Go to Table of Contents
Table of Contents
Diana, Goddess of the Hunt for Ancestors!
 
Go to Every-Name Index
Every-Name Index
William CHILCOTT
Hannah LOVEALL
Husband:  William CHILCOTT
Birth:  3 Apr 1784, Baltimore Co., MD
Death:  6 Jun 1869, Huntingdon Co., PA
Father:  Richard CHILCOTT
Mother:  Ruth LOVEALL
Marriage:  2 Feb 1806, Huntingdon Co., PA
Wife:  Hannah LOVEALL
Birth:  12 Jan 1782, Huntingdon Co., PA
Death:  3 May 1867
Father:  William LOVEALL could be this William LOVEALL
Children born in Trough Creek Valley, Huntingdon Co., PA:
1.  Mary CHILCOTT, b. 13 Nov 1806; d. ca. 1832
2.  Amon CHILCOTT, b. 23 Oct 1808; d. 3 Feb 1843
3.  Ruth L. CHILCOTT, b. 28 Jan 1811; d. 25 Aug 1883, Three Springs, Huntingdon Co., PA; m. George D. HUDSON
4.  Ephraim CHILCOTT, b. 28 June 1813; d. 9/23 Jan 1893
5.  Violet CHILCOTT, b. 3 May 1815; d. 1828/9
6.  Rachel CHILCOTT, b. 29 Nov 1817; d. 3 Mar 1841
7.  Richard CHILCOTT, b. 5 Jan 1821; d. 8 Nov 1903
8.  Emeline CHILCOTT, b. 26 Jan 1824; d. 20 July 1920
Other kin (nieces and nephew?) born in PA:
.  Elisha CHILCOTT, b. 1832/3
.  Aulthy? CHILCOTT [female], b. 1833/4
.  Mary E. CHILCOTT, b. 1835/6
Keywords for search engines:  genealogy; USA, US, United States, Maryland, Pennsylvania

Sources:

1.  Marriage Record:

2.  1810 Census Index and Digital Images (online at Ancestry.com; Image #3 of 3; extracted by Diana Gale Matthiesen):
1810 PA Huntingdon Co. Union Twp. p. 3 W Chilcoat 10100-00020-00
These data indicate:
No. & Sex Age Class Therefore Born Individuals Inferred
1 male 9 or under 1800-1810 = Amon (b. 1808)
1 male 16-25 1784-1794 = William (b. 1784) 
2 females 26-44 1765-1784 = Hannah (b. 1782)
= ?
I have no explanation for the absence of Mary (b. 1806).  Listed one line above Hannah's father, William LOVEALL; other kin mostly on page 2.

3.  1820 Census Index and Digital Images (online at Ancestry.com; Image #3 of 6; extracted by Diana Gale Matthiesen):
1820 PA Huntingdon Co. Union Twp. p. 42 William Chilcoat 110010-31010
These data indicate:
No. & Sex  Age Class Therefore Born Individuals Inferred
1 male 9 or under 1810-1820 = Ephraim (b. 1813)
1 male 10-15 1804-1810 = Amon (b. 1808)
1 male 26-44 1775-1794 = William (b. 1784) 
3 females 9 or under 1810-1820 = Rachel (b. 1817)
= Violet (b. 1815)
= Ruth (b. 1811)
1 female 10-15 1804-1810 = Mary (b. 1806)
1 female 26-44 1775-1794 = Hannah (b. 1782)
Listed one line below Elijah CORBIN, who is nine lines below Richard CHILCOTE.

4.  1830 Census Index and Digital Images (online at Ancestry.com; Image #1 of 18 mis-indexed as being in Barree Twp.; extracted by Diana Gale Matthiesen):
1830 PA Huntingdon Co. Union Twp. p. 14 William Chilcott 010 110 100 - 011 110 100
These data indicate:
No. & Sex  Age Class Therefore Born Individuals Inferred
1 male 5-9 1820-1825 = Richard (b. 1821)
1 male 15-19 1810-1815 = Ephraim (b. 1813)
1 male 20-29 1800-1810 = Amon (b. 1808)
1 male 40-49 1780-1790 = William (b. 1784) 
1 female 5-9 1820-1825 = Emeline (b. 1824)
1 female 10-14 1815-1820 = Rachel (b. 1817)
1 female 15-19 1810-1815 = Ruth (b. 1811)
1 female 20-29 1800-1810 = Mary (b. 1806) 
1 female 40-49 1780-1790 = Hannah (b. 1782) 
Listed two lines below Ezekiel CORBIN, who is just below Benjamin GREENLAND, who is just below Richard CHILCOTT, who is just below Joshua GREENLAND, in one direction; and, in the other direction, six lines above Benjamin CORBIN, who is six lines above James CHILCOTT.

5.  1840 Census Index and Digital Images (online at Ancestry.com; Image #3-4 of 10; extracted by Diana Gale Matthiesen):
1840 PA Huntingdon Co. Union Twp. pp. 264B-265A William Chilcot 000 010 010 - 110 100 010 0100000
These data indicate:
No. & Sex Age Class Therefore Born Individuals Inferred
1 male 20-29 1810-1820 = Ephraim (b. 1813)
1 male 50-59 1780-1790 = William (b. 1784)
1 female 4 or under 1835-1840 = Mary (b. 1835/6)
1 female 5-9 1830-1835 = Aulthy (b. 1833/4)
1 female 15-19 1820-1825 = Emeline (b. 1824)
1 female 50-59 1780-1790 = Hannah (b. 1782)
1 person engaged in agriculture
Listed next to son, Richard CHILCOT (000 100 - 000 100), an apparent newlywed.

6.  1850 Census Index/Microfilm (online at GenealogyLibrary.com):  Union Twp., Huntingdon Co., PA, p. 202, 75/75, enumerated 5 Oct 1850 (extracted by Diana Gale Matthiesen):
William Chilcote 66 M Farmer 8000 Maryland
Hannah    " 68 F     "
Ephraim   " 26 M Farmer   Penna
Emeline   " 23 F     "
Aulthy?   " 16 F     "
Sabina Corbin 16 F     "
Elisha Chilcote 17 M Labr   "
Mary E    " 14 F     "
Ephraim was 37, not 26.  Sabina CORBIN is the child of their late daughter, Mary (CHILCOTT) CORBIN.  Listed next to son, Richard CHILCOTE (æ 25 should be 29).  

7.  Messages in the Chilcott Family Genealogy Forum (online at GenForum.com), including a post by Virgil Chilcott:
1.  Mary Chilcott b. 13 Nov 1806, d. about 1832
2.  Amon Chilcott b. 23 Oct 1808, d. 3 Feb 1843
3.  Ruth Chilcott b. 28 Jan 1811, d. 25 Aug 1883
4.  Ephraim Chilcott b. 28 June 1813, d. 9 or 23 Jan 1893
5.  Violet Chilcott b. 3 May 1815, died at age 13 years
6.  Rachel Chilcott b. 29 Nov 1817, d. 3 Mar 1841
7.  Richard Chilcott b. 5 Jan 1821, d. 8 Nov 1903
8.  Emeline Chilcott b. 26 Jan 1824, d. 20 July 1920

8.  WorldConnect / Ancestry World Trees (online at RootsWeb.com/Ancestry.com).

Contact Home
Page
Table of
Contents
DNA
Hub
Biddle
DNA
Carrico
DNA
Corbin
DNA
Cupp
DNA
Danish
DNA
Ely
DNA
Lyon(s)
DNA
Rasey
DNA
Reason
DNA
Rose
DNA
Straub
DNA
Pedigree
Charts
Census
Records
Every-Name
Indices
Everything I have is online at this web site.  I have no further information, so please don't write asking me if I do.
On the other hand, if you feel I've made an error, please don't hesitate to notify me, but in which case,

please include a link to the page you are referencing.
There are over 18,000 pages on this web site, and I simply don't remember every page, much less every person on every page.

"The Cloud" is double-speak for "dumb terminal on a main frame." Been there; done that. Never again.
You are giving away not only your privacy, but control of your data, your apps, and your computer to a corporation. Is that really where you want to go?
The IT guys on the big iron hated the Personal Computer because it gave users freedom and power; now they've conned you into being back under their control.
Table of Contents
Go to Table of Contents
 
Privacy Policy ______
Every-Name Index
Go to Every-Name Index

¤