G'day Colin Thanks so much for your efforts, it's much appreciated. This is my first dabble into genealogy (and it was quite by accident) so I'm still learning where to search. While I can't get to the Dan Byrnes site atm, I will keep trying. Thanks again...and Happy New Year! Bronwyn ;-) CWatters wrote: > "HC" <IHateSpam@home.com> wrote in message > news:47772894$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au... > >>G'day >> >>I've just started tracing Charles McClellan (often spelt McLaulin, >>McLelan and as many variants as you can imagine) who was the youngest >>convict at 14yo to settle on Norfolk Island with the First Fleet on 6th >>March 1788. Records on Norfolk revealed he left the island on 5th >>January 1793 onboard the US ship Philadelphia bound for China, but I >>can't find anything since that entry. Could anyone give me suggestions >>on where I might look now...new to genealogy and googling didn't give me >>any answers. >> >>Thanks heaps >>HC ;-) > > > Wasn't able to google much either. > > Found a reference to a "brig trader Philadelphia" here going Norfolk to > China... > > http://www.danbyrnes.com.au/merchants/merchants9a.htm > > "Capt Thomas Patrickson (probably Australian), for owner Capt Thomas > Patrickson is on brig trader Philadelphia, to Sydney, then Norfolk Island, > China, see HRA 1 (9), p. 47 and Churchward 1948; William H. Payne, Joseph > Peabody;" > > "HRA 1 (9), p. 47" and "Churchward 1948" would seem to be references worth > looking up. > > and again.. > > http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/read/AUS-PT-JACKSON-CONVICTS/2003-02/1046228609 > > "The Master of the Ganges was Thomas Patrickson who had visited the > settlement in 1792 in the Philadelphia, a small American brig. It was the > second foreign merchant ship to enter Port Jackson." > > Again that thread references "HRA" whatever that is? > > Might also be worth contacting the owner of this web site as Captain Thomas > Patrickson seems to feature a lot in the transport of convicts to Australia > around that time.. > > http://www.danbyrnes.com.au/blackheath/thebc41.htm > > http://www.danbyrnes.com.au > > Perhaps look for Charles McClellan in Australia? > >
The article of which part is reproduced below. was penned by Bernard Levin for the Features section of the Times. on 21 September 1991. To my mind, it described the situation at the time and in particular a. recent meeting with a. friend, during which I for the first time admitted to someone other than my. GP that I had been subjected to a conspiracy of harassment over the previous. year and a half. >There is a madman running loose about London, called David. Campbell; I have >no reason to believe that he is. violent, but he should certainly be >approached with caution. You. may know him by the curious glitter in his >eyes. and a persistent trembling of his hands; if that does not suffice, you >will. find him attempting to thrust no fewer than 48 books into your arms, >all hardbacks, with a promise that, if you should return to. the same >meeting-place next year, he will heave another. 80 at you. > >If, by now, the police have arrived and are keeping a. close watch on him, >you may feel sufficiently emboldened to. examine the books. The jackets are >a model of uncluttered typography, elegantly and simply laid. out; there is >an unobtrusive colophon of a rising. sun, probably not picked at random. >Gaining confidence - the lunatic. is smiling by now, and the policemen, who >know about such things, have significantly removed their helmets -. you >could do worse than take the jacket. off the first book in the pile. The >only word possible to. describe the binding is sumptuous; real cloth in a >glorious. shade of dark green, with the title and author in black and gold >on the. spine. > >Look at it more closely; your eyes do not deceive you - it truly. does have >real top-bands and tail-bands, in yellow, and,. for good measure, a silk >marker ribbon in a lighter green. The paper. is cream-wove and acid-free, >and the. book is sewn, not glued. > >Throughout the encounter,. I should have mentioned, our loony has been >chattering away, although what he is trying to. say is almost impossible to >understand; after a time, however, he becomes sufficiently coherent. to make >clear that he is trying to sell the. books to you. Well, now, such quality >in bookmaking today can. only be for collectors' limited editions at a >fearsome price - #30, #40,. #50? > >No, no, he says, the glitter more powerful. than ever and the trembling of >his hands rapidly spreading throughout his entire body; no, no. - the books >are priced variously at #7, #8 or. #9, with the top price #12. > >At this,. the policemen understandably put their helmets back on; one of >them draws his truncheon and the other can be. heard summoning >reinforcements on his walkie-talkie. The madman bursts into tears,. and >swears it is. all true. > >And it. is. > >David Campbell has. acquired the entire rights to the whole of the >Everyman's Library, which died a lingering and shameful death. a decade or >so. ago, and he proposes to start it all over again - 48 volumes this >September and 80 more next year, in editions. I have described, at the >prices specified. He proposes to launch his amazing. venture simultaneously >in Britain. and the United States, with the massive firepower of Random >Century at his back in this country,. and the dashing cavalry of Knopf >across the water, and. no one who loves literature and courage will forbear >to. cheer. At the time. this article was written I had believed for some time that columnists in the Times and other. journalists had been making references to my situation. Nothing unusual about this you may think, plenty. of people have the same sort of ideas and obviously the. papers aren't writing about them, so why should my beliefs not be as false. as those of others? What makes this article so extraordinary is that. three or four days immediately preceding. its publication, I had a meeting with a friend, during the course of which we discussed the media persecution,. and in particular that by Times columnists.. It seemed to me, reading the article by Levin in Saturdays paper, that he was describing in some. detail his "artists. impression" of that meeting. Most telling are the final sentences, when he writes, "The. madman bursts into tears, and swears it is all true. And it is." Although I did not "burst into. tears" (he seems to be using a bit of poetic licence. and exaggerating) I did try hard to convince my friend that it was all true;. and I am able to concur with Mr Levin, because,. of course, it is. At the beginning of the piece Levin reveals a fear of being. attacked by the "irrational" subject of. his story, saying "I have no reason to believe that he is violent, but he should certainly be approached with caution".. This goes. back to the xenophobic propaganda of "defence" against a "threat" which was seen at. the very beginning of the harassment. The impression of a "madman running loose". who needs to be controlled through an agency which assigns to. itself the mantle of the "police" is also one which had been expressed. elsewhere. In. the final paragraph of this extract, his reference to Everymans Library as having "died a lingering and. shameful death a decade or so ago" shows clearly what sort of conclusion they wish to their campaign. They want. a permanent solution, and. as they are prevented from achieving that solution directly, they waste significant resources. on methods which have been repeatedly shown to. be ineffective for such a purpose. 96
In article <KEfej.7752$ZI4.2926@trnddc08>, "catalpa" <catalpa@entertab.org> wrote: > "RobertB" <missinglink@cloud9.net> wrote in message > news:missinglink-340970.18342930122007@news.cloud9.net... > > In article <eaedj.66$DG4.10@trnddc04>, "catalpa" <catalpa@entertab.org> > > wrote: > > > >> "RobertB" <missinglink@cloud9.net> wrote in message > >> news:missinglink-E2E0A4.13523428122007@news.cloud9.net... > >> > Does anyone know if the 1930 Federal census for New York is available > >> > on > >> > line? I'm not sure how ProQuest works but it looks like it's only > >> > available to institutions. So far, the only place that seems to offer > >> > on-line access is ancestry.com, but they charge an arm and a leg in > >> > monthly fees. Ancestry.com is clever in pointing you to additional > >> > information about your ancestors, but then they get you with the > >> > sign-up > >> > fee. > >> > > >> > If anyone knows of a less expensive site that provides access to the > >> > 1930 (and earlier) census, I'd appreciate it. The NYPL has a copy of > >> > this, but it's on microfiche and you must access it from the library. > >> > > >> > Also, if anyone has a recommendation either for an on-line site that is > >> > inexpensive or Mac-friendly software for doing same, I'd appreciate any > >> > pointers. Thanks. > >> > > >> > FYI, I'm trying to look up my paternal grandfather and his wife. I have > >> > precious little information about that side of my family. > >> > > >> > robert > >> > > >> > >> NYPL has Ancestry Library Edition (includes 1930 Census). I've used it at > >> the 5th Ave library and it is supposed to be available at branch > >> libraries > >> according to the NYPL web site. > > > > What is it? I'm in Manhattan and have library access cards. > > > > I'm not sure of your question. www.nypl.org has all the information > available about the NYPL. I meant, what is "Ancestry Library Edition?" I use NYPL on a regular basis. <g> > > The library at 5th Ave and 42nd Street has The Irma and Paul Milstein > Division of United States History, Local History and Genealogy in Room 121. > They have Ancestry.com, HeritageQuest.com and other online research tools. > They also have microfilm and microfiche of items not yet available online. > The National Archives at 201 Varick St (12th floor) also has Ancestry.com > along with many file cabinets of microfilm. I see. One cannot do this from home, however. When I have some free time, I'm going to go up there and see what I can find. Should be fun. -- "Never believe anything until it's officially denied."
In article <TJWdnXoYQvJ_qOTanZ2dnUVZ_jydnZ2d@giganews.com>, "Tara" <NOtnlarkinSPAM@iparagon.net> wrote: > "RobertB" <missinglink@cloud9.net> wrote in message > news:missinglink-5B82E0.18481430122007@news.cloud9.net... > > OK. If anyone has access to this and would be kind enough to look it up, > > here are a couple of names. I don't have a great deal of information > > about my paternal grandparents though. > > > > 1. Ignatzio Bononno [Bonanno] > > born: Nado, Sicily > > died 1936, New York, NY > > > > married to (first wife): > > > > 2: Grace Nicotra > > born: [Italy] > > died 1918, New York > > > > I'm not sure when they got married or came over from Italy. I do know > > that they were married here in NY, somewhere. My father had almost no > > papers or memorabilia about his parents or relatives. > > > <snip> > > I can't find anything on Grace, but I think for Ignazio, it says 1907 on > immigration date on the 1930 census. I think this is him: > > New York Passenger Lists, 1820-1957 > Name: Ignazio Bonanno > Arrival Date: 20 Aug 1907 > Estimated Birth Year: abt 1883 > Age: 24 > Gender: Male > Port of Departure: Palermo, Italy > Ethnicity/Race/Nationality: Italian (South) (Italian) > Ship Name: Campania > Port of Arrival: New York, New York > Nativity: Sicily > Line: 29 > Microfilm Serial: T715 > Microfilm Roll: T715_969 > Birth Location: Sicily > Birth Location Other: Naro > Page Number: 195 > > The passenger list is available on EllisIsland.org. Yes, that would be him, thanks. I did some checking their myself this morning. -- "Never believe anything until it's officially denied."
The article. of which part is reproduced below was penned by Bernard Levin for the Features section of the Times on 21. September 1991. To my mind, it described the situation at the time and in. particular a recent meeting with a friend, during. which I for the first time admitted to someone other than my GP that I had. been subjected to a conspiracy of harassment over the previous year and. a half. >There is a madman running loose about London, called David Campbell; I. have >no. reason to believe that he is violent, but he should certainly be >approached with caution. You may know. him by the curious glitter in his >eyes and a persistent trembling. of his hands; if that does not suffice, you >will find him attempting to thrust no fewer. than 48 books into your arms, >all hardbacks, with a promise that, if you should. return to the same >meeting-place next year, he will heave another. 80 at you. > >If, by now, the police have arrived and are keeping a. close watch on him, >you. may feel sufficiently emboldened to examine the books. The jackets are >a model of uncluttered typography,. elegantly and simply laid out; there is >an unobtrusive colophon of a rising sun,. probably not picked at random. >Gaining confidence - the lunatic is smiling. by now, and the policemen, who >know about such things, have significantly. removed their helmets - you >could do worse than take the jacket off the. first book in the pile. The >only word. possible to describe the binding is sumptuous; real cloth in a >glorious shade of dark green, with the title and. author in black and gold >on the. spine. > >Look at it more closely; your eyes do not deceive. you - it truly does have >real. top-bands and tail-bands, in yellow, and, for good measure, a silk >marker ribbon in a lighter green. The paper. is cream-wove and acid-free, >and the book is. sewn, not glued. > >Throughout the encounter, I should have mentioned, our loony. has been >chattering away, although what he is. trying to say is almost impossible to >understand; after a time, however, he becomes. sufficiently coherent to make >clear that he is trying to sell the. books to you. Well, now, such quality >in bookmaking today can only be for collectors' limited. editions at a >fearsome price -. #30, #40, #50? > >No, no, he says,. the glitter more powerful than ever and the trembling of >his hands rapidly spreading throughout his entire body; no, no - the. books >are. priced variously at #7, #8 or #9, with the top price #12. > >At. this, the policemen understandably put their helmets back on; one of >them draws his truncheon and. the other can be heard summoning >reinforcements on his walkie-talkie. The. madman bursts into tears, and >swears. it is all true. > >And it. is. > >David Campbell has acquired the. entire rights to the whole of the >Everyman's Library, which died a lingering and shameful. death a decade or >so. ago, and he proposes to start it all over again - 48 volumes this >September and. 80 more next year, in editions I have described, at the >prices specified. He proposes to launch. his amazing venture simultaneously >in Britain and the United States, with. the massive firepower of Random >Century at his back in. this country, and the dashing cavalry of Knopf >across the water, and no one who loves literature and. courage will forbear >to. cheer. At the time this article was written. I had believed for some time that columnists in the Times. and other journalists had been making references to my situation. Nothing unusual about this. you may think, plenty of people have the same sort of ideas and. obviously the papers aren't writing about them, so why should my beliefs not be as false. as those of others? What makes this article so. extraordinary is that three or four days immediately preceding its publication, I had a meeting. with a friend, during the course of which we discussed the media persecution, and. in particular that by Times columnists. It. seemed to me, reading the article by Levin in Saturdays paper,. that he was describing in some detail his "artists impression" of that meeting. Most telling. are the final sentences, when he writes, "The madman bursts into tears, and swears. it is all true. And it is." Although. I did not "burst into tears" (he seems to be using a bit of. poetic licence and exaggerating) I did try hard to convince my friend that. it was all true; and I am able to concur with Mr Levin, because, of course,. it is. At the beginning of the piece. Levin reveals a fear of being attacked by the "irrational" subject of his story, saying "I have no. reason to believe that he is violent, but he should certainly be approached. with caution". This goes back to the xenophobic. propaganda of "defence" against a "threat" which was seen at the very beginning of the harassment. The. impression of a "madman running loose" who needs to be controlled through an agency. which assigns to itself the mantle of the "police" is. also one which had been expressed. elsewhere. In the final paragraph of this extract,. his reference to Everymans Library as having "died a lingering and. shameful death a decade or so ago" shows clearly what sort of conclusion they wish to their campaign.. They want a permanent solution, and as they are prevented from achieving. that solution directly, they waste significant resources. on methods which have been repeatedly. shown to be ineffective for such a purpose. 4956
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- -= who knows about. it? =- -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Many people know, both in the establishment and media, and among. the general public. Despite an absence of its. target from the UK for more than two years, the echoes of paranoia can. still be heard loud and clear from across the water. When it started in 1990, the. only people who knew were those in BBC television who were. spying on my home, and a few radio broadcasters. There were a few cases. of public harassment, but very little compared to the situation that developed a couple. of years later. The list today includes BBC TV staff (newsreaders such as. Martyn Lewis, Michael Buerk, Nicholas Witchell), people from radio stations such. as Chris Tarrant of Capital and Radio 1. DJs, people in the print media, but also many people in the general public. All united in a conspiracy. which breaks the laws which the. UK does have regarding harassment, and all completely uncaring for any semblance. of decency or elementary respect for. individual rights. The British police (obviously) do know the nature. of the harassment and in all probability the identity of those behind it.. Some time ago I made a complaint to my local police station in London, without positive. result. The UK police are failing. in their duty to see the law enforced in not checking the. abuse. 2526
ancestry.com then click on DNA. My markers are there automatically, but I'm trying to enter someone elses. "Ron Head" <ronhead@knology.net> wrote in message news:4613b$4772cf06$18ec41a1$24844@KNOLOGY.NET... > > "Jim Huratiak" <jhuratiak@comcast.net> wrote in message > news:aYmdnQPMtNFv7e_anZ2dnUVZ_hudnZ2d@comcast.com... >> Does anyone know how to enter markers manually to search the y database >> at Ancestry? > > What "y database" at Ancestry are you speaking of? Can you provide a URL > for this database? >
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-= -= Capital Radio -. Chris Tarrant -= -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-= Capital. Radio DJs have been "in on it" from the start. One of the first things I heard in the summer of 1990 was from. a Capital DJ who said, "If he listens to Capital then he can't be. all bad" (supportive, you see. We're not bastards). Much of what came over the radio. in 1990 is now so far away the precise details have been. obliterated by time. No diary was kept of the details, and although archives if they. exist may give pointers, the ambiguity of. what broadcasters said would leave that open to re-interpretation. In. spring 1994, Chris Tarrant on his Capital morning show made an aside to someone else in the studio, about a person he didn't identify.. He said, "You know this bloke? He says we're trying to kill him. We should be. done for. attempted manslaughter". That mirrored something I had said a. day or two before. What Tarrant said was understood by the staff member in the studio he was. saying it to; they said, "Oh no, don't say that" to Tarrant. If any archives exist of. the morning show (probably unlikely) then. it could be found there; what he said was so. out of context that he would be very hard put to find an explanation. A couple of days later, someone at the site where I. was working repeated the remark although in a different way; they said there had. been people in a computer room when automatic fire. extinguishers went off and those people were "thinking of suing for attempted. manslaughter". Finally, this isn't confined to the established radio stations.. In 1990 after I had listened to a pirate radio. station in South London for about half an hour, there was an audible phone call. in the background, followed by total silence. for a few moments, then shrieks of laughter. "So what are we supposed to. say now? Deadly torture? He's going to talk to us now, isn't he?", which meant that. they could hear what I would say in my room. 4956
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-= -= the BBC, television. and radio -= -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-= The first incident in June 1990 was. when a BBC newsreader made what seemed to be a reaction to something. which had happened in my home, and out of context of what they were. reading. My first reaction was disbelief; nothing of the sort had ever happened before, the idea that such a thing. could occur had not crossed my mind, yet there was no doubt of what. had just taken. place. My disbelief eroded as this recurred time after time. Besides the news, offenders included shows such as Crimewatch (!),. Newsnight, and "entertainment" shows. There. seems to be very little moral understanding among the people who make these programmes;. they just assume they will never be caught, so they carry. on without a thought for the illegality or amorality. of what they do. The only time I ever heard a word raised in doubt was by Paxman being interviewed by someone. else (I think by Clive Anderson) back in 1990; referring to the. "watching" he said it troubled him, and. when asked by the host what you could do about it, replied "Well, you could just switch. it off" (meaning the surveillance monitor in the studio). He clearly didn't let his doubts stand in the way of. continued surreptitious spying from his own or other. people's shows, though. Now you're. convinced this is a troll, aren't you? This story has been the subject of much debate. on the uk.* Usenet newsgroups for over a year, and some readers believe it to be an invention (it has even been. suggested that a group of psychology students are responsible!), others think. it symptomatic of a derangement of the. author, and a few give it credence. Quite. a few people do know part or all of the story already, so this text will fill in the gaps. in their knowledge. For the rest, what may persuade you. of the third possibility is that some of the incidents detailed are checkable against. any archives of radio and TV programmes that exist; that the incidents involve named people (even. if those hiding in the shadows have not made their identity or affiliations evident), and those. people may be persuaded to come out with the truth;. and that the campaign of harassment is continuing today both in the. UK and on the American continent, in a none-too-secret fashion;. by its nature the significant risk of exposure increases with. time. On several occasions people said to my face that harassment from the TV. was happening. On the first. day I worked in Oxford, I spent the evening in the local pub with the company's technical director. Ian, and Phil, another employee. Ian made a few references to me and said. to Phil, as if in an aside,. "Is he the bloke who's been on TV?" to which Phil replied, "Yes, I think. so". I made a. number of efforts to find the bugs, without success; last year we employed professional counter-surveillance people to scan for bugs. (see later) again without result. In autumn 1990. I disposed of my TV and watched virtually no television for the next. three years. But harassment from TV stations has gone on for. over six years and continues to this day. This is something that many people obviously know is happening; yet the TV. staff have the morality of paedophiles, that because they're. getting away with it they feel no. wrong. Other people who were involved in the abuse in 1990 were. DJs on BBC radio stations, notably disc jockeys from Radio 1 and other stations. (see the following section).. Again, since they don't have sense in the first place they can't be expect to have the moral sense not. to be part of criminal harassment. 96
Sapphyre wrote: > Hi everyone, > > I've come across a bit of a snag in my research. It seems that I have > living cousins in the US that are distantly related (like fourth > cousins or something), and it's highly likely they know nothing of our > family in Canada. I was able to track these folks down by pure luck, > and I'm thinking of getting in touch, but I don't know the best way to > do this. > > For one, I'm comfortable with the computer, and it's unfortunately > replaced phone conversations for the most part. So I'm having a little > more nervous bouts when making phone calls than I did, say 10 years > ago. These folks don't have email or facebook, myspace, whatever those > sites are (not that I've found), so I'm stuck with either letter > writing or phone calls. > > I'm thinking if I write a letter, it's the kind of thing that can be > procrastinated, and I'll always wonder (if they never get around to > answering), so it looks like I'm stuck with the phone call. > > How do you go about introducing yourself as a long lost family member, > and has anyone done this before? Approximately 7 years ago I made some > calls around England to track some cousins, but I found that the > English were quite friendly and helpful in telling me whether or not I > had the right household when I made my calls. Somehow I was able to > muster up the courage to make those calls, and now I'm not so sure I > can do that anymore. Another thing is, with my Canadian accent my > story of "I'm your cousin in Canada" holds a lot of water, but in the > US where telemarketers are abundant and menacing, I'm not so sure I > could convince people to talk to me south of the border. > > What do you think? You have nothing to lose and a lot to gain so do they as well. Go at it with a positive outlook. Have relevant information handy so you can make each call meaningful for the recipient. Some will be helpful and some will not, some will not want to know and some will be over the moon with joy. Phone at a time that you are likely to catch them home. Give your phone number no telemarketer that I have come across has ever done that. You could say for example " Hi this Sapphyre Green I would like to speak to Billy Purple who I have reason to believe is a long lost cousin. Hi Billy would William John Patrick Purple by chance be related to you? Do you by chance know of William John Patrick Purple and if so how?" Yes this does work as I have used it myself. As you can see no mistaking this for a telemarketer and if you strike a Billy Purple that is not your relation then he may be able to point you in the correct direction or may even know him. Another approach is send a letter first saying that you intend to phone on a given day at say for example Wednesday the 2nd February 2008 at 19:00 ( 7pm ) So get too it and make those phone calls. The names above are all made up just to demonstrate a method that does work. David
Cheryl, you may be on something here. My sister told me he was born in Burgettstown. She has to go through her "disaster" and find the proof. The "disaster" being her records she gathered before the Internet. Mike in Ohio singhals wrote: > Could I persuade either of you that Jacob's bp is Bala Cynwd, in PA > (creatively misspelt phoneticly?). Mary's is Pennsylvania and the rest > seem to be Ohio. > > But, ummmmmmmmmmm, Cleveland says "son" and everyone after him looks to > me like "boarder" not "daughter" Note absence of a descendor before the > ascendor. See line 74 vs line 78? > > Cheryl > > > Huntersglenn wrote: > >> The bottom of the page is pretty messed up. I can make out that the >> bottom name is Josephine, born Aug, but not the year or her age. The >> one above her looks to be a two-name person - something Ann. May >> 1881, aged 19. >> >> Jacob and Mary had been married 40 years, she's had 12 children and 10 >> are still alive. They were both born in 1841 - he in January and her >> in September, and I have no clue as to what the enumerator (or his >> assistant) was trying to write in for their place of birth - I'm >> thinking it's supposed to be Pennsylvania, but... >> >> Hope that helps, >> Cathy >> >> Michael Kenefick wrote: >> >>> Hello SKSs, >>> >>> Is the Ancestry copy of 1900 Warren Township, Jefferson, Ohio Census >>> Series: T623 Roll: 1290 Page: 199 lines 95?-100 as bad as the >>> Heritagequest.com copy. This is the last family on the sheet. I >>> could not find the family via name search but the head (should be) is >>> Jacob Starr, Wife Margaret A., Cleveland and some other children(?). >>> >>> I cannot access ancestry images links. >>> >>> Mike in Ohio >>> kenefick at copper dot net >>>
"RobertB" <missinglink@cloud9.net> wrote in message news:missinglink-340970.18342930122007@news.cloud9.net... > In article <eaedj.66$DG4.10@trnddc04>, "catalpa" <catalpa@entertab.org> > wrote: > >> "RobertB" <missinglink@cloud9.net> wrote in message >> news:missinglink-E2E0A4.13523428122007@news.cloud9.net... >> > Does anyone know if the 1930 Federal census for New York is available >> > on >> > line? I'm not sure how ProQuest works but it looks like it's only >> > available to institutions. So far, the only place that seems to offer >> > on-line access is ancestry.com, but they charge an arm and a leg in >> > monthly fees. Ancestry.com is clever in pointing you to additional >> > information about your ancestors, but then they get you with the >> > sign-up >> > fee. >> > >> > If anyone knows of a less expensive site that provides access to the >> > 1930 (and earlier) census, I'd appreciate it. The NYPL has a copy of >> > this, but it's on microfiche and you must access it from the library. >> > >> > Also, if anyone has a recommendation either for an on-line site that is >> > inexpensive or Mac-friendly software for doing same, I'd appreciate any >> > pointers. Thanks. >> > >> > FYI, I'm trying to look up my paternal grandfather and his wife. I have >> > precious little information about that side of my family. >> > >> > robert >> > >> >> NYPL has Ancestry Library Edition (includes 1930 Census). I've used it at >> the 5th Ave library and it is supposed to be available at branch >> libraries >> according to the NYPL web site. > > What is it? I'm in Manhattan and have library access cards. > I'm not sure of your question. www.nypl.org has all the information available about the NYPL. The library at 5th Ave and 42nd Street has The Irma and Paul Milstein Division of United States History, Local History and Genealogy in Room 121. They have Ancestry.com, HeritageQuest.com and other online research tools. They also have microfilm and microfiche of items not yet available online. The National Archives at 201 Varick St (12th floor) also has Ancestry.com along with many file cabinets of microfilm.
arethusa wrote: > So my advice is to call. And wouldn't it be wonderful if I got a call > from YOU?? I've ancestors from Canada and they remain my hardest to > track. (You don't happen to have any Lemons in your family tree, do > you?) ;) Of course we do, but not by that last name. -- I never could pass up a good straight line...
On Dec 31 2007, 8:38 pm, arethusa <den...@onlyaret.net> wrote: > On Mon, 31 Dec 2007 10:12:47 -0800 (PST), Sapphyre > > > > > > <sapphyre...@yahoo.com> wrote: > >Hi everyone, > > >I've come across a bit of a snag in my research. It seems that I have > >living cousins in the US that are distantly related (like fourth > >cousins or something), and it's highly likely they know nothing of our > >family in Canada. I was able to track these folks down by pure luck, > >and I'm thinking of getting in touch, but I don't know the best way to > >do this. > > >For one, I'm comfortable with the computer, and it's unfortunately > >replaced phone conversations for the most part. So I'm having a little > >more nervous bouts when making phone calls than I did, say 10 years > >ago. These folks don't have email or facebook, myspace, whatever those > >sites are (not that I've found), so I'm stuck with either letter > >writing or phone calls. > > >I'm thinking if I write a letter, it's the kind of thing that can be > >procrastinated, and I'll always wonder (if they never get around to > >answering), so it looks like I'm stuck with the phone call. > > >How do you go about introducing yourself as a long lost family member, > >and has anyone done this before? Approximately 7 years ago I made some > >calls around England to track some cousins, but I found that the > >English were quite friendly and helpful in telling me whether or not I > >had the right household when I made my calls. Somehow I was able to > >muster up the courage to make those calls, and now I'm not so sure I > >can do that anymore. Another thing is, with my Canadian accent my > >story of "I'm your cousin in Canada" holds a lot of water, but in the > >US where telemarketers are abundant and menacing, I'm not so sure I > >could convince people to talk to me south of the border. > > >What do you think? > > I have much experience in this area. My motto is, "Beware of > genealogists with unlimited long distance." I make "cold calls" to > potential relatives. It sounds scary, and at first it was, but now > it's easy and fun. I use ancestry.com's "find living people" feature > to find would-be relatives, call them and explain what I'm doing. > > Here's what I've found: > > When calling, give as much information as possible about the > ancestors. People are much more willing to believe you if you know > what you're talking about. I start each conversation with, "Hi, my > name is "insert name here" and I'm trying to trace the descendants of > "insert ancestor's names here" and I'm wondering if perhaps we're > related." Once I start to rattle off the names of their dead > relatives, they're very excited and want to help. I've been so > blessed to be able to find all the descendants of my > great-grandfather! These are people I had no idea existed a year ago. > Calling the first couple of people was hard, but after talking with > them, it was so easy. Just as you discovered regarding your calls to > England, people, once they know who you are and what you're doing, are > very, very happy to hear from you and to help. > > I do not ask for the names of living individuals; ie: spouses, > children. I tell them to only give me as much information as they're > comfortable giving. In this age of identity theft, it's unwise to > call and start asking for that type of information. Everyone I've > talked to, and I've talked to over a dozen "strangers', has been very > helpful and willing to share their information with me. > > I offer to send them, at my expense, copies of the information I've > gathered so far. This is a big hit. The people I've talked to are > very excited about what I've been able to find so far and can't wait > to get my packages... > > Which brings me to my own personal dilemma. How does one make the > information available in a form that does not bore the average person > who just really wants the pertinent information on themselves, their > parents and grandparents? My research involves gathering information > on every descendant of an ancestor, not just on the descendants of my > own personal line. I want to know the families of all siblings, the > in-laws, the whole complete line. But that makes for a LOT of > information for someone to wade through. My theory is that there is > usually one person in each generation who is "into" genealogy. Knowing > every member of a family greatly increases your chance of making > connections and breaking through brick walls. It's worked extremely > well for me in that I've been able to trace many ancestors that were > for many years brick walls. > > Be prepared to send what you've promised. If you say you're going to > send a genealogy packet, send one. I include my full name, phone > number, address and the address of my genealogy website. I also ask > that if they find any errors or have information that I haven't > included, to please let me know. Many have sent me back corrections > and even copies of photos. I am so grateful for the photos! To put > faces to the names I've been working on is a magical experience. > > So my advice is to call. And wouldn't it be wonderful if I got a call > from YOU?? I've ancestors from Canada and they remain my hardest to > track. (You don't happen to have any Lemons in your family tree, do > you?) ;) > > Denise- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Hi Denise, Thanks for your insightful response on phone calls. The reason I'm leaning towards this being the most practical, is for one, I can't be 100% sure the person I'm contacting is the right person (or the address is still good). I do have multiple addresses for the same person, but I'm sure they're related somehow. I have managed to get information on living people without too much problem, but that either came from relatives who knew me (because I knew their parents who are cousins of my grandfather), or it came from England. Mind you I didn't bother my English relatives with too many questions, so the information is only half complete (names and birthdays only) and I didn't fill in much on the other branch of the family tree (the spouse's side) so much because I was trying to not intrude. The good news is, today I discovered an obituary for a relative that I knew died in either Georgia or Florida (she had homes in both places, but I wasn't sure where she died). A death notice was printed in an Alabama newspaper and the funeral home has it online, so the google of that name brought up her death notice. Too bad the obituary provided no useful information other than the place of death, and her maiden name. No Lemons in my family, sorry to say. I'd give you advice on where to look in Canada, but I'm well versed only in Ontario, and my paper trail dies off around 1934 since that's the most recent of any records that we have. We have death records in BC up until 1979, and Quebec until I think 1985 (but they are on microfiche at the Quebec Archives), there are marriage records for Quebec too, but these "records" don't provide much information. In other words, if you don't already know what you're looking for, you might not find it. Two cousins of mine were institutionalized as children (fatal childhood illness), and they died in the institution after my aunt left the province. She didn't know when they died, or how long they lived because she couldn't handle watching her two babies die. I managed to get the dates and slip them in my research without upsetting anyone. S.
I would write or send email. If you send email just send a plain text message and mention that a second message follows with a family tree attached. Send that as a pdf or MS Word doc - something most people can read.
On Mon, 31 Dec 2007 10:12:47 -0800 (PST), Sapphyre <sapphyre_66@yahoo.com> wrote: >Hi everyone, > >I've come across a bit of a snag in my research. It seems that I have >living cousins in the US that are distantly related (like fourth >cousins or something), and it's highly likely they know nothing of our >family in Canada. I was able to track these folks down by pure luck, >and I'm thinking of getting in touch, but I don't know the best way to >do this. > >For one, I'm comfortable with the computer, and it's unfortunately >replaced phone conversations for the most part. So I'm having a little >more nervous bouts when making phone calls than I did, say 10 years >ago. These folks don't have email or facebook, myspace, whatever those >sites are (not that I've found), so I'm stuck with either letter >writing or phone calls. > >I'm thinking if I write a letter, it's the kind of thing that can be >procrastinated, and I'll always wonder (if they never get around to >answering), so it looks like I'm stuck with the phone call. > >How do you go about introducing yourself as a long lost family member, >and has anyone done this before? Approximately 7 years ago I made some >calls around England to track some cousins, but I found that the >English were quite friendly and helpful in telling me whether or not I >had the right household when I made my calls. Somehow I was able to >muster up the courage to make those calls, and now I'm not so sure I >can do that anymore. Another thing is, with my Canadian accent my >story of "I'm your cousin in Canada" holds a lot of water, but in the >US where telemarketers are abundant and menacing, I'm not so sure I >could convince people to talk to me south of the border. > >What do you think? I have much experience in this area. My motto is, "Beware of genealogists with unlimited long distance." I make "cold calls" to potential relatives. It sounds scary, and at first it was, but now it's easy and fun. I use ancestry.com's "find living people" feature to find would-be relatives, call them and explain what I'm doing. Here's what I've found: When calling, give as much information as possible about the ancestors. People are much more willing to believe you if you know what you're talking about. I start each conversation with, "Hi, my name is "insert name here" and I'm trying to trace the descendants of "insert ancestor's names here" and I'm wondering if perhaps we're related." Once I start to rattle off the names of their dead relatives, they're very excited and want to help. I've been so blessed to be able to find all the descendants of my great-grandfather! These are people I had no idea existed a year ago. Calling the first couple of people was hard, but after talking with them, it was so easy. Just as you discovered regarding your calls to England, people, once they know who you are and what you're doing, are very, very happy to hear from you and to help. I do not ask for the names of living individuals; ie: spouses, children. I tell them to only give me as much information as they're comfortable giving. In this age of identity theft, it's unwise to call and start asking for that type of information. Everyone I've talked to, and I've talked to over a dozen "strangers', has been very helpful and willing to share their information with me. I offer to send them, at my expense, copies of the information I've gathered so far. This is a big hit. The people I've talked to are very excited about what I've been able to find so far and can't wait to get my packages... Which brings me to my own personal dilemma. How does one make the information available in a form that does not bore the average person who just really wants the pertinent information on themselves, their parents and grandparents? My research involves gathering information on every descendant of an ancestor, not just on the descendants of my own personal line. I want to know the families of all siblings, the in-laws, the whole complete line. But that makes for a LOT of information for someone to wade through. My theory is that there is usually one person in each generation who is "into" genealogy. Knowing every member of a family greatly increases your chance of making connections and breaking through brick walls. It's worked extremely well for me in that I've been able to trace many ancestors that were for many years brick walls. Be prepared to send what you've promised. If you say you're going to send a genealogy packet, send one. I include my full name, phone number, address and the address of my genealogy website. I also ask that if they find any errors or have information that I haven't included, to please let me know. Many have sent me back corrections and even copies of photos. I am so grateful for the photos! To put faces to the names I've been working on is a magical experience. So my advice is to call. And wouldn't it be wonderful if I got a call from YOU?? I've ancestors from Canada and they remain my hardest to track. (You don't happen to have any Lemons in your family tree, do you?) ;) Denise
I recently encountered this same situation when I confirmed by death certificates that my grandfather's youngest sister married and had a family. I debated about calling versus writing, and finally decided to write - I had the address from one of the family death certificates (my cousin's wife had provided the information for his brother's death certificate). When I wrote my cousin, I started by introducing myself and then went into how we were related. I let him know how I'd found him and his address, and informed him that I had more family information that I was willing to share. I then gave him my address, telephone number and e-mail, for him to contact me when he was ready. He ended up calling, and we had a great conversation - his mother had always thought that my grandfather had been dead for years (shot to death), and since I didn't know my grandfather, all I had to share were stories that my mother had told me. I then later sent him a more detailed family tree, and plan to send photographs to him as well. Whichever you choose, good luck! Cathy Sapphyre wrote: > Hi everyone, > > I've come across a bit of a snag in my research. It seems that I have > living cousins in the US that are distantly related (like fourth > cousins or something), and it's highly likely they know nothing of our > family in Canada. I was able to track these folks down by pure luck, > and I'm thinking of getting in touch, but I don't know the best way to > do this. > >
"CWatters" <colin.watters@turnersoak.plus.com> wrote in message news:13nicumre5aad14@corp.supernews.com... > Perhaps look for Charles McClellan in Australia? Sorry I meant back in the UK.
"HC" <IHateSpam@home.com> wrote in message news:47772894$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au... > G'day > > I've just started tracing Charles McClellan (often spelt McLaulin, > McLelan and as many variants as you can imagine) who was the youngest > convict at 14yo to settle on Norfolk Island with the First Fleet on 6th > March 1788. Records on Norfolk revealed he left the island on 5th > January 1793 onboard the US ship Philadelphia bound for China, but I > can't find anything since that entry. Could anyone give me suggestions > on where I might look now...new to genealogy and googling didn't give me > any answers. > > Thanks heaps > HC ;-) Wasn't able to google much either. Found a reference to a "brig trader Philadelphia" here going Norfolk to China... http://www.danbyrnes.com.au/merchants/merchants9a.htm "Capt Thomas Patrickson (probably Australian), for owner Capt Thomas Patrickson is on brig trader Philadelphia, to Sydney, then Norfolk Island, China, see HRA 1 (9), p. 47 and Churchward 1948; William H. Payne, Joseph Peabody;" "HRA 1 (9), p. 47" and "Churchward 1948" would seem to be references worth looking up. and again.. http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/read/AUS-PT-JACKSON-CONVICTS/2003-02/1046228609 "The Master of the Ganges was Thomas Patrickson who had visited the settlement in 1792 in the Philadelphia, a small American brig. It was the second foreign merchant ship to enter Port Jackson." Again that thread references "HRA" whatever that is? Might also be worth contacting the owner of this web site as Captain Thomas Patrickson seems to feature a lot in the transport of convicts to Australia around that time.. http://www.danbyrnes.com.au/blackheath/thebc41.htm http://www.danbyrnes.com.au Perhaps look for Charles McClellan in Australia?
In article <d19c0b61-eece-48dc-88d3-acdb7022ec2a@w47g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>, Sapphyre <sapphyre_66@yahoo.com> wrote: > I've come across a bit of a snag in my research. It seems that I have > living cousins in the US that are distantly related (like fourth > cousins or something), and it's highly likely they know nothing of our > family in Canada. I was able to track these folks down by pure luck, > and I'm thinking of getting in touch, but I don't know the best way to > do this. Sapphyre- I also feel more comfortable at the computer, and recently happened across a couple of distant "lost" cousins doing Genealogical research by eMail. Considering what I would think if someone called me, it might be better if you wrote a letter. I would probably be polite to the caller, but most likely would resent the interruption of whatever I was doing. It wouldn't hurt to include a computer-generated family chart of some kind, that illustrated your relationship. Be sure to include your E-Mail address. Fred