I received it too. Colin in Queensland ------------------------ ----- Original Message ----- From: "Paula" <paula10@virginmedia.com> To: <berkshire@rootsweb.com> Sent: Friday, May 06, 2011 11:33 PM Subject: Re: [BRK] Fw: new email address > Hi Nivard > So it reached you ok mbut it didn't show up on my PC as it always has done > in the past. So I didn't think it got to anyone- you are the only one who > has responded. > Paula > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Nivard Ovington" <ovington1@sky.com> > To: <berkshire@rootsweb.com> > Sent: Friday, May 06, 2011 12:11 PM > Subject: Re: [BRK] Fw: new email address > > >> Hi Paula >> >> I suspect its due to lack of posts but in these circumstances its always >> best to check the archives >> first >> >> The fact you post reached the list means its subscribed OK and the list >> is >> working >> >> Nivard Ovington in Cornwall (UK) >> >> >>> I have had to change my email address as I changed to VirginCable. >>> (Used >>> to be p.ath@virgin.net) >>> So I re-subscribed to the Berkshire list with my new address. But I have >>> had no messages, have >>> there not been any tthe last couple of days or has something gone wrong >>> my end? >>> Paula Atherton >> >> >> ------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to >> BERKSHIRE-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 > BERKSHIRE-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Paula it is not up to us to respond - you should be asking the administrator if you are not getting posts Wendy -----Original Message----- From: Paula Sent: Friday, May 06, 2011 2:33 PM To: berkshire@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [BRK] Fw: new email address Hi Nivard So it reached you ok mbut it didn't show up on my PC as it always has done in the past. So I didn't think it got to anyone- you are the only one who has responded. Paula ----- Original Message ----- From: "Nivard Ovington" <ovington1@sky.com> To: <berkshire@rootsweb.com> Sent: Friday, May 06, 2011 12:11 PM Subject: Re: [BRK] Fw: new email address > Hi Paula > > I suspect its due to lack of posts but in these circumstances its always > best to check the archives > first > > The fact you post reached the list means its subscribed OK and the list is > working > > Nivard Ovington in Cornwall (UK) > > >> I have had to change my email address as I changed to VirginCable. (Used >> to be p.ath@virgin.net) >> So I re-subscribed to the Berkshire list with my new address. But I have >> had no messages, have >> there not been any tthe last couple of days or has something gone wrong >> my end? >> Paula Atherton > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > BERKSHIRE-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 BERKSHIRE-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Hi again Some emailers have a default position where the sender does not receive a copy of their own posts As you have just changed email address this may be your problem I use gmail (although it purports to be sky mail) and their default is the same I have a work around for gmail but do not know if ot would work with other email clients My suggestion would be to first have a word with your ISP and see if they have a workaround Nivard Ovington in Cornwall (UK) PS as I mentioned previously you can always check the archives to see if a post reached a list or not > Hi Nivard > So it reached you ok mbut it didn't show up on my PC as it always has done > in the past. So I didn't think it got to anyone- you are the only one who > has responded. > Paula

Hi Nivard So it reached you ok mbut it didn't show up on my PC as it always has done in the past. So I didn't think it got to anyone- you are the only one who has responded. Paula ----- Original Message ----- From: "Nivard Ovington" <ovington1@sky.com> To: <berkshire@rootsweb.com> Sent: Friday, May 06, 2011 12:11 PM Subject: Re: [BRK] Fw: new email address > Hi Paula > > I suspect its due to lack of posts but in these circumstances its always > best to check the archives > first > > The fact you post reached the list means its subscribed OK and the list is > working > > Nivard Ovington in Cornwall (UK) > > >> I have had to change my email address as I changed to VirginCable. (Used >> to be p.ath@virgin.net) >> So I re-subscribed to the Berkshire list with my new address. But I have >> had no messages, have >> there not been any tthe last couple of days or has something gone wrong >> my end? >> Paula Atherton > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > BERKSHIRE-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Hi Paula I suspect its due to lack of posts but in these circumstances its always best to check the archives first The fact you post reached the list means its subscribed OK and the list is working Nivard Ovington in Cornwall (UK) > I have had to change my email address as I changed to VirginCable. (Used to be p.ath@virgin.net) > So I re-subscribed to the Berkshire list with my new address. But I have had no messages, have > there not been any tthe last couple of days or has something gone wrong my end? > Paula Atherton

----- Original Message ----- From: Paula To: berkshire@rootsweb.com Sent: Friday, May 06, 2011 11:26 AM Subject: new email address I have had to change my email address as I changed to VirginCable. (Used to be p.ath@virgin.net) So I re-subscribed to the Berkshire list with my new address. But I have had no messages, have there not been any tthe last couple of days or has something gone wrong my end? Paula Atherton

I have had to change my email address as I changed to VirginCable. (Used to be p.ath@virgin.net) So I re-subscribed to the Berkshire list with my new address. But I have had no messages, have there not been any tthe last couple of days or has something gone wrong my end? Paula Atherton

In a message dated 10/04/2011 08:29:33 GMT Daylight Time, jill@shottle.plus.com writes: I think the second link that showed in Paul's email is the correct one. Probably best Paul if you didn't use dropped hypens as in _http://www.ofhs.org.uk/CDsales.html_ And simply show as http://www.ofhs.org.uk/DVDsales.html Which goes straight to the correct page of course. Jill It's not that I use dropped hyphens - they are inserted into my e-mails automatically by my ISP ! Best wishes. Paul Gaskell Publicity Officer Oxfordshire Family History Society Website : _www.ofhs.org.uk_ (http://www.ofhs.org.uk)

Dear Listers I have an entry in the 1851 census which is unknown to me. Can anyone help please? It is for a William Cox, age 42, living in the hamlet of Dedworth, St Andrew's parish. His rank is "Pensioner E. J. Comps" - or that is what it looks like. Anyone interpret? With many thanks, Margaret

Pensioner East India Company On 30 April 2011 13:05, Margaret Nichols <mnichols@netspeed.com.au> wrote: > Dear Listers > > > > I have an entry in the 1851 census which is unknown to me. Can anyone help > please? > > It is for a William Cox, age 42, living in the hamlet of Dedworth, St > Andrew's parish. > > His rank is "Pensioner E. J. Comps" - or that is what it looks like. > > > > Anyone interpret? > > > > With many thanks, Margaret > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > BERKSHIRE-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message >

>From Reynold's Newspaper ( London, England ), Sunday, August 5, 1894; Issue 2295. SUICIDE OF A CLERGYMAN. Some sensation was created in Ipswich, on Tuesday morning, by the suicide of the Rev. F. H. BROWN , M. A., late headmaster of the Ipswich Grammar School. The deceased's relations with the governors of the school had been somewhat strained, and, at their request, he resigned last Wednesday - speech day. He, however, remained in residence pending the opening of a private school in the South of England, and it was at the school, on Tuesday morning, that the parlourmaid found deceased with his throat cut after conveying to him his shaving-water. Deceased, who was formally master of Reading School, lives a widow and four children.

Hello, Does this CD have the same information as that which was on the St Laurence Reading baptisms fiche? If so, then there are no baptisms for a John and Harriet Brown on it, so don't waste your money, Barbara. In fact, the 6 children's baptisms are online on the IGI for Reading St Giles http://www.familysearch.org/eng/ although the marriage doesn't appear to be. Victoria ----- Original Message ----- From: "jocie" <jocie@lineone.net> To: <berkshire@rootsweb.com> Sent: Monday, April 25, 2011 11:50 AM Subject: Re: [BRK] John BROWN and Harriett SMITH > > > Hello Barbara, > > I think the Church you mean is Reading St Laurence, there is no St > Clarence > in Reading. > > Berkshire Family History Society have transcribed the Reading St Laurence > Parish Registers and made these available on CD. These can be purchased > online, see www.berksfhs.org.uk , go to the shop and put Reading St > Laurence > into the 'Product Search' > > You will find the marriage there and much more. > > Jocie > > Hello everyone: > > I have just joined this list and am seeking anyone who has information > about > the above named couple. The details are: > > John BROWN, born about 1810 > married at St. Clarence, Reading about 1832 > to Harriett SMITH, born about 1807. > > They had seven children: > > Eliza 1831-1840 > Sarah 1832-1901 > Mary Ann 1834-?? (Was not on passenger list to NZ) > Ellen 1836-1906 > Harriett 1838-1840 > William 1840-1876 > John 1843-1927 > All children were born in Reading with the exception of John who was born > in > New Zealand > > John and Harriett and three children (Sarah, Ellen, William) immigrated to > New Zealand in 1842. I have located the family in the 1841 census, > although > the father is at a different address. > > Any assistance would be appreciated. > > Barbara, > Auckland, New Zealand > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > BERKSHIRE-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > >

>From The Morning Post ( London, England ), Wednesday, November 25, 1840; pg. [1]; Issue 21789. SINGULAR CIRCUMSTANCE. - A few days since, during the raging of one of the late violent hurricanes, a fine specimen of the Stormy Petrel, one of "Mother Carey's chickens," was picked up on Bagshot-heath, by Lord Wm. BERESFORD. The bird is about seven inches in length, and measures across the wings, from tip to tip, sixteen inches. It is a most rare occurrence for a bird of this description to have been found inland. The "chicken" is in possession of Mr. BURT , of Windsor, and is being stuffed as a curiosity.

Hello everyone: I have just joined this list and am seeking anyone who has information about the above named couple. The details are: John BROWN, born about 1810 married at St. Clarence, Reading about 1832 to Harriett SMITH, born about 1807. They had seven children: Eliza 1831-1840 Sarah 1832-1901 Mary Ann 1834-?? (Was not on passenger list to NZ) Ellen 1836-1906 Harriett 1838-1840 William 1840-1876 John 1843-1927 All children were born in Reading with the exception of John who was born in New Zealand John and Harriett and three children (Sarah, Ellen, William) immigrated to New Zealand in 1842. I have located the family in the 1841 census, although the father is at a different address. Any assistance would be appreciated. Barbara, Auckland, New Zealand

Hello Barbara, I think the Church you mean is Reading St Laurence, there is no St Clarence in Reading. Berkshire Family History Society have transcribed the Reading St Laurence Parish Registers and made these available on CD. These can be purchased online, see www.berksfhs.org.uk , go to the shop and put Reading St Laurence into the 'Product Search' You will find the marriage there and much more. Jocie Hello everyone: I have just joined this list and am seeking anyone who has information about the above named couple. The details are: John BROWN, born about 1810 married at St. Clarence, Reading about 1832 to Harriett SMITH, born about 1807. They had seven children: Eliza 1831-1840 Sarah 1832-1901 Mary Ann 1834-?? (Was not on passenger list to NZ) Ellen 1836-1906 Harriett 1838-1840 William 1840-1876 John 1843-1927 All children were born in Reading with the exception of John who was born in New Zealand John and Harriett and three children (Sarah, Ellen, William) immigrated to New Zealand in 1842. I have located the family in the 1841 census, although the father is at a different address. Any assistance would be appreciated. Barbara, Auckland, New Zealand ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to BERKSHIRE-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Hi Susan The three sites are still all working (so far) Recordsearch pilot <http://search.labs.familysearch.org/recordsearch/start.html?datestamp=1203850297546#start> (it will take a few seconds to load) The Old IGI on familysearch <http://www.familysearch.org/eng/search/frameset_search.asp?PAGE=igi/search_IGI.asp&clear_form=true> The Newfamilysearch https://www.familysearch.org/ As regards the new site, they may or may not have canvassed users ( believe they did and still do but seem not to listen to the feedback) but what I can say is that the feedback I have seen to date on the new site is that the vast majority do not like it or are confused as to the best way to use it Why they have created the new site is because the old could not handle the ways in which they want to make data available and create an all in one family tree Unfortunately they have employed people who it appears know nothing of what is required by genealogists It has improved slightly since its release but has so far to go as to make the present site almost useless To be clear there are two aspects to the new site , the side with access to the images and separate databases is excellent and very useful (although could do with some reorganisation) The side where the problems are is the search side, the search engine is hopeless, returning hits for seemingly totally unrelated events even when you request only England say Perhaps in time it will become usable Nivard Ovington in Cornwall (UK) > Yet the question still remains: why replace a perfectly usable site > with one that isn't? It seems to me the possibilities are: > > 1. They have canvassed users and users do prefer the new site > (making us lot non-representative of users generally); or > 2. They have canvassed users and users prefer the old site (but > they are going ahead with the new one regardless); or > 3. They haven't canvassed users at all (which could be for any > number of reasons). > > I tried the link you provided to the pilot site but that seems to > just divert you to the new one so perhaps the pilot has gone completely now. > > Kind regards > > STC

"Susan Tudor-Coulson" wrote : > At 12:48 24/04/2011, John B wrote: > >>There is a pilot site that's been available for some considerable time and >>that remains far superior in performance to the new site. I found it much >>easier to use and far more responsiveness but, sadly, it's gradually being >>taken out of service and replaced by the new site; oddly, the new site >>does >>not seem to be a replica of the pilot site ! > Yet the question still remains: why replace a perfectly usable site > with one that isn't? It seems to me the possibilities are: A fair question ! > 1. They have canvassed users and users do prefer the new site > (making us lot non-representative of users generally); or > 2. They have canvassed users and users prefer the old site (but > they are going ahead with the new one regardless); or > 3. They haven't canvassed users at all (which could be for any > number of reasons). They certainly have canvassed users and there are 'Feedback' buttons on both the new site and the 'Pilot site'. The owner of the 'Lost Cousins' website conducted his own survey among his membership and has sent, or will be sending, a collated report to the LDS, detailing all of the issues raised. He also drew attention to a document published by the LDS that explains the reasons for the changes to the Family Search website and how best to use the new site. You can find this document at http://tinyurl.com/277hqam > I tried the link you provided to the pilot site but that seems to > just divert you to the new one so perhaps the pilot has gone completely > now. Not for me, it doesn't. The new site is at https://www.familysearch.org/ and has 600 datasets, the pilot site at http://pilot.familysearch.org/recordsearch/start.html#start has 378 datasets and is still working this morning. Whatever the truths in all of this, the Family Search websites provide a huge, and free, resource that we should all be mightily grateful for. I know they have their own reasons for making the data freely available, but the LDS have done family history research a tremendous service by their continuing generosity. John B Leic., Eng

At 12:48 24/04/2011, John B wrote: >There is a pilot site that's been available for some considerable time and >that remains far superior in performance to the new site. I found it much >easier to use and far more responsiveness but, sadly, it's gradually being >taken out of service and replaced by the new site; oddly, the new site does >not seem to be a replica of the pilot site ! Yet the question still remains: why replace a perfectly usable site with one that isn't? It seems to me the possibilities are: 1. They have canvassed users and users do prefer the new site (making us lot non-representative of users generally); or 2. They have canvassed users and users prefer the old site (but they are going ahead with the new one regardless); or 3. They haven't canvassed users at all (which could be for any number of reasons). I tried the link you provided to the pilot site but that seems to just divert you to the new one so perhaps the pilot has gone completely now. Kind regards STC

"Susan Tudor-Coulson" wrote : > > I'm yet another who finds the new site largely unusable. > > One wonders what the gains are with this make-over, given that so > much usability seems to have been lost. Presumably the new site was > not tested on actual users before it went live, unless we are > peculiarly out of sync with other users. There is a pilot site that's been available for some considerable time and that remains far superior in performance to the new site. I found it much easier to use and far more responsiveness but, sadly, it's gradually being taken out of service and replaced by the new site; oddly, the new site does not seem to be a replica of the pilot site ! The pilot site hasn't been updated for a long time and doesn't have the huge range of records now available on the new site. Nonetheless, if what you want is there, have a try at http://pilot.familysearch.org/recordsearch/start.html#p=home John B Leic., Eng

At 08:25 24/04/2011, Victoria wrote: >Hi, >Yes, another one who agrees that the new familysearch site is cumbersome and >clumsy to use and is not a patch on the old one. Nevertheless, we cannot >complain too much. It is, after all, free. Thank you LDS, but please don't >remove the old site. >Victoria I'm yet another who finds the new site largely unusable. One wonders what the gains are with this make-over, given that so much usability seems to have been lost. Presumably the new site was not tested on actual users before it went live, unless we are peculiarly out of sync with other users. STC