEADHILL, later amended by hand to GLEADHALL.
His name appears to be George, and his surname is probably GLEADHALL, with his death mis-registered as GLADHALL; and his headstone inscribed as GLEADHILL.
A search on Ancestry finds two (incomplete) trees, which suggest that he was born in Sheffield in 1866; although there is also a significant variation in the spelling of the surnames.
If you were expecting a solution then think again. This is one of those puzzles where there is no answer. If you have the time you can research this further and then submit your work to the Journal Editor.

Cwgc has:
GLEADHALL GEORGE G 30/12/1915 Private Devonshire Regiment 86th Provisional Bn. United Kingdom ‘3823’ ASHINGTON (HOLY SEPULCHRE) CHURCHYARD 1160

The amendment to the name is shown on this typed document. There is fuller information about the casualty on this handwritten document.

Ewart

A quick check on a marriage fails. Ewart is a local name so is probably correct but a search for a marriage for Ewart without a surname produces far too many. A search for a birth of MURRAY + 1904 produces hundreds but using the find option in edit and searching for Ewart gives a good option, and in the right location.
A new search for a marriage finds this 1954 marriage. This is consistent with the inscription but marrying at an age of 51 suggests that this is his second marriage. A further search finds his (probable) first marriage in 1928. Not a satisfactory conclusion to the original assertion but that is the way family history can be.

Proudlock

A search on a death for Alan+Proudlock produces just one result. A search for a birth also produces one result. Search for Proudlock+Mar+1922 identifies the twin (and the mother’s maiden name). Note that twins do not have to be registered on the same day so could have completely different reference numbers, but realistically a parent registering one will also register the other.
A search on a death for Harold+Proudlock fails. freebmd has not entered recent records so that proves nothing. Try 192.com for Harold+Proudlock and there is one result. Guess at where he may be living and hey presto there he is: living on Tyneside, and last recorded in 2008, so he has probably died very recently.
Not all searches are for ancestors – we can use the same techniques to locate living relatives. Also used by private investigators to locate … … (let your imagination run wild!).

[Last updated: 24th September 2015]