EARWAKER-L Archives

Archiver > EARWAKER > 2001-09 > 0999513024


From: "Ian Cairns" <>
Subject: Re: discussion on height
Date: Mon, 3 Sep 2001 11:30:24 +0100
References: <MABBJMEPDNDICKAPOPMCGEHODAAA.earwaker@lineone.net>


I've been following the discussion on height with some interest, as it
featured significantly in my own ERRICKER researches.

My father was 6ft 3 ins (190.5cms); I am 6ft 5 ins (196cms) and my
younger brother 6ft 4ins (193cms). My mother is now less than her
maximum 5ft 8ins (173cms). So, most of the height in our family seems to
have come through my father's family.

My father was born - in a small Surrey village in 1923 - out of wedlock
to a Lucy PUTTOCK, who had come from another smaller Surrey village. No
father was named on the birth certificate, and for some time we thought
it would be impossible to determine the father's name. We made contact
with descendants of the Puttock family to find out that Lucy Puttock was
only 5ft 6ins (167.5cms) - so, most of my father's height came through
his natural father, and we knew we would have to look for a very tall
man in a very small village. By this time, we had heard from a distant
relative on the adoptive side of the family that Lucy had stated that
the natural father was a policeman, already married and that my father
would have had several brothers if he had grown up in this family. Our
relative once had known the surname but couldn't remember it after all
this time. We approached some of the older members of the Surrey village
to hear that the ERRICKER family were by far the tallest family in the
village - the sons were well over 6ft. Searching through the county
records gave us the denouement: There was a John ERRICKER, a retired
village bobby / policeman in his mid-40s, who had seven sons and one
daughter by his wife - only some of whom were still living at home. His
police records put John at 5ft 11ins (180cms), which was an extremely
good height for a Victorian. We went back to our distant relative with
the suggestion of the surname ERRICKER, which she confirmed immediately
and unambiguously. We have subsequently been searching for a photo of
John ERRICKER, since my father and I had a strong father-son similar
appearance, and I feel I could tell whether John ERRICKER was my
grandfather. This photo has sadly not yet been forthcoming. So, although
the surname remains an allegation, we feel that the circumstantial
evidence is so strong that the photo is only necessary for confirmation,
and I have adjusted my ancestry to include the ERRICKER family - with
Maureen LUXTON's wonderful assistance - back to the 1600s.

I haven't been able to locate any heights further back, so I'm unaware
if the height is an ERRICKER trait any further back.

Ian


This thread: