On 05/09/2013 11:51, Janet wrote: > ... > Was the Gaelic language prevalent in certain areas across Scotland, viz moreso in the > Highlands and what of Aberdeen? Aberdeen belongs firmly in the Scots-speaking Lowlands. A few of the more westerly parishes of Aberdeenshire would still have had some Gaelic speakers into the later 19th century. > Did the schools teach English from 1871 or were some of them totally Gaelic. Even in Gaelic-speaking areas, the school would be taught in English. > If the > latter, then it is more likely some of them would place a cross where they were required > to sign their name? I don't see why that should be. > It seems possible that children could write their name even if they could not read, or was > it the other way round; they could read but not write anything, even their name, without > encouragement. Those like mine who were born to parents in the printing industry may be > better off than others perhaps. By the later 19th century, children would be taught both to read and to write. Among my ancestors (who were all in fairly humble circumstances) I have come across only who failed to produce a signature when required for purposes of Registration, and I think that was probably fairly typical. Gavin Bell

Hello,   My friend has a picture of the cottage taken about 100 years ago, it has Aboyne engraved into the stone above the door.  There was some kind of wooden fretwork above the upstairs windows.  It looks like there was a row of three terraced cottages.   Hope this helps.   Regards Yvonne ________________________________ From: John Lovie <[email protected]> To: 'Yvonne' <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, 5 September 2013, 12:08 Subject: RE: [ABERDEEN] Aboyne Cottage, Kemnay Hi Yvonne,   Have a look at this page:  http://www.192.com/places/ab/ab51-5/ab51-5rn/ .    On this list, there’s an Aboyne Cottage at 22 Kendal Road in Kemnay.  I drove along there about an hour ago, if I’d known I’d have slowed down and looked.  There are a fair number of older houses along this road, so it’s quite possibly your one.  If the link doesn’t work, all I did was google “Aboyne Cottage” and Kemnay together, it was the second or third hit.   I know Craigievar Castle, but I fear I’m not very well up on the rules on what you have to do to get born there.  I would certainly expect a gamekeeper to have lived close by, probably in a cottage.   Regards, John   From:Yvonne [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 05 September 2013 11:40 To: John Lovie; [email protected] Subject: Re: [ABERDEEN] Aboyne Cottage, Kemnay   Hello John/listers,   I wondered if anyone knew of a cottage called "Aboyne Cottage", possibly in Kemnay?  If so, is it still standing?   My friend's gr grandmother lived there possibly around 1870's namely Alice Elizabeth Morgan.  My friend has a photograph of her g grandmother standing in front of the house door and it shows house name above the door.  She knows that he gr grandmother lived in Aberdeen.    Also, according to Alice Elizabeth's birth certificate she was born in Craigievar Castle (her father was a gamekeeper). Would the family have lived within the castle grounds for her to be born in the castle?   Any help and advice would be appreciated.   Regards Yvonne

All the snippets of information come together to create a bigger picture for better understanding. I found it worth purchasing a Will where one's ancestor might have made their way in life well. Curious, I purchased the Will of a Gt Uncle born 1822 who was a single man throughout his life, until he died in 1887. Spending his life as a printer compositor and living with one or other of the family, I found him leaving money for children of nieces and I wondered why to some and not others of the same parents. It became clearer to realise that they were the illegitimate children who could not have inherited under their parents' estate. Forced to separate for the purpose of finding work one of his niece left home to work in Edinburgh having had 3 or more children illegitimately leaving them behind and it was they who inherited. . She married in 1872 and went on to have more children thereafter. Another child of a niece from her first marriage did rather well from his Gt Uncle's Will for the purposes of his education and in the hands of an Uncle and Aunt, until he reached the age of 21 when he might otherwise have struggled. Janet ----- Original Message ----- From: "Gavin Bell" <[email protected]> > Education was the last of the functions to be transferred from the Kirk > to the State (Poor Law 1845, BDM Registration 1855, School Boards 1871) > but even before that, it would have been unusual indeed for any child to > have escaped education entirely. Each parish had its own "official" > school, funded by the Kirk and the Heritors, but often also a number of > independent schools or teachers who charged lower fees. > > But as Ray has just re-emphasised, reading and writing are two entirely > separate skills, and were not necessarily taught together.

Interesting, and useful Gavin. Was the Gaelic language prevalent in certain areas across Scotland, viz moreso in the Highlands and what of Aberdeen? Did the schools teach English from 1871 or were some of them totally Gaelic. If the latter, then it is more likely some of them would place a cross where they were required to sign their name? It seems possible that children could write their name even if they could not read, or was it the other way round; they could read but not write anything, even their name, without encouragement. Those like mine who were born to parents in the printing industry may be better off than others perhaps. Janet ----- Original Message ----- From: "Gavin Bell" <[email protected]> > > Education was the last of the functions to be transferred from the Kirk > to the State (Poor Law 1845, BDM Registration 1855, School Boards 1871) > but even before that, it would have been unusual indeed for any child to > have escaped education entirely. Each parish had its own "official" > school, funded by the Kirk and the Heritors, but often also a number of > independent schools or teachers who charged lower fees. > > But as Ray has just re-emphasised, reading and writing are two entirely > separate skills, and were not necessarily taught together.

Hello John/listers, I wondered if anyone knew of a cottage called "Aboyne Cottage", possibly in Kemnay?  If so, is it still standing? My friend's gr grandmother lived there possibly around 1870's namely Alice Elizabeth Morgan.  My friend has a photograph of her g grandmother standing in front of the house door and it shows house name above the door.  She knows that he gr grandmother lived in Aberdeen.  Also, according to Alice Elizabeth's birth certificate she was born in Craigievar Castle (her father was a gamekeeper). Would the family have lived within the castle grounds for her to be born in the castle? Any help and advice would be appreciated. Regards Yvonne   ________________________________

Hello Listers,   Was wondering if my email was received to the forum about the above cottage?   Regards Yvonne

On 04/09/2013 23:22, Ray Hennessy wrote: > HI Janet > > All this is outwith my knowledge and experience. Maybe Gavin will be able > to find more references for us. Flattery will get you many places, Ray, but I don't know if I can add a great deal on this one. > Universal education supposedly started in the mid-late Victorian period, I > think, but I suspect that teaching to read and basic arithmetic were the > first priorities. the bible just happened to be the most likely book for > anyone to get hold of. Education was the last of the functions to be transferred from the Kirk to the State (Poor Law 1845, BDM Registration 1855, School Boards 1871) but even before that, it would have been unusual indeed for any child to have escaped education entirely. Each parish had its own "official" school, funded by the Kirk and the Heritors, but often also a number of independent schools or teachers who charged lower fees. But as Ray has just re-emphasised, reading and writing are two entirely separate skills, and were not necessarily taught together. Gavin Bell

HI Janet All this is outwith my knowledge and experience. Maybe Gavin will be able to find more references for us. Universal education supposedly started in the mid-late Victorian period, I think, but I suspect that teaching to read and basic arithmetic were the first priorities. the bible just happened to be the most likely book for anyone to get hold of. Writing was* a lot more difficult and the 'shaky' crosses were probably a product of nerves and quill nibs. We have one or two statutory certificates with very shaky signatures - a combination of nerves, poor handwriting skills and unfamiliarity with ink. Many would have learnt to write on slates and would have mainly used pencil or charcoal sticks. The grave-diggers records that have survived were seldom written in ink and are more of a challenge to decipher than 17th century script! * Reference 'the difficulty of writing', when I was working very briefly in the Middle East, I got OK at reading numerals in Arabic [never tried letters!]. However my attempts are writing them, simple as they look, were pitiful. This is why many children who may be avid readers, sometimes find difficulty in achieving decent penmanship. It is partly that printed text usually uses a different font but it is also a measure of the number of body functions needed to achieve good letter forms. Ray Hennessy www.whatsinaname.net On 4 September 2013 09:58, Janet <[email protected]> wrote: > Your thoughts are useful Ray. Recalling what Gavin said earlier you have > confirmed my > reason for bringing this to the List that the cross in the box was not > necessarily an > indication of illiteracy. Compulsory registration of births, marriages > and deaths in > Scotland regardless of religion was imposed from 1855 replacing the civil > system of by > Parish of the Established Church. Education became compulsory in 1870 > and the census of > 1871 would have revealed how many children there were. > So, we have a window between 1855 to 1870 when it is possible people could > have been > illiterate unless they were strict church goers? Would a child have been > taught to write > their own name as soon as they could write even if parents were illiterate > at the time > when children had to be educated. > Would there have been a strong statement to make for Gaelic by writing a > cross instead of > a name in English, if the person knew their name as it would be written in > English? I > have seen some quite shaky crosses and others very firm. Is there a > difference between a > cross written by someone who has never hand a writing implement in their > hand, and a firm > hand by protest I wonder. > > Janet > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Ray Hennessy" <[email protected]> > > > > Hi Janet and Mary > > > > I don't know the answer to your question about Gaelic speakers, Janet, > but > > I do know that Gavin once pointed out that the inability to write didn't > > necessarily indicate the inability to read. In the period before say > 1900, > > the main reading matter for the lower classes would have been a bible and > > recognising the words handed down from the pulpit would have been easier > > than trying to write without considerable instruction. > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message >

Your thoughts are useful Ray. Recalling what Gavin said earlier you have confirmed my reason for bringing this to the List that the cross in the box was not necessarily an indication of illiteracy. Compulsory registration of births, marriages and deaths in Scotland regardless of religion was imposed from 1855 replacing the civil system of by Parish of the Established Church. Education became compulsory in 1870 and the census of 1871 would have revealed how many children there were. So, we have a window between 1855 to 1870 when it is possible people could have been illiterate unless they were strict church goers? Would a child have been taught to write their own name as soon as they could write even if parents were illiterate at the time when children had to be educated. Would there have been a strong statement to make for Gaelic by writing a cross instead of a name in English, if the person knew their name as it would be written in English? I have seen some quite shaky crosses and others very firm. Is there a difference between a cross written by someone who has never hand a writing implement in their hand, and a firm hand by protest I wonder. Janet ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ray Hennessy" <[email protected]> > Hi Janet and Mary > > I don't know the answer to your question about Gaelic speakers, Janet, but > I do know that Gavin once pointed out that the inability to write didn't > necessarily indicate the inability to read. In the period before say 1900, > the main reading matter for the lower classes would have been a bible and > recognising the words handed down from the pulpit would have been easier > than trying to write without considerable instruction.

Mary Patrick and Peter are the same name and were used interchangeably up to quite recently. It's what got me started on my website. I already knew that Elizabeth and Isabel were interchangeable but finding a Patrick who suddenly became Peter was a shock! Interesting information on the hedge schools. How great to have a record going back so many generations! Best wishes Ray Ray Hennessy www.whatsinaname.net On 4 September 2013 01:19, Mary Pavlovich <[email protected]> wrote: > Thanks for this interesting discussion about literacy and illiteracy. I > know have a new perspective from which to ponder why g-g grandpa used > the name Patrick then suddenly it's Peter. As for the hedge school (in > Ireland) , I think they covered standard subjects such as language arts > (Irish and English) and math. Other subjects were taught, I suppose > according to the skill and knowledge of the teacher. The schools were > unofficial and held sometimes beside a hedge, but often in a farm > building. I think they started in the fields because of the prohibition > on Catholic education. I'm told these schools flew under the radar and > were tolerated as time went on. Bible stories and folklore would > certainly have fit in. ( I do not speak as an expert). I do know that > one of g-g grandmother's grandchildren recounted how all the children > in the family for two generations learned their letters and numbers from > her before they started school. Of course, whether that was reading them > or writing them I now have to wonder. > Thanks again for the insights. > Mary > > On 9/3/2013 6:57 PM, Ray Hennessy wrote: > > Hi Janet and Mary > > > > I don't know the answer to your question about Gaelic speakers, Janet, > but > > I do know that Gavin once pointed out that the inability to write didn't > > necessarily indicate the inability to read. In the period before say > 1900, > > the main reading matter for the lower classes would have been a bible and > > recognising the words handed down from the pulpit would have been easier > > than trying to write without considerable instruction. > > > > In the case of Mary's g.g.grandmother, it is really quite possible that > she > > couldn't write but that didn't prevent her teaching the kids their > Biblical > > stories and local folklore. The term 'Hedgerow school' suggests that the > > teaching could have been mainly how to recognise useful plants and edible > > animals, probably stressing the 'God's gift' aspects! > > > > Just a thought!! > > > > Ray > > > > Ray Hennessy > > www.whatsinaname.net > > > > > > On 2 September 2013 19:38, Janet <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> On another Rootsweb List to which I am subscribed we have been having a > >> discussion about > >> education which moved to people needing to put a cross because they > could > >> not write their > >> name for the purposes of official record. It seems that it was not > >> necessarily because a > >> person could not read or write but that the requirement was to write a > >> name in English, > >> rather than Gaelic and some could not write their name in English. > >> Could the historians amongst us tell us more about it? We know that > not > >> every person had > >> an education sufficient to enable them to read or write but the > incidence > >> where language > >> was the reason is of interest. I think we need to know rather than draw > >> the wrong > >> conclusions. > >> > >> > >> Janet > >> > >> > >> ------------------------------- > >> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > >> [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > >> quotes in the subject and the body of the message > >> > > > > ------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message >

Hi Janet and Mary I don't know the answer to your question about Gaelic speakers, Janet, but I do know that Gavin once pointed out that the inability to write didn't necessarily indicate the inability to read. In the period before say 1900, the main reading matter for the lower classes would have been a bible and recognising the words handed down from the pulpit would have been easier than trying to write without considerable instruction. In the case of Mary's g.g.grandmother, it is really quite possible that she couldn't write but that didn't prevent her teaching the kids their Biblical stories and local folklore. The term 'Hedgerow school' suggests that the teaching could have been mainly how to recognise useful plants and edible animals, probably stressing the 'God's gift' aspects! Just a thought!! Ray Ray Hennessy www.whatsinaname.net On 2 September 2013 19:38, Janet <[email protected]> wrote: > On another Rootsweb List to which I am subscribed we have been having a > discussion about > education which moved to people needing to put a cross because they could > not write their > name for the purposes of official record. It seems that it was not > necessarily because a > person could not read or write but that the requirement was to write a > name in English, > rather than Gaelic and some could not write their name in English. > Could the historians amongst us tell us more about it? We know that not > every person had > an education sufficient to enable them to read or write but the incidence > where language > was the reason is of interest. I think we need to know rather than draw > the wrong > conclusions. > > > Janet > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message >

Thanks for this interesting discussion about literacy and illiteracy. I know have a new perspective from which to ponder why g-g grandpa used the name Patrick then suddenly it's Peter. As for the hedge school (in Ireland) , I think they covered standard subjects such as language arts (Irish and English) and math. Other subjects were taught, I suppose according to the skill and knowledge of the teacher. The schools were unofficial and held sometimes beside a hedge, but often in a farm building. I think they started in the fields because of the prohibition on Catholic education. I'm told these schools flew under the radar and were tolerated as time went on. Bible stories and folklore would certainly have fit in. ( I do not speak as an expert). I do know that one of g-g grandmother's grandchildren recounted how all the children in the family for two generations learned their letters and numbers from her before they started school. Of course, whether that was reading them or writing them I now have to wonder. Thanks again for the insights. Mary On 9/3/2013 6:57 PM, Ray Hennessy wrote: > Hi Janet and Mary > > I don't know the answer to your question about Gaelic speakers, Janet, but > I do know that Gavin once pointed out that the inability to write didn't > necessarily indicate the inability to read. In the period before say 1900, > the main reading matter for the lower classes would have been a bible and > recognising the words handed down from the pulpit would have been easier > than trying to write without considerable instruction. > > In the case of Mary's g.g.grandmother, it is really quite possible that she > couldn't write but that didn't prevent her teaching the kids their Biblical > stories and local folklore. The term 'Hedgerow school' suggests that the > teaching could have been mainly how to recognise useful plants and edible > animals, probably stressing the 'God's gift' aspects! > > Just a thought!! > > Ray > > Ray Hennessy > www.whatsinaname.net > > > On 2 September 2013 19:38, Janet <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On another Rootsweb List to which I am subscribed we have been having a >> discussion about >> education which moved to people needing to put a cross because they could >> not write their >> name for the purposes of official record. It seems that it was not >> necessarily because a >> person could not read or write but that the requirement was to write a >> name in English, >> rather than Gaelic and some could not write their name in English. >> Could the historians amongst us tell us more about it? We know that not >> every person had >> an education sufficient to enable them to read or write but the incidence >> where language >> was the reason is of interest. I think we need to know rather than draw >> the wrong >> conclusions. >> >> >> Janet >> >> >> ------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to >> [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the >> quotes in the subject and the body of the message >> > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message >

I have also heard that sometimes a wife, who was literate, would use a cross if signing with an illiterate husband so as not to shame him. But have no idea if there's anything in this or not. Mary On 3 Sep 2013, at 17:13, [email protected] wrote: > More specifically, it was more often that there > was no single established English version of their > name which they used, or in a few cases, even a > form of protest for having to use an English > version. I had a Gaelic-speaking 3xgt-grandfather > from Perthshire who was christened Domhnall. He > was quite literate, but after emigrating to Canada > as a young man in 1825, he from then on used > either Donald or Daniel interchangeably when > signing an English-language document. Family > legend has it that he said neither was his name > really, so he didn't see what difference it made. > His descendants doing family history research > could have argued the point with him, when his > childrens' birth registrations make it appear as > if his wife was bigamously producing children with > two fathers with the same surname :-) ! > > This has been discussed briefly on both my British > historians' list, and on my names scholars' list > referring to immigrants from many other cultures > attempting Anglicized versions of their names in > North America, particularly if their own language > didn't use the Roman alphabet. I'm sorry I can't > give a link reference in either case, but I just > remember the discussions in past years. > > Margaret Gibbs > > > > > On 02/09/2013 11:38 AM, Janet wrote: >> On another Rootsweb List to which I am subscribed we have been having a discussion about >> education which moved to people needing to put a cross because they could not write their >> name for the purposes of official record. It seems that it was not necessarily because a >> person could not read or write but that the requirement was to write a name in English, >> rather than Gaelic and some could not write their name in English. >> Could the historians amongst us tell us more about it? We know that not every person had >> an education sufficient to enable them to read or write but the incidence where language >> was the reason is of interest. I think we need to know rather than draw the wrong >> conclusions. >> >> >> Janet >> >> >> ------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message >> > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

John, Many thanks for the information you have given I contacted via the website with information about the "plumber and his wife". If I dont hear after a while I will contact Dundee University Archives as you suggest. Janet ----- Original Message ----- From: "John Hardy" <[email protected]> To: "Aberdeen Roots Web" <[email protected]> Sent: Saturday, August 31, 2013 9:36 AM Subject: [ABERDEEN] Sunnyside Staff Records > The records for Sunnyside Lunatic Asylum are held by Dundee University Archives. The > list of holdings in THB23 is being processed according to their web site. > I have the previous list on file which shows the archives include staff records > 1861 -1957 as well as patient records, newspaper cuttings, photographs, etc. > May be worth contacting them to confirm if he appears in the staff records and - as a > long-shot - the photographs of staff > > > > > > > Dundee University Archives > > THB 23 > Sunnyside Royal Hospital 1781-1995 > > Bye-laws, > Charters and Regulations, 1811-1913; Minutes, 1797-1971; Reports, 1835-1961; Patient > Records, 1813-1990; Patient > Clinical Records, 1818-1962; Staff Records, 1861-1957; Visitors Books, > 1891-1991; Deeds Registers, 1856-1915; Legal Documents, 1856-1945; Financial > Records, 1808-1983; Administrative Records, 1911-1991; Property Records, > 1885-1969; Sunnyside Bi-Centenary Celebration Records, 1976-1981; Leisure and > Recreation Records, 1870-1990; Sunnyside Bowling Club Records, 1973-1995; The > Sunnyside Chronicle, 1887-1973; Newspaper Cuttings, c1858-1929; Publications, > 1808-1988; Photographs, c1887-1990; Audio Cassettes, 1982; Plans, 1856-1950. > > > > > > John > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with > the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

There was an interesting article about Sunnyside in "The Leopard" magazine recently. It can be found at http://www.leopardmag.co.uk/feats/388/sunnyside-scotland-s-first-asylum. Alison On Sat, Aug 31, 2013 at 9:36 AM, John Hardy <[email protected]> wrote: > The records for Sunnyside Lunatic Asylum are held by Dundee University > Archives. The list of holdings in THB23 is being processed according to > their web site. > I have the previous list on file which shows the archives include staff > records 1861 -1957 as well as patient records, newspaper cuttings, > photographs, etc. > May be worth contacting them to confirm if he appears in the staff records > and - as a long-shot - the photographs of staff > > > > > > > Dundee University Archives > > THB 23 > Sunnyside Royal Hospital 1781-1995 > > Bye-laws, > Charters and Regulations, 1811-1913; Minutes, 1797-1971; Reports, > 1835-1961; Patient Records, 1813-1990; Patient > Clinical Records, 1818-1962; Staff Records, 1861-1957; Visitors Books, > 1891-1991; Deeds Registers, 1856-1915; Legal Documents, 1856-1945; > Financial > Records, 1808-1983; Administrative Records, 1911-1991; Property Records, > 1885-1969; Sunnyside Bi-Centenary Celebration Records, 1976-1981; Leisure > and > Recreation Records, 1870-1990; Sunnyside Bowling Club Records, 1973-1995; > The > Sunnyside Chronicle, 1887-1973; Newspaper Cuttings, c1858-1929; > Publications, > 1808-1988; Photographs, c1887-1990; Audio Cassettes, 1982; Plans, > 1856-1950. > > > > > > John > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message >

On 9/2/2013 2:38 PM, Janet wrote: > On another Rootsweb List to which I am subscribed we have been having a discussion about > education which moved to people needing to put a cross because they could not write their > name for the purposes of official record. It seems that it was not necessarily because a > person could not read or write but that the requirement was to write a name in English, > rather than Gaelic and some could not write their name in English. > Could the historians amongst us tell us more about it? We know that not every person had > an education sufficient to enable them to read or write but the incidence where language > was the reason is of interest. I think we need to know rather than draw the wrong > conclusions. > > > Janet > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message > Thanks for raising this question. My Irish gg grandmother was renowned in family lore as a scholar who had a hedgerow school in Roscommon, yet on her marriage certificate she made a mark. That always puzzled me. Mary

More specifically, it was more often that there was no single established English version of their name which they used, or in a few cases, even a form of protest for having to use an English version. I had a Gaelic-speaking 3xgt-grandfather from Perthshire who was christened Domhnall. He was quite literate, but after emigrating to Canada as a young man in 1825, he from then on used either Donald or Daniel interchangeably when signing an English-language document. Family legend has it that he said neither was his name really, so he didn't see what difference it made. His descendants doing family history research could have argued the point with him, when his childrens' birth registrations make it appear as if his wife was bigamously producing children with two fathers with the same surname :-) ! This has been discussed briefly on both my British historians' list, and on my names scholars' list referring to immigrants from many other cultures attempting Anglicized versions of their names in North America, particularly if their own language didn't use the Roman alphabet. I'm sorry I can't give a link reference in either case, but I just remember the discussions in past years. Margaret Gibbs On 02/09/2013 11:38 AM, Janet wrote: > On another Rootsweb List to which I am subscribed we have been having a discussion about > education which moved to people needing to put a cross because they could not write their > name for the purposes of official record. It seems that it was not necessarily because a > person could not read or write but that the requirement was to write a name in English, > rather than Gaelic and some could not write their name in English. > Could the historians amongst us tell us more about it? We know that not every person had > an education sufficient to enable them to read or write but the incidence where language > was the reason is of interest. I think we need to know rather than draw the wrong > conclusions. > > > Janet > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message >

Hi Goldie and Sharon I had the same feeling about the "New" Family search when it first came out. Then I found that, by judicial use of ALL the filters on the left of the screen, you can get results every bit as good as the "Old" system. In fact it can be better because it can give you whole families. And close relatives if you include a location name. Some of the features are irritating at first but playing around with them will usually give good results. I haven't been able to spend time on genealogy for some months now but at the beginning of the year I found lots of relatives of direct ancestors which I could never have found on the old system because it was so time consuming to look at each record. The new system gives you the essential details of a record directly in the hit list with a button on the right for each entry. Give it a try, again. Ray Hennessy www.whatsinaname.net On 3 September 2013 00:24, Goldie & Lido Doratti <[email protected]> wrote: > AND... is it the same one, Les? I found that so helpful, and the 'new and > improved' (?) system so useless. Reminds me of an old expression..."If it > ain't broke don't fix it"...I know, I know, life goes on and someone is > always 'fixing' things'. Likely that's all good, but sometimes the OLD > works as well. Regards to all from the capital of "Wasp County", Kamloops > BC Canada, Goldie > > -----Original Message----- > From: Les Horn > Sent: Monday, September 02, 2013 3:14 PM > To: Aberdeen Rootsweb List > Cc: Sharon Lamb > Subject: Re: [ABERDEEN] Off topic > > Sharon asked > > > Sorry to bother you, but I don't remember HOW to get to the OLD family > > search.org site. > > I presume your looking for the old IGI. If so click on Search. Click on > "All Published Record Collections." Start to type "International > Genealogical . . ." in the Filter by Collection name box and voila !! > > Regards > Les > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes > in the subject and the body of the message > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message >

Sharon asked > Sorry to bother you, but I don't remember HOW to get to the OLD family search.org site. I presume your looking for the old IGI.  If so click on Search.  Click on "All Published Record Collections."  Start to type "International Genealogical . . ." in the Filter by Collection name box and voila !! Regards Les

https://familysearch.org/search/collection/igi I think this is the site you may be thinking of. I'm not convinced it has precisely all the records it had before the upgrade. Janet ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sharon Lamb" <[email protected]> To: "ABERDEEN list - digest" <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, September 02, 2013 8:24 PM Subject: [ABERDEEN] Off topic > Hi: > > Sorry to bother you, but I don't remember HOW to get to the OLD family > search.org site. > > Hopefully it hasn't been deleted as I think there was mention of it recently > > > Thanks > > Sharon