Hello Donna Thomas Bass, son of Benjamin, was born at Maulden in Oct 1824, married Emma Susannah Maddams at Silsoe in 1851, emigrated to USA later and died there in 1870. Therefore there must be a possibility that the Bass family were in Bedfordshire in the 1680s. All the best Peter ----- Original Message ----- From: "Donna Bailey" <donnabailey77@hotmail.com> To: <BEDFORD-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Thursday, February 23, 2006 7:53 AM Subject: [BDF] Jane BASS m.1681 in Cranfield not born there > Hi again everyone, > > I also have a Jane BASS who married Thomas WOODSTOCK on 5 may 1681 in > Cranfield. Thomas was from there but Jane was not. Does anyone know of any > BASS family in the area at the time? > > Thanks for your time, > Donna > > > ==== BEDFORD Mailing List ==== > Bedfordshire at Rootsweb > http://www.rootsweb.com/~engbdf/ > > > > -- > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 267.15.12/265 - Release Date: > 20/02/2006 > >

Hi again everyone, I also have a Jane BASS who married Thomas WOODSTOCK on 5 may 1681 in Cranfield. Thomas was from there but Jane was not. Does anyone know of any BASS family in the area at the time? Thanks for your time, Donna

Hi everyone, I have got an Elizabeth SMITH who married Thomas WOODSTOCK on 16 sep 1654 in Cranfield. Thomas was from Cranfield but Elizabeth was not. I think Elizabeth could be the one baptised 19 nov 1634 in Kempston - father John SMITH. Does anyone have any info on the SMITH family in this area at this time? All the best, Donna

Hello Donna I believe an Elizabeth Knightley married Francis Bird, father of John Seabrook's wife, Sarah Bird (b 1736 in Houghton Conquest), at Kempston on 25 Apr 1718. Kightley could well have become Knightley ! Best wishes Peter P.S. will be answering your email re Seabrook descendants shortly. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Donna Bailey" <donnabailey77@hotmail.com> To: <BEDFORD-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Saturday, February 18, 2006 4:47 AM Subject: [BDF] KIGHTLEY family of Houghton Conquest > Hi everyone, > > I have an Elizabeth KIGHTLEY b.4 april 1694 in Houghton Conquest. Her > father > was Francis KIGHTLEY. This is all I have found on this family. Does anyone > have any info on KIGHTLEYs in this area? > > All the best, > Donna > > > ==== BEDFORD Mailing List ==== > For any updates our info about the status of this list go to > http://helpdesk.rootsweb.com > > > > -- > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 267.15.7/259 - Release Date: 13/02/2006 > >

Owen, I am guessing that both you and your wife are getting on in years. Even if her father was in middle age when she was born, she would have to be around 80. So good on you for getting on the computer and giving it a go. We will all try and help. I think the starting point has to be your wife's birth certificate, your marriage certificate or death certificates for either or both of her parents. All of these will provide vital information. There is no Robert Slater age 12 born in Stevenage or Bedfordshire that comes up on 1901 census at http://www.1901censusonline.com/ . But to look further without specific dates and locations is folly and a waste of time. So it's back to certificates. But maybe there is a family bible, press clippings or memorial cards that might also provide some clues. I think that's the place to start. Once you get there, Bedford should have an abundance of parish and census records that will quickly get you back to around 1800. There was a Robert Slater born 1884 in Hitchin and a possible Slater family appears in 1881 Census. But it's all supposition until you get some specifics. Peter in Sydney

An Isbell SMITH born in Cranfield is on two distinct GEDCOM files on two different websites. Visit my website at http://gedcomindex.com/Towns/ukbd1025.html to see a list of all indexed GEDCOM entries with Cranfield, Bedfordshire given as a location, then click on the links below those entries to download the GEDCOM files from the sites on which they are hosted. Tom Alciere webmaster@GEDCOMindex.com > Hi everyone, > > I have got an Elizabeth SMITH who married Thomas WOODSTOCK on 16 sep 1654 > in > Cranfield. Thomas was from Cranfield but Elizabeth was not. I think > Elizabeth could be the one baptised 19 nov 1634 in Kempston - father John > SMITH. Does anyone have any info on the SMITH family in this area at this > time? > > All the best, > Donna > > > ==== BEDFORD Mailing List ==== > When REPLYING to a message sent to the list decide if this is information > that all the list members would like to know about or whether it would > only be of interest to the individual you are replying to. > >

Peter, thank you very much indeed, I am most gateful. Nan. from a snowy Essex

Hello, I am new to the list and searching for the Keen family in Bedford. According to 1861 census William Keen was born about 1835 in Bedford. He had a brother Joseph 10 years younger. Their father was a Thomas Keen. Both William and Joseph worked ont he railway. William married Eliza Reed 1859 St. Pancras Middx. Does anybody have any connection to this family please. Many thanks Nan

In Vanity Fair Amelia Osborne almost permanently falls out with her mother over a potion called "Daffy's Elixir" which Mrs Sedley is attempting to administer to young Georgie. Amelia condemns it as "poison" and her mother indignantly asks whether she is being accused of poisoning her own grandchild! Presumably this Daffy's elixir did contain something like laudanum, and presumably there were mothers who were intelligent enough to know that it was not a good thing! Incidentally, elsewhere in the novel it is suggested that the Sedleys had children other than Amelia and Jos who died in infancy. Maybe they were victims of this potion! Ros -----Original Message----- From: Stella Stanger [mailto:sstanger@sfu.ca] Sent: 22 February 2006 21:51 To: BEDFORD-L@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [BDF] Re: Repeated child mortality Hi Gus, One wonders about taking the children - out for a treat . It appears that this is a major meal for some children/ families. I am constantly surprised to see infants - just barely able to eat solid food - being fed - mostly terrible ,greasy - sometimes stale french fries . When I volunteered at school -children came with no breakfast - soft drinks - and potato chips [crisps] might be their lunch. Some of the children did not recognize some very common foods - * I taught simple cooking - made breakfasts -for the classes I volunteered at. So - No we really have not Advanced much in 160 years . In the early years that are being discussed -I am certain that most people tried to do the best for their children - if these medications were considered helpful -in that time. We still serve our children - with bad medicine. When my son was growing up - many of the young mothers that I knew - gave their children a certain brand of Cough Medicine - -not because they had a cold - or were ill - but to quiet them - and put them to sleep. Cheers, Stella http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/library/studies/cu/cu1.html http://www.gober.net/victorian/reports/child1.htm At 01:00 PM 2/22/2006, you wrote: >We clutch at our breasts and cry "ugh" at the thought of OPIUM being given >to Small Children - but it was known as Laudanum and was as freely-available >as the (very-alcoholic) "Teething Mixtures" you could buy from any Chemist >Shop well into the 1960s! > >While today we take kids to a [name deleted] Burger Shop for a "treat" and >think nothing of it at all.... > >Have we REALLY advanced much in 160 years?? > >Gus > > >----- Original Message ----- >From: <AudreyJoyceMcC@aol.com> >To: <BEDFORD-L@rootsweb.com> >Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2006 1:14 PM >Subject: Re: [BDF] Re: Repeated child mortality > > >In a message dated 2/22/06 12:40:29 AM GMT Standard Time, sstanger@sfu.ca >writes: > > > Children in the nineteenth-century were also subjected to the opium > > problem. Parents with teething children, mostly poor parents, used > > opium-based cures for the pain. According to the parliamentary > > papers, item 38, reports that deaths by poison, between the years > > 1836-1839 numbered more than 30 (11). These are the deaths that are > > directly related to the ingestion of opium, as opposed to some > > children's prolonged use and subsequent death by starvation due to > > lack of food ,Snip> > > > >Gosh, Stella, that is pretty awful! I cant imagine parents or country GPs & >pharmacists would have access to opium out here in the sticks in >Bedfordshire...and the poor wouldnt have been able to aford it. However, >it is certainly >something to consider when one sees a child's death attributed to >'teething'? > >cathy > > >==== BEDFORD Mailing List ==== >For any updates our info about the status of this list go to >http://helpdesk.rootsweb.com > > >==== BEDFORD Mailing List ==== >For any updates our info about the status of this list go to >http://helpdesk.rootsweb.com ==== BEDFORD Mailing List ==== Bedfordshire at Rootsweb http://www.rootsweb.com/~engbdf/

Hi Owen If you go to www.freebmd.org.uk/cgi/search.pl and search for Robert Slater's birth between 1880 and 1890 for Hertfordshire, you will find an entry for the Dec Q of 1884 in the district of Hitchen, which covers Stevenage. The reference is vol 3A, page 460. Knowing this, you are then able to order the birth certificate, which will give you Roberts parents names. I then looked for him on the 1891 census and he is living with his grandparents, John and Annie Slater in Stevenage. John Slater, born 1820 in Paisley, Scotland, army pensioner Annie Slater, wife, born 1824 in Portsmouth, Hampshire Minnie Slater, daughter, born 1865 in Richmond, Yorkshire Annie Slater, daughter, born 1866 in " " Florence Slater, daughter, born 1868 " " Walter Slater, son, born 1871 " " Hope this gets you started! Best wishes and good luck! Mary Lou

We clutch at our breasts and cry "ugh" at the thought of OPIUM being given to Small Children - but it was known as Laudanum and was as freely-available as the (very-alcoholic) "Teething Mixtures" you could buy from any Chemist Shop well into the 1960s! While today we take kids to a [name deleted] Burger Shop for a "treat" and think nothing of it at all.... Have we REALLY advanced much in 160 years?? Gus ----- Original Message ----- From: <AudreyJoyceMcC@aol.com> To: <BEDFORD-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2006 1:14 PM Subject: Re: [BDF] Re: Repeated child mortality In a message dated 2/22/06 12:40:29 AM GMT Standard Time, sstanger@sfu.ca writes: > Children in the nineteenth-century were also subjected to the opium > problem. Parents with teething children, mostly poor parents, used > opium-based cures for the pain. According to the parliamentary > papers, item 38, reports that deaths by poison, between the years > 1836-1839 numbered more than 30 (11). These are the deaths that are > directly related to the ingestion of opium, as opposed to some > children's prolonged use and subsequent death by starvation due to > lack of food ,Snip> > Gosh, Stella, that is pretty awful! I cant imagine parents or country GPs & pharmacists would have access to opium out here in the sticks in Bedfordshire...and the poor wouldnt have been able to aford it. However, it is certainly something to consider when one sees a child's death attributed to 'teething'? cathy ==== BEDFORD Mailing List ==== For any updates our info about the status of this list go to http://helpdesk.rootsweb.com

I have started a Family History for my wife, and am beginning with her father who, she thinks, was born in Stevenage, he is Robert SLATER born 15 September 1888, according to her memory, which is not all that perfect. Any help anyone can give me would be greatly appreciated. Owen

Hi Gus, One wonders about taking the children - out for a treat . It appears that this is a major meal for some children/ families. I am constantly surprised to see infants - just barely able to eat solid food - being fed - mostly terrible ,greasy - sometimes stale french fries . When I volunteered at school -children came with no breakfast - soft drinks - and potato chips [crisps] might be their lunch. Some of the children did not recognize some very common foods - * I taught simple cooking - made breakfasts -for the classes I volunteered at. So - No we really have not Advanced much in 160 years . In the early years that are being discussed -I am certain that most people tried to do the best for their children - if these medications were considered helpful -in that time. We still serve our children - with bad medicine. When my son was growing up - many of the young mothers that I knew - gave their children a certain brand of Cough Medicine - -not because they had a cold - or were ill - but to quiet them - and put them to sleep. Cheers, Stella http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/library/studies/cu/cu1.html http://www.gober.net/victorian/reports/child1.htm At 01:00 PM 2/22/2006, you wrote: >We clutch at our breasts and cry "ugh" at the thought of OPIUM being given >to Small Children - but it was known as Laudanum and was as freely-available >as the (very-alcoholic) "Teething Mixtures" you could buy from any Chemist >Shop well into the 1960s! > >While today we take kids to a [name deleted] Burger Shop for a "treat" and >think nothing of it at all.... > >Have we REALLY advanced much in 160 years?? > >Gus > > >----- Original Message ----- >From: <AudreyJoyceMcC@aol.com> >To: <BEDFORD-L@rootsweb.com> >Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2006 1:14 PM >Subject: Re: [BDF] Re: Repeated child mortality > > >In a message dated 2/22/06 12:40:29 AM GMT Standard Time, sstanger@sfu.ca >writes: > > > Children in the nineteenth-century were also subjected to the opium > > problem. Parents with teething children, mostly poor parents, used > > opium-based cures for the pain. According to the parliamentary > > papers, item 38, reports that deaths by poison, between the years > > 1836-1839 numbered more than 30 (11). These are the deaths that are > > directly related to the ingestion of opium, as opposed to some > > children's prolonged use and subsequent death by starvation due to > > lack of food ,Snip> > > > >Gosh, Stella, that is pretty awful! I cant imagine parents or country GPs & >pharmacists would have access to opium out here in the sticks in >Bedfordshire...and the poor wouldnt have been able to aford it. However, >it is certainly >something to consider when one sees a child's death attributed to >'teething'? > >cathy > > >==== BEDFORD Mailing List ==== >For any updates our info about the status of this list go to >http://helpdesk.rootsweb.com > > >==== BEDFORD Mailing List ==== >For any updates our info about the status of this list go to >http://helpdesk.rootsweb.com

There is also the link with high temperatures, sometimes leading to febrile convulsions. Rachel -----Original Message----- From: AudreyJoyceMcC@aol.com [mailto:AudreyJoyceMcC@aol.com] Sent: 21 February 2006 23:40 To: BEDFORD-L@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [BDF] Re: Repeated child mortality Yes Babies do not die from 'teething' - I expect it was a bacteria or virus they cought while teething? Teething infants are a bit low par so may be a bit more susceptible to anything goung around? cathy ==== BEDFORD Mailing List ==== Bedfordshire at Rootsweb http://www.rootsweb.com/~engbdf/

In a message dated 2/22/06 12:40:29 AM GMT Standard Time, sstanger@sfu.ca writes: > Children in the nineteenth-century were also subjected to the opium > problem. Parents with teething children, mostly poor parents, used > opium-based cures for the pain. According to the parliamentary > papers, item 38, reports that deaths by poison, between the years > 1836-1839 numbered more than 30 (11). These are the deaths that are > directly related to the ingestion of opium, as opposed to some > children's prolonged use and subsequent death by starvation due to > lack of food ,Snip> > Gosh, Stella, that is pretty awful! I cant imagine parents or country GPs & pharmacists would have access to opium out here in the sticks in Bedfordshire...and the poor wouldnt have been able to aford it. However, it is certainly something to consider when one sees a child's death attributed to 'teething'? cathy

Jane asked: > I have recently found a childs (11 months old in 1851) death cert stating > she died of "teething". This is not in my Beds roots but I wonder has anyone > else come across the same cause of death stated.< and then Sandee reported: >I just now found the same 'cause of death', teething, for a child in Delhi, New York ca 1850.....and that is the only time I have ever come across this. now, twice in the past 20 minutes! < I have lots of history in India and this cause of death really puzzled me as it turned up frequently. Then my husband applied his logical brain and suggested that a teething baby could develop a fever, which in turn could lead to exhaustion, diarrhoea, dehydration, etc. etc., any of which could be the ultimate cause of death - except that it was teething at the time! No doubt the doctor and grieving parents knew exactly what it meant. It reminds me of an absence note (written on the inside sleeve of a cigarette packet) given to my Mum about one of her young pupils in the 1950's: " Johnny not come as he had dire rear threw a hole in his shoe." Puzzled? Explanation: child had holes in his shoes, feet got wet, child got a chill, child had diarrhoea - simple! Regards, Ruth in Brum (Birmingham, England.)

Yes Babies do not die from 'teething' - I expect it was a bacteria or virus they cought while teething? Teething infants are a bit low par so may be a bit more susceptible to anything goung around? cathy

The next meeting of the Bucks Genealogical Society is on Saturday. March 11. It begins with the AGM at 2.20pm, followed at 3pm by VICTORIAN SHOPS & SHOPPING IN BUCKS by Dr Pamela Horn, with illustrations. When the little local shop was on every street corner, and going into the market town was a feast of delights. The venue has changed: Aylesbury Grammar School, Walton Rd (between the Tesco roundabout on the A41 and the gyratory system on the A413). Drive right round the school and enter directly from the back of the building -follow arrows). Details from eve@varneys.demon.co.uk or 01844 291631 Looking ahead: April 8: An Old Bucks Family: The Purefoys of Shalstone: by Geoffrey Purefoy, with treasures from his private store. May 13: The Family History Feast: a wealth of reference material to consult and carefully selected commercial stalls as well. (Both at the new permanent venue The Mandeville School, Ellen Rd, (off Churchill Drive) Aylesbury, near Stoke Mandeville Hospital, entrance 1 roundabout) . -- Eve McLaughlin Author of the McLaughlin Guides for family historians Secretary Bucks Genealogical Society

Hi Cathy, I recall - reading somewhere - a long time ago - that there were medications given to children who were teething - sometimes alcohol or something similar was rubbed on the gums etc. I did a Google search - and found the following [not the item I had originally read] ,Snip>http://www.gober.net/victorian/reports/opium.html Children Children in the nineteenth-century were also subjected to the opium problem. Parents with teething children, mostly poor parents, used opium-based cures for the pain. According to the parliamentary papers, item 38, reports that deaths by poison, between the years 1836-1839 numbered more than 30 (11). These are the deaths that are directly related to the ingestion of opium, as opposed to some children's prolonged use and subsequent death by starvation due to lack of food ,Snip> http://www.bignell.uk.com/glossary_of_old_names.htm <snip>http://www.sedgleymanor.com/diseases/diseases_p-t.html Teething.The entire process which results in the eruption of the teeth. Nineteenth-century medical reports stated that infants were more prone to disease at the time of teething. Symptoms were restlessness, fretfulness, convulsions, diarrhoea, and painful and swollen gums. The latter could be relieved by lancing over the protruding tooth. Often teething was reported as a cause of death in infants. Perhaps they became susceptible to infections, especially if lancing was performed without antisepsis. Another explanation of teething as a cause of death is that infants were often weaned at the time of teething; perhaps they then died from drinking contaminated milk, leading to an infection, or from malnutrition if watered-down milk was given.<Snip> Cheers, Stella At 03:40 PM 2/21/2006, you wrote: >Yes > >Babies do not die from 'teething' - I expect it was a bacteria or virus they >cought while teething? Teething infants are a bit low par so may be a bit >more susceptible to anything goung around? > >cathy > > > >==== BEDFORD Mailing List ==== >Bedfordshire at Rootsweb >http://www.rootsweb.com/~engbdf/

i just now found the same 'cause of death', teething, for a child in Delhi, New York ca 1850.....and that is the only time i have ever come across this. now, twice in the past 20 minutes! > [Original Message] > From: <JaneLutton@aol.com> > To: <BEDFORD-L@rootsweb.com> > Date: 2/21/2006 2:15:06 PM > Subject: Re: [BDF] Re: Repeated child mortality > > I have recently found a childs (11 months old in 1851) death cert stating > she died of "teething". This is not in my Beds roots but I wonder has anyone > else come across the same cause of death stated. > Jane > > > ==== BEDFORD Mailing List ==== > The Bedfordshire Surnames List can be viewed at: > http://homepages.ihug.co.nz/~hughw/bedf.html >