Janet I assumed Ruth meant deceased people as she referred specifically to "names and death dates". I agree with you and wouldn't recommend ever posting living relatives onto this or any other List without a compelling reason - and probably not even then. Ray 2009/11/30 Janet <wightway@clara.co.uk> > Whilst I have to agree with what you have said about images being capable > of being purchased, I think putting up names to a genealogy list for the > purposes of contacting living family ought to be done with caution. Louise > has mentioned those still living and because of the uncertainty of the > outcome I think if the purpose is only for finding living members full names > and dates should not be given to all members or subscribers to List. The > unknown quantity in information causing someone distress and anguish as well > as the possibility of releasing information that people didn't want known > should not be given out to the whole world. We just dont know what might > be uncovered and people have rights to privacy. > > I fully expect there will be some who disagree with me but I've seen both > sides of this. > > Janet > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Ray Hennessy" <ray@whatsinaname.net> > > > Hi Ruth > > > > Scotland's People make full images of Statutory death certificates > available > > to anyone up to 1958 so you can certainly put all those details on the > > List. They also index deaths registered up to 2006 so there seems to be > no > > reason to bar names and dates for deaths in that period. > > > > In fact all these details - probably more or less up to date - are > available > > to the public at the appropriate Registry offices so I would guess that > > "revealing" such details is perfectly permissible. > > > > -- > > Best wishes > > > > Ray >

If you don't have access through an institutional subscription then you can pay for access to the Bristish library newspaper collection. However, it is releatively expenseive, and you can only buy access for 24 hours/7 days. http://newspapers.bl.uk/blcs/ Here is an article from the Aberdeen Journal 5 Jan 1891 MAN DROWNED AT PETERHEAD. On Saturday morning about five, while a fisherman was passing the slip at the north end of Port Henry Harbour, Peterhead, he observed the body of a man lying on the rocks. The body was conveyed to the deadhouse, and identified as that of Andrew Pennant, joiner, Cairntrodlie. Deceased was last seen about nine on Friday night, and it is supposed he had fallen over the side of the quay in the dark and fractured his skull. Deceased was over sixty years of age, and unmarried. Hope this helps Joyce On 30/11/2009 20:59, Janice Zwicker wrote: > Hello Listers, > > Does anyone know of a way for those of us living outside the UK to access the Aberdeen Journal online? I am hoping to find an obituary for an Andrew PENNANT who died in Peterhead 3 Jan 1891 of a skull fracture. > > Thanks for all your generous advice and assistance. > > Jan in > Massachusetts > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to ABERDEEN-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message > >

Whilst I have to agree with what you have said about images being capable of being purchased, I think putting up names to a genealogy list for the purposes of contacting living family ought to be done with caution. Louise has mentioned those still living and because of the uncertainty of the outcome I think if the purpose is only for finding living members full names and dates should not be given to all members or subscribers to List. The unknown quantity in information causing someone distress and anguish as well as the possibility of releasing information that people didn't want known should not be given out to the whole world. We just dont know what might be uncovered and people have rights to privacy. I fully expect there will be some who disagree with me but I've seen both sides of this. Janet ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ray Hennessy" <ray@whatsinaname.net> > > Hi Ruth > > Scotland's People make full images of Statutory death certificates available > to anyone up to 1958 so you can certainly put all those details on the > List. They also index deaths registered up to 2006 so there seems to be no > reason to bar names and dates for deaths in that period. > > In fact all these details - probably more or less up to date - are available > to the public at the appropriate Registry offices so I would guess that > "revealing" such details is perfectly permissible. > > -- > Best wishes > > Ray

Sorry, that should have been first *and surnames* - not much use without! Louise > I would think that putting up a lineage with simply first names,

I would think that putting up a lineage with simply first names, and perhaps for earlier generations (but not for very recent ones) middle names/dates/places would catch any possible relatives still living (assuming they come across your post somehow). Leaving off any potentially sensitive info such as illegitimacy would probably be wise, unless very long ago. I don't think it should only apply if you're looking for living relatives either - doing it when researching for any purpose, especially if there is the chance of finding living relatives (even if that is not the intention - and there is always a chance) would be sensitive. Louise > because of the uncertainty of the outcome I think if the purpose is only > for finding > living members full names and dates should not be given to all members or > subscribers to > List. The unknown quantity in information causing someone distress and > anguish as well > as the possibility of releasing information that people didn't want known > should not be > given out to the whole world. We just dont know what might be uncovered > and people have > rights to privacy.

YEARS would be great, dates even better!! Goldie ----- Original Message ----- From: "Julie & Neil Symons" <jnsymons@xtra.co.nz> To: <aberdeen@rootsweb.com> Sent: Monday, November 30, 2009 7:12 PM Subject: [ABERDEEN] Stephen Family > Hi > > Looking for descendants of John Stephen & Helen Stephen (nee Tait). Their > children were Mary, James, John, Helen, Robert Duthie & Alexander Buchan. > They lived in the village of Cairnbulg, and their parish was Rathen. > > Any assistant would be much appreciated. > > Thank you. > > Julie Symons > NZ > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > ABERDEEN-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message >

Hello Listers, Does anyone know of a way for those of us living outside the UK to access the Aberdeen Journal online? I am hoping to find an obituary for an Andrew PENNANT who died in Peterhead 3 Jan 1891 of a skull fracture. Thanks for all your generous advice and assistance. Jan in Massachusetts

Dragon in Chinese would be something like Leung or Lung. 'Ang ngu' or similar (the 's' doesn't really fit in Chinese) might be interpreted as 'red cow'. Hmm, that might work. Regards, John In message <271458.25647.qm@web87004.mail.ird.yahoo.com>, Sandy PITTENDREIGH <dfsgal@btinternet.com> writes >Gavin Bell g.bell@which.net  wrote: >.... But anything that you find from any these these should *always* be >checked against the original Census image, which is available both on >microfilm and as digital images on ScotlandsPeople. > >Excellent advice -- here is a case in point. >A colleague in Dumfries and Galloway Family History Society was >researching BOWIE in the 1901 Census. >She discovered a 'Dragon' BOWIE in East Greenock Rewfrewshire. >'Dragon' being an implausable forename she checked the image of the >census page and discovered his name was Angus BOWIE. > >Index of records can often be out-sourced and in this case it appears >the out-sourcing was to China. > > Maybe Angus in Chinese means Dragon? :-) > >Sandy >in Dumfries SW Scotland >Researching >Adam  : Freeman : Mackie : Pittendreigh : Ritchie >in NE Scotland > > >  > > > >________________________________ >From: >To: aberdeen@rootsweb.com >Sent: Sunday, 29 November, 2009 19:58:35 >Subject: Re: [ABERDEEN] Picking some brains here... > >goldie and Lido Doratti wrote: > >> The info on this family I got off different census @ Scotlands People, but I >> have a friend who has a disc with Scottish census on it and she has been >> pulling some of them for me.  > > >There is no "different Census" - there were only ever the national >decennial Censuses from 1841. > >What may be "different" is the index or transcription of the Census >Enumerations.  There are sundry indexes and transcriptions, which vary >from what one might charitably call the "imaginative" (eg Ancestry)  to >the authoritative (such as those produced for their own local areas by >the various Family History Societies). > > > >Gavin Bell > >------------------------------- >To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to >ABERDEEN-request@rootsweb.com 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 >ABERDEEN-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the >quotes in the subject and the body of the message -- John Lovie

in the case of sensitive info - I have discovered someone in my line who committed suicide less than 100 years ago - I'll leave it to someone else to release - I just put the date of death and left it alone. May be a still living son/daughter or grandaughter or grandson... Cam ________________________________ From: Janet <wightway@clara.co.uk> To: aberdeen@rootsweb.com Sent: Mon, November 30, 2009 3:47:12 PM Subject: Re: [ABERDEEN] 100 year limit? Whilst I have to agree with what you have said about images being capable of being purchased, I think putting up names to a genealogy list for the purposes of contacting living family ought to be done with caution.  Louise has mentioned those still living and because of the uncertainty of the outcome I think if the purpose is only for finding living members full names and dates should not be given to all members or subscribers to List.    The unknown quantity in information causing someone distress and anguish as well as the possibility of releasing information that people didn't want known should not be given out to the whole world.  We just dont know what might be uncovered and people have rights to privacy. I fully expect there will be some who disagree with me but I've seen both sides of this. Janet ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ray Hennessy" <ray@whatsinaname.net> > > Hi Ruth > > Scotland's People make full images of Statutory death certificates available > to anyone up to 1958 so you can certainly put all those details on the > List.  They also index deaths registered up to 2006 so there seems to be no > reason to bar names and dates for deaths in that period. > > In fact all these details - probably more or less up to date - are available > to the public at the appropriate Registry offices so I would guess that > "revealing" such details is perfectly permissible. > > -- > Best wishes > > Ray ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to ABERDEEN-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Gavin Bell g.bell@which.net  wrote: .... But anything that you find from any these these should *always* be checked against the original Census image, which is available both on microfilm and as digital images on ScotlandsPeople. Excellent advice -- here is a case in point. A colleague in Dumfries and Galloway Family History Society was researching BOWIE in the 1901 Census. She discovered a 'Dragon' BOWIE in East Greenock Rewfrewshire. 'Dragon' being an implausable forename she checked the image of the census page and discovered his name was Angus BOWIE. Index of records can often be out-sourced and in this case it appears the out-sourcing was to China.  Maybe Angus in Chinese means Dragon? :-) Sandy in Dumfries SW Scotland Researching Adam  : Freeman : Mackie : Pittendreigh : Ritchie in NE Scotland   ________________________________ From: To: aberdeen@rootsweb.com Sent: Sunday, 29 November, 2009 19:58:35 Subject: Re: [ABERDEEN] Picking some brains here... goldie and Lido Doratti wrote: > The info on this family I got off different census @ Scotlands People, but I > have a friend who has a disc with Scottish census on it and she has been > pulling some of them for me.  There is no "different Census" - there were only ever the national decennial Censuses from 1841. What may be "different" is the index or transcription of the Census Enumerations.  There are sundry indexes and transcriptions, which vary from what one might charitably call the "imaginative" (eg Ancestry)  to the authoritative (such as those produced for their own local areas by the various Family History Societies). Gavin Bell ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to ABERDEEN-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

2009/11/30 RUTH DUNNE <abersyl@gmail.com> wrote: > > Can someone please advise me if it is acceptable to post to the List the > Names and Death dates of persons who died after 1910? ( For the purpose > of > finally, fingers cossed, connecting with living family members who may now > still reside in Aberdeen / shire). > ____________________________________________________________ Hi Ruth Scotland's People make full images of Statutory death certificates available to anyone up to 1958 so you can certainly put all those details on the List. They also index deaths registered up to 2006 so there seems to be no reason to bar names and dates for deaths in that period. In fact all these details - probably more or less up to date - are available to the public at the appropriate Registry offices so I would guess that "revealing" such details is perfectly permissible. -- Best wishes Ray ********************************************************** >From Ray Hennessy Forenames website: www.whatsinaname.net Preferred Email address: ray@whatsinaname.net Hints for Scotland's People at http://bit.ly/WIAN-SCP **********************************************************

This is a present day working farm in Kirkmichael, Banff, Scotland. How do I go about finding who the people are that are running this farm today. William Innes in Montreal

If you feel it's not compromising anyone still living I don't see why you shouldn't. The 100 year rule is very much a rule of officialdom - when the census, birth and death etc details are taken, it is promised that no/limited details will be released before 100 years are up. We are not limited by that, but simply by common sense. I have to say there is nothing nicer than connecting with a still living branch of your family - I've managed that several times, mostly through posts I've made here which others have found through Googling names in their own family (yes, do be aware that posts to here are not completely private). Louise

Hello List Members; Can someone please advise me if it is acceptable to post to the List the Names and Death dates of persons who died after 1910? ( For the purpose of finally, fingers cossed, connecting with living family members who may now still reside in Aberdeen / shire). Thank You, Ruth, in Canada

At 01:50 p.m. 28/11/2009, you wrote: >2009/11/27 Alison <royal.brooks@xtra.co.nz> wrote: > >Thank you Ray and Gavin. I decided that it was cheaper to go for >more credits on ScP and take a chance than order in the census film >from the LDS (no travelling and easier on the eyes too). May Burgess >was there in the Inverallan Parish, transcribed as Mary tho is >clearly May. Although I had looked for a Mary Burgess previously it >was in Cromdale. Thank you for your help. Ray you mentioned that people found under hedges would be given the address of Roadside in the census. What would that make my 3xg grandmother christened 1783 St Mary Whitechapel, Stepney? Her parents address was , Roadside!!. >********************************************************** > >From Ray Hennessy >Forenames website: www.whatsinaname.net >Preferred Email address: ray@whatsinaname.net >Hints for Scotland's People at http://bit.ly/WIAN-SCP >********************************************************** > >------------------------------- >To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to >ABERDEEN-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without >the quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > >-- >Internal Virus Database is out-of-date. >Checked by AVG Free Edition. >Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.16.0/1137 - Release Date: >18/11/2007 5:15 p.m.

goldie and Lido Doratti wrote: > The info on this family I got off different census @ Scotlands People, but I > have a friend who has a disc with Scottish census on it and she has been > pulling some of them for me. There is no "different Census" - there were only ever the national decennial Censuses from 1841. What may be "different" is the index or transcription of the Census Enumerations. There are sundry indexes and transcriptions, which vary from what one might charitably call the "imaginative" (eg Ancestry) to the authoritative (such as those produced for their own local areas by the various Family History Societies). But anything that you find from any these these should *always* be checked against the original Census image, which is available both on microfilm and as digital images on ScotlandsPeople. Gavin Bell

Hi Goldie Just to add to Victoria & Ray, John DUTHIE married Isabella WALKER in Cruden in 1893 and SP has a death for an Isabella DUTHIE (other surnames WALKER) in Cruden in 1900. The 1891 census shows that George and Barbara WALKER had a daughter Isabella then aged 20. Downloading the certificates from SP would confirm this and downloading the 1901 census image would confirm that John was a widower. Victoria, the LDS site only has Scottish births to 1875, Jemima was likely born 1876. Andy ----- Original Message ----- From: "Victoria West" <vawest2000@yahoo.com> To: <aberdeen@rootsweb.com> Sent: Sunday, November 29, 2009 2:48 PM Subject: Re: [ABERDEEN] Picking some brains here... Hi Goldie, I see your not seeing something. John Duthie and Elizabeth Walker are not married. The first daughter of John Duthie:Barbara A dau age 7 abt 1894 Cruden Abd Scholar. Elizabeth Walker was 18 in the 1901 census which would have made her 11 years old to have had Barbara Duthie;so now we know Elizabeth Walker is out. I cannot find Jemima listed on the LDS site as daughter for George Walker and Barbara. Unless Jemima is spelt different and I am not going to go into it at this point. Don't mean to be rude Goldie but I am stuffed from too much turkey.Ha!Ha!. Ray has a good point. Now,about some of the womens maiden names. I feel that they are proud of who they are and want to be know by their given birth names. As far as they are concerned they are listed as married or widowed and that takes care of any concerns. The other thing could have been the census takers asked what her maiden name was to be correct. I have found that this continued past 1901 and that is OK!! I only wished it occured here in the US because we could trace relatives better. I hope everyone had a Great Turkey Day!!! opps!!Thanksgiving. Vicki --- On Fri, 11/27/09, Ray Hennessy <ray7033@googlemail.com> wrote: From: Ray Hennessy <ray7033@googlemail.com> Subject: Re: [ABERDEEN] Picking some brains here... To: aberdeen@rootsweb.com Date: Friday, November 27, 2009, 5:14 AM Hi Goldie That's better. [see below] Why do you assume that Jemima WALKER married John DUTHIE? Scotland's People shows one marriage of John DUTHIE to a female WALKER in Cruden in the 1893 but it is NOT Jemima nor [unsurprisingly] is it the much younger Elizabeth. So it would presumably be another WALKER sister. My credits have expired on ScP otherwise I would have looked at the hit list but I'll leave that to you. There is one death of a female DUTHIE a.k.a WALKER in 1900 in Cruden which is almost certainly John's wife and the missing sister of J & E, and mother of the girls, Barbara, Christine and Jane. Q.E.D. You didn't notify Jemima's or Elizabeth's or John's marital statuses. I'd guess John was "W" and the women were "U". Panic not! -- Best wishes Ray ********************************************************** >

Sorry Gavin, I didn't make myself clear. I pulled various years of census for the Walker and Anderson families. I never pulled all of them for all the families. Basically what I wanted was an overall picture of the main lines, so without spending a large amount of money, I could for example, find a family on the '51 and then get the '61 to find more children and then was able to get the baptisms etc, off the film of OPR's. When I did that, I would see, another example, a young child was missing, so then I could look for a death on the Peterhead site without going back to SP and paying to find the death info. All the places I got info from I recorded, so when I hand the Family Tree over, IF the family I am doing this for likes, they can go to SP and pull the relevant certs or registrations. This is not what I do for myself and my family trees, but I did this one that way, so they could pick up the threads, and hopefully give the widow and her 2 children something to think about other than the loss they have suffered. Roundabout way of trying to 'hook' future genealogists..... Goldie ----- Original Message ----- From: "Gavin Bell" <g.bell@which.net> To: <aberdeen@rootsweb.com> Sent: Sunday, November 29, 2009 11:58 AM Subject: Re: [ABERDEEN] Picking some brains here... > goldie and Lido Doratti wrote: > >> The info on this family I got off different census @ Scotlands People, >> but I >> have a friend who has a disc with Scottish census on it and she has been >> pulling some of them for me. > > > There is no "different Census" - there were only ever the national > decennial Censuses from 1841. > > What may be "different" is the index or transcription of the Census > Enumerations. There are sundry indexes and transcriptions, which vary > from what one might charitably call the "imaginative" (eg Ancestry) to > the authoritative (such as those produced for their own local areas by > the various Family History Societies). > > But anything that you find from any these these should *always* be > checked against the original Census image, which is available both on > microfilm and as digital images on ScotlandsPeople. > > > Gavin Bell > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > ABERDEEN-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message >

The info on this family I got off different census @ Scotlands People, but I have a friend who has a disc with Scottish census on it and she has been pulling some of them for me. Unfortunately she neglected to add W behing John Duthie. But now thanks to Listers, the problem is solved, and another member of the family laid to rest. Thanks Andy and others......... Goldie ----- Original Message ----- From: "Andy Candlish" <andycandlish@ozemail.com.au> To: <aberdeen@rootsweb.com> Sent: Saturday, November 28, 2009 8:38 PM Subject: Re: [ABERDEEN] Picking some brains here... > Hi Goldie > > Just to add to Victoria & Ray, John DUTHIE married Isabella WALKER in > Cruden > in 1893 and SP has a death for an Isabella DUTHIE (other surnames WALKER) > in > Cruden in 1900. The 1891 census shows that George and Barbara WALKER had a > daughter Isabella then aged 20. Downloading the certificates from SP would > confirm this and downloading the 1901 census image would confirm that John > was a widower. > > Victoria, the LDS site only has Scottish births to 1875, Jemima was likely > born 1876. > > Andy > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Victoria West" <vawest2000@yahoo.com> > To: <aberdeen@rootsweb.com> > Sent: Sunday, November 29, 2009 2:48 PM > Subject: Re: [ABERDEEN] Picking some brains here... > > > Hi Goldie, > > I see your not seeing something. > > John Duthie and Elizabeth Walker are not married. > The first daughter of John Duthie:Barbara A dau age 7 abt 1894 Cruden Abd > Scholar. > Elizabeth Walker was 18 in the 1901 census which would have made her 11 > years old to have had Barbara Duthie;so now we know Elizabeth Walker is > out. > I cannot find Jemima listed on the LDS site as daughter for George Walker > and Barbara. Unless Jemima is spelt different and I am not going to go > into > it at this point. Don't mean to be rude Goldie but I am stuffed from too > much turkey.Ha!Ha!. > > Ray has a good point. > > Now,about some of the womens maiden names. > I feel that they are proud of who they are and want to be know by their > given birth names. > As far as they are concerned they are listed as married or widowed and > that > takes care of > any concerns. > The other thing could have been the census takers asked what her maiden > name > was to be correct. > I have found that this continued past 1901 and that is OK!! > I only wished it occured here in the US because we could trace relatives > better. > > I hope everyone had a Great Turkey Day!!! opps!!Thanksgiving. > > Vicki > --- On Fri, 11/27/09, Ray Hennessy <ray7033@googlemail.com> wrote: > > > From: Ray Hennessy <ray7033@googlemail.com> > Subject: Re: [ABERDEEN] Picking some brains here... > To: aberdeen@rootsweb.com > Date: Friday, November 27, 2009, 5:14 AM > > > Hi Goldie > > That's better. [see below] > > Why do you assume that Jemima WALKER married John DUTHIE? Scotland's > People shows one marriage of John DUTHIE to a female WALKER in Cruden > in the 1893 but it is NOT Jemima nor [unsurprisingly] is it the much > younger Elizabeth. So it would presumably be another WALKER sister. > My credits have expired on ScP otherwise I would have looked at the > hit list but I'll leave that to you. > > There is one death of a female DUTHIE a.k.a WALKER in 1900 in Cruden > which is almost certainly John's wife and the missing sister of J & E, > and mother of the girls, Barbara, Christine and Jane. Q.E.D. > > You didn't notify Jemima's or Elizabeth's or John's marital statuses. > I'd guess John was "W" and the women were "U". > > Panic not! > > -- > Best wishes > > Ray > > ********************************************************** >> > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > ABERDEEN-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message >

Roy and Alison wrote: > ... > Ray you mentioned that people found under hedges would be given the > address of Roadside in the census. What would that make my 3xg > grandmother christened 1783 St Mary Whitechapel, Stepney? Her parents > address was , Roadside!!. You have to keep your syllogisms in order here (as in: "all cats are mammals, but not all mammals are cats"). "Roadside" may well have been given as the "Census Address" for vagrants found sleeping under hedges, but was also used as a placename (or part of a placename) in various parishes. The GENUKI Gazetteer mentions "Roadside" in the Aberdeenshire parishes of Fraserburgh, Keig, Logie Coldstone, Midmar, Old Machar and Tullynessle & Forbes, and in Banffshire, there are examples in Aberlour, Botriphnie, Boharm and Keith. There may well be others (as well as "Roadside of X" or variants like "Roadside Croft") as the label generally seems to apply to places where there was a straggle of houses along a highway, but not enough to count as a village. Gavin Bell