On 07/02/11 12:35, Karen Francis wrote: > Karen, the web address is wrong ...it is a hyphen not underscore between "the" and "rideouts" Regards kelvin Binding > > Dear List > > Any idea please? > > Regards > Karen > > > > > > Visit the new Ridout family history website and blog at: www.the_ridouts.com > > > > > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to BRISTOL_AND_SOMERSET-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Dear List A mixed bag of subjects, but all related. Shamelessly plugging my blog and website (!), yesterday I posted an item about my x3 great uncle, William Henry SOMERTON, who was proprietor and journalist of the Bristol Mercury newspaper for many years. One son's obituary indicated that the family had/has a vault in Arno's Vale, a cemetery in or near Bristol I believe. Does anyone know of a burial resource/list that may help me to identify if this is true and, if so, where I might find same? Secondly, I wondered if there is a museum, collection or similar relating to the newspaper (I don't mean online!) where I may find out more about the SOMERTON family? For four generations they were involved with one Bristol paper or another but I have failed to find a single drawing, engraving, portrait etc of any of the individuals. Any idea please? Regards Karen Visit the new Ridout family history website and blog at: www.the_ridouts.com

An interesting discussion, but I think there is a danger of dismissing the traditional claims of privacy far too easily on the basis that, because many people reveal all sorts of 'private' information on social media, therefore all contraints can be thrown away regarding everyone else. Many younger people who blithely believed their FaceBook contributions were only for the benefit of chosen friends are only now beginning to realise just how leaky the whole process is, and are regretting how unguarded they were. It's easy to slag off celebs who appear to exploit their private life when it suits them but most people are not celebs promoting the next book/ movie, and there should still be some safeguards. Otherwise we're just going down the News of the World route, where anybody is fair game to hack into their phones for the sake of a good story. Giles Oakley ----- Original Message ----- From: <Lcsearch3528@aol.com> To: <bristol_and_somerset@rootsweb.com> Sent: Monday, February 07, 2011 10:43 AM Subject: Re: [B&S] Details of living people > Hi Roy and Josephine > > Thanks for your comments re living persons - and I quite agree, you only > need to type someone's name on a search engine now and 9 times out of 10 > there will be a link to someone. > > Lin > > In a message dated 06/02/2011 20:19:03 GMT Standard Time, > roy.stockdill@btinternet.com writes: > On 6 Feb 2011 at 18:13, Josephine Jeremiah wrote: > >> When I'm browsing the archives of other lists and forums, I often see >> references about not mentioning details of living people or giving >> information on anyone who might still be alive. >> >> However, some people let loose all kinds of personal information about >> themselves and their close families on the internet. By putting two or >> three words into Google, you can get all kinds of details about some >> people. Even those who think they are experienced with e-mail might >> not realize just how much they have divulged over the years. >> >> Last year, I heard on the news that in future people may change their >> names to escape what is recorded about them on the internet or because >> of what they'd written on the internet in their youth. > > > This is a most interesting topic, Josephine, and one in which I am hugely > interested > myself. I also believe it ought to be debated widely, since it affects > ALL > genealogists > and family historians. Indeed, there are fewer topics of greater concern > to us all. > > Personally, I think the Rootsweb rules concerning living persons are > archaic, over- > zealous and verging on the paranoid. The notion that in 2011 no-one > should > be > allowed to mention the name of a living person is clearly utter nonsense > when so > much detail can be quite easily discovered, as you rightly point out, > about just about > everyone alive! Newspapers and broadcasting media publish the names of > hundreds > of living people every day. If they didn't, the media wouldn't exist! > Living persons > appear in telephone directories and myriad other records, which are found > all over the > Internet. Moreover, all of us who contribute to the Rootsweb lists are > "living persons" > too. We also wish to communicate with other living persons who are kin we > may not > even know about but the Rootsweb rules would appear to preclude this. > > Listowners seem to operate some kind of dictatorial and anti-democratic > policies in > their interpretation of Rootsweb's rules, though there are considerable > differences in > application from list to list. Some Listowners are more tolerant and > flexible, allowing > posts concerning living people where a modicum of common sense is > applied. > > -- > Roy Stockdill > Genealogical researcher, writer & lecturer > Newbies' Guide to Genealogy & Family History: > www.genuki.org.uk/gs/Newbie.html > > "There is only one thing in the world worse than being talked about, > and that is not being talked about." > OSCAR WILDE > > > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > BRISTOL_AND_SOMERSET-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 > BRISTOL_AND_SOMERSET-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' > without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message >

Sandra Congresbury Baptisms.John Gage was baptised on 25 Dec 1811 to William and Mary and born 5 Oct 05.James Gage was baptised on 25 Dec 1811 to William and Mary and born 18 Nov 09. RegardsMary. Mary`s Portbury Hundred records at: www.portbury-hundred.co.uk --- On Mon, 7/2/11, w.a.t.d@talktalk.net <w.a.t.d@talktalk.net> wrote: From: w.a.t.d@talktalk.net <w.a.t.d@talktalk.net> Subject: [B&S] Gage surname baptism Congresbury look up please To: BRISTOL_AND_SOMERSET@rootsweb.com Date: Monday, 7 February, 2011, 10:52 Hello i am looking for two baptisms held in Congresbury in 1811. ohn and James Gage. I have the parents as William and Mary dont have where they come from or the church, i guess St Andrews. ut any info would be appreciated aybe William and Mary married there ? it would be around 1800. any Thanks andra ------------------------------ o unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to BRISTOL_AND_SOMERSET-request@rootsweb.com ith the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of he message ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to BRISTOL_AND_SOMERSET-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

On 6 Feb 2011 at 23:23, Josephine Jeremiah wrote: > On Sun, 06 Feb 2011 20:18:56 -0000, Roy Stockdill > <roy.stockdill@btinternet.com> wrote: > > > Newspapers and broadcasting media publish the names of hundreds of > > living people every day. If they didn't, the media wouldn't exist! > > What I find interesting is that a search can be made for surname or > place in local newspapers. > > I often mention Bristol's Evening Post and Bath Chronicle in posts, > but there are a number of other local newspapers, which I browse > online such as: > > Bridgwater Mercury > http://www.bridgwatermercury.co.uk/ > > Shepton Mallet Journal > http://www.thisissomerset.co.uk/news/shepton > > Chard and Ilminster News > http://www.chardandilminsternews.co.uk/ > > It's surprising what can turn up in local newspapers such as these. > I completely agree. Newspapers - modern ones as well as the older local papers - are a brilliant and often under-valued source for family history. One of my talks is about "Researching from Newspapers" and I include in it the following observation..... "Old newspapers are a marvellous source for family history because they didn't just deal with the great and the good and the rich and famous, but the ordinary people. If your ancestor was in business or trade, was prominent in a church, club, trade organisation or union, did something unusual, was involved in an accident, appeared in court, got married, murdered or died in some unfortunate and violent way or committed a serious crime, and a myriad other situations, he or she is likely to have appeared in a newspaper report somewhere. "Indeed, if your ancestor had his or her 15 minutes of fame, to quote Andy Warhol, then it may well have been recorded somewhere." If the listowner will forgive me for a modest spot of advertising (!) I am happy to give this talk to family history societies and groups within a reasonable reachable distance from Hertfordshire. -- Roy Stockdill Genealogical researcher, writer & lecturer Newbies' Guide to Genealogy & Family History: www.genuki.org.uk/gs/Newbie.html "There is only one thing in the world worse than being talked about, and that is not being talked about." OSCAR WILDE

> Well said Roy > Mike in Droitwich > my family tree http://mjfisher.tribalpages.com < Thank you, Mike! It's good to have some public support over a matter about which I feel fairly passionate but which certain Rootsweb listowners ruthlessly suppress debate on.. I have always believed the rule about not mentioning living persons to be paranoid nonsense when, as I said, there are so many accessible sources - online and offline - which puts the names and details of just about everybody in the public domain. What particularly riles me is the sheer rank hypocrisy of it all. How can anyone who, for instance, flaunts themselves on Facebook, Twitter and other social networking websites expect privacy? Any more than can the famous expect their private lives to be kept out of the public arena when they shamelessly use the media to their personal advantage when they have something to sell, like a new film, TV series, book or fitness video. Family historians should be the very last people to apply self censorship, since our entire hobby and pastime demands that we gather and publish as full details as possible of our researches. Personally, the only complaints I've ever received from living members of my family is when I've inadvertently left them out !!! I do feel this is a topic Rootsweb ought seriously to address and reconsider in the light of widely changing circumstances. -- Roy Stockdill Genealogical researcher, writer & lecturer Newbies' Guide to Genealogy & Family History: www.genuki.org.uk/gs/Newbie.html "There is only one thing in the world worse than being talked about, and that is not being talked about." OSCAR WILDE

Thanks kindly for those, Dave. (;-)) Edna - Ottawa ----- Original Message ----- From: "Dave Napier" <dave.napier@blueyonder.co.uk> To: <bristol_and_somerset@rootsweb.com> Sent: Monday, February 07, 2011 9:45 AM Subject: Re: [B&S] Arnos Vale Cemetery Yep - unfortunately :( But I've put the first 182 Anglican burials on the B&AFHS website:- http://www.bafhs.org.uk/arnos/arnosreg01.htm Dave Napier dave.napier@blueyonder.co.uk webmaster@bafhs.org.uk webmaster@arnosvalefriends.org.uk ----- Original Message ----- From: "liverpud" <liverpud-49@rogers.com> To: <bristol_and_somerset@rootsweb.com> Sent: Monday, February 07, 2011 2:27 PM Subject: [B&S] Arnos Vale Cemetery > > Hi, There are Cemetery records but they will be searched for a fee. > > Check Friends of Arnos Vale -- http://www.arnosvalefriends.org.uk/ > > Edna - Ottawa >

There's an interesting article in today's Evening Post entitled Pictures reveal Southmead Hospital's history http://www.thisisbristol.co.uk/news/PICTURES-REVEAL-HOSPITAL-HISTORY/article-3189861-detail/article.html Photographs of The Hospital at Southmead through the years can be seen here: http://www.superhospitalforbristol.nhs.uk/Gallery.php? There are 11 galleries of photographs and the pictures include photographs taken at the hospital during the First World War and a photograph of the Good quadruplets in 1948. -- Josephine Jeremiah www.ianandjo.dsl.pipex.com

Hi, There are Cemetery records but they will be searched for a fee. Check Friends of Arnos Vale -- http://www.arnosvalefriends.org.uk/ Edna - Ottawa

Hello i am looking for two baptisms held in Congresbury in 1811. ohn and James Gage. I have the parents as William and Mary dont have where they come from or the church, i guess St Andrews. ut any info would be appreciated aybe William and Mary married there ? it would be around 1800. any Thanks andra ------------------------------ o unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to BRISTOL_AND_SOMERSET-request@rootsweb.com ith the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of he message

Hi Roy and Josephine Thanks for your comments re living persons - and I quite agree, you only need to type someone's name on a search engine now and 9 times out of 10 there will be a link to someone. Lin In a message dated 06/02/2011 20:19:03 GMT Standard Time, roy.stockdill@btinternet.com writes: On 6 Feb 2011 at 18:13, Josephine Jeremiah wrote: > When I'm browsing the archives of other lists and forums, I often see > references about not mentioning details of living people or giving > information on anyone who might still be alive. > > However, some people let loose all kinds of personal information about > themselves and their close families on the internet. By putting two or > three words into Google, you can get all kinds of details about some > people. Even those who think they are experienced with e-mail might > not realize just how much they have divulged over the years. > > Last year, I heard on the news that in future people may change their > names to escape what is recorded about them on the internet or because > of what they'd written on the internet in their youth. > This is a most interesting topic, Josephine, and one in which I am hugely interested myself. I also believe it ought to be debated widely, since it affects ALL genealogists and family historians. Indeed, there are fewer topics of greater concern to us all. Personally, I think the Rootsweb rules concerning living persons are archaic, over- zealous and verging on the paranoid. The notion that in 2011 no-one should be allowed to mention the name of a living person is clearly utter nonsense when so much detail can be quite easily discovered, as you rightly point out, about just about everyone alive! Newspapers and broadcasting media publish the names of hundreds of living people every day. If they didn't, the media wouldn't exist! Living persons appear in telephone directories and myriad other records, which are found all over the Internet. Moreover, all of us who contribute to the Rootsweb lists are "living persons" too. We also wish to communicate with other living persons who are kin we may not even know about but the Rootsweb rules would appear to preclude this. Listowners seem to operate some kind of dictatorial and anti-democratic policies in their interpretation of Rootsweb's rules, though there are considerable differences in application from list to list. Some Listowners are more tolerant and flexible, allowing posts concerning living people where a modicum of common sense is applied. -- Roy Stockdill Genealogical researcher, writer & lecturer Newbies' Guide to Genealogy & Family History: www.genuki.org.uk/gs/Newbie.html "There is only one thing in the world worse than being talked about, and that is not being talked about." OSCAR WILDE ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to BRISTOL_AND_SOMERSET-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

On Sun, 06 Feb 2011 20:18:56 -0000, Roy Stockdill <roy.stockdill@btinternet.com> wrote: > Newspapers and broadcasting media publish the names of hundreds of > living people every day. If they didn't, the media wouldn't exist! What I find interesting is that a search can be made for surname or place in local newspapers. I often mention Bristol's Evening Post and Bath Chronicle in posts, but there are a number of other local newspapers, which I browse online such as: Bridgwater Mercury http://www.bridgwatermercury.co.uk/ Shepton Mallet Journal http://www.thisissomerset.co.uk/news/shepton Chard and Ilminster News http://www.chardandilminsternews.co.uk/ It's surprising what can turn up in local newspapers such as these. -- Josephine Jeremiah www.ianandjo.dsl.pipex.com

Well said Roy Mike in Droitwich my family tree http://mjfisher.tribalpages.com Roy Stockdill wrote: > On 6 Feb 2011 at 18:13, Josephine Jeremiah wrote: > >> When I'm browsing the archives of other lists and forums, I often see >> references about not mentioning details of living people or giving >> information on anyone who might still be alive. >> >> However, some people let loose all kinds of personal information about >> themselves and their close families on the internet. By putting two or >> three words into Google, you can get all kinds of details about some >> people. Even those who think they are experienced with e-mail might >> not realize just how much they have divulged over the years. >> >> Last year, I heard on the news that in future people may change their >> names to escape what is recorded about them on the internet or because >> of what they'd written on the internet in their youth. > > > This is a most interesting topic, Josephine, and one in which I am hugely interested > myself. I also believe it ought to be debated widely, since it affects ALL genealogists > and family historians. Indeed, there are fewer topics of greater concern to us all. > > Personally, I think the Rootsweb rules concerning living persons are archaic, over- > zealous and verging on the paranoid. The notion that in 2011 no-one should be > allowed to mention the name of a living person is clearly utter nonsense when so > much detail can be quite easily discovered, as you rightly point out, about just about > everyone alive! Newspapers and broadcasting media publish the names of hundreds > of living people every day. If they didn't, the media wouldn't exist! Living persons > appear in telephone directories and myriad other records, which are found all over the > Internet. Moreover, all of us who contribute to the Rootsweb lists are "living persons" > too. We also wish to communicate with other living persons who are kin we may not > even know about but the Rootsweb rules would appear to preclude this. > > Listowners seem to operate some kind of dictatorial and anti-democratic policies in > their interpretation of Rootsweb's rules, though there are considerable differences in > application from list to list. Some Listowners are more tolerant and flexible, allowing > posts concerning living people where a modicum of common sense is applied. > > -- > Roy Stockdill > Genealogical researcher, writer & lecturer > Newbies' Guide to Genealogy & Family History: www.genuki.org.uk/gs/Newbie.html > > "There is only one thing in the world worse than being talked about, > and that is not being talked about." > OSCAR WILDE > > > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to BRISTOL_AND_SOMERSET-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message >

On Sun, 06 Feb 2011 20:18:56 -0000, Roy Stockdill <roy.stockdill@btinternet.com> wrote: > Listowners seem to operate some kind of dictatorial and anti-democratic > policies in their interpretation of Rootsweb's rules, though there are > considerable differences in application from list to list. Some > Listowners are more tolerant and flexible, allowing posts concerning > living people where a modicum of common sense is applied. Hi Roy, I can't ever remember this subject being any great issue on the Bristol_and_ Somerset list, though it seems to crop up fairly regularly on some of the other lists, which I browse, and some people seem to get hot under the collar about it. I've just put the words "living people" into the B & S archives and there are 40 hits and "living person" gets 15 hits. This list has been going for well over a decade so B & S listers must be among the ones with the common sense:-) Josephine -- Josephine Jeremiah www.ianandjo.dsl.pipex.com

On 6 Feb 2011 at 18:13, Josephine Jeremiah wrote: > When I'm browsing the archives of other lists and forums, I often see > references about not mentioning details of living people or giving > information on anyone who might still be alive. > > However, some people let loose all kinds of personal information about > themselves and their close families on the internet. By putting two or > three words into Google, you can get all kinds of details about some > people. Even those who think they are experienced with e-mail might > not realize just how much they have divulged over the years. > > Last year, I heard on the news that in future people may change their > names to escape what is recorded about them on the internet or because > of what they'd written on the internet in their youth. > This is a most interesting topic, Josephine, and one in which I am hugely interested myself. I also believe it ought to be debated widely, since it affects ALL genealogists and family historians. Indeed, there are fewer topics of greater concern to us all. Personally, I think the Rootsweb rules concerning living persons are archaic, over- zealous and verging on the paranoid. The notion that in 2011 no-one should be allowed to mention the name of a living person is clearly utter nonsense when so much detail can be quite easily discovered, as you rightly point out, about just about everyone alive! Newspapers and broadcasting media publish the names of hundreds of living people every day. If they didn't, the media wouldn't exist! Living persons appear in telephone directories and myriad other records, which are found all over the Internet. Moreover, all of us who contribute to the Rootsweb lists are "living persons" too. We also wish to communicate with other living persons who are kin we may not even know about but the Rootsweb rules would appear to preclude this. Listowners seem to operate some kind of dictatorial and anti-democratic policies in their interpretation of Rootsweb's rules, though there are considerable differences in application from list to list. Some Listowners are more tolerant and flexible, allowing posts concerning living people where a modicum of common sense is applied. -- Roy Stockdill Genealogical researcher, writer & lecturer Newbies' Guide to Genealogy & Family History: www.genuki.org.uk/gs/Newbie.html "There is only one thing in the world worse than being talked about, and that is not being talked about." OSCAR WILDE

When I'm browsing the archives of other lists and forums, I often see references about not mentioning details of living people or giving information on anyone who might still be alive. However, some people let loose all kinds of personal information about themselves and their close families on the internet. By putting two or three words into Google, you can get all kinds of details about some people. Even those who think they are experienced with e-mail might not realize just how much they have divulged over the years. Last year, I heard on the news that in future people may change their names to escape what is recorded about them on the internet or because of what they'd written on the internet in their youth. -- Josephine Jeremiah www.ianandjo.dsl.pipex.com

Think I'm verging on antiqueness... Edna - sunny Ottawa --->>>> Intersting !!!!!!!!!!!! JUST CLICK ON WHATEVER YEAR YOU WANT AND SEE WHAT THE NEWS WAS. This one's fun.......enjoy..... THIS IS INTERESTING.......... PLEASE FORWARD TO YOUR FRIENDS AND RELATIVES.... Click on the year you were born and read the news for that year. _1900_ ( http://www.infoplease..com/year/1900.html ) _1901_ ( http://www.infoplease..com/year/1901.html ) _1902_ ( http://www.infoplease..com/year/1902.html ) _1903_ ( http://www.infoplease..com/year/1903.html ) _1904_ ( http://www.infoplease..com/year/1904.html ) _1905_ ( http://www.infoplease..com/year/1905.html ) _1906_ ( http://www.infoplease..com/year/1906.html ) _1907_ ( http://www.infoplease..com/year/1907.html _1908_ ( http://www.infoplease.com/year/1908.html ) _1909_ ( http://www.infoplease.com/year/1909.html ) _1910_ ( http://www.infoplease.com/year/1910.html) _1911_ ( http://www.infoplease.com/year/1911.html ) _1912_ ( http://www.infoplease.com/year/1912.html ) _1913_ ( http://www.infoplease.com/year/1913.html ) _1914_ ( http://www.infoplease.com/year/1914.html ) _1915_ ( http://www.infoplease.com/year/1915.html ) _1916_ ( http://www.infoplease.com/year/1916.html ) _1917_ ( http://www.infoplease.com/year/1917.html ) _1918_ ( http://www.infoplease.com/year/1918.html ) _1919_ ( http://www.infoplease.com/year/1919.html ) _1920_ ( http://www.infoplease.com/year/1920.html ) _1921_ ( http://www.infoplease.com/year/1921.html ) _1922_ ( http://www.infoplease.com/year/1922.html ) _1923_ ( http://www.infoplease.com/year/1923.html ) _1924_ ( http://www.infoplease.com/year/1924.html ) _1925_ ( http://www.infoplease.com/year/1925.html ) _1926_ ( http://www.infoplease.com/year/1926.html ) _1927_ ( http://www.infoplease.com/year/1927.html ) _1928_ ( http://www.infoplease.com/year/1928.html ) _1929_ ( http://www.infoplease.com/year/1929.html ) _1930_ ( http://www.infoplease.com/year/1930.html ) _1931_ ( http://www.infoplease.com/year/1931.html ) _1932_ ( http://www.infoplease.com/year/1932.html ) _1933_ ( http://www.infoplease.com/year/1933.html ) _1934_ ( http://www.infoplease.com/year/1934.html ) _1935_ ( http://www.infoplease.com/year/1935.html ) _1936_ ( http://www.infoplease.com/year/1936.html ) _1937_ ( http://www.infoplease.com/year/1937.html ) _1938_ ( http://www.infoplease.com/year/1938.html ) _1939_ ( http://www.infoplease.com/year/1939.html ) _1940_ ( http://www.infoplease.com/year/1940.html ) _1941_ ( http://www.infoplease.com/year/1941.html ) _1942_ ( http://www.infoplease.com/year/1942.html ) _1943_ ( http://www.infoplease.com/year/1943.html ) _1944_ ( http://www.infoplease.com/year/1944.html ) _1945_ ( http://www.infoplease.com/year/1945.html ) _1946_ ( http://www.infoplease.com/year/1946.html ) _1947_ ( http://www.infoplease.com/year/1947.html ) _1948_ ( http://www.infoplease.com/year/1948.html ) _1949_ ( http://www.infoplease.com/year/1949.html ) _1950_ ( http://www.infoplease.com/year/1950.html ) _1951_ ( http://www.infoplease.com/year/1951.html ) _1952_ ( http://www.infoplease.com/year/1952.html ) _1953_ ( http://www.infoplease.com/year/1953.html ) _1954_ ( http://www.infoplease.com/year/1954.html ) _1955_ ( http://www.infoplease.com/year/1955.html ) _1956_ ( http://www.infoplease.com/year/1956.html ) _1957_ ( http://www.infoplease.com/year/1957.html ) _1958_ ( http://www.infoplease.com/year/1958.html ) _1959_ ( http://www.infoplease.com/year/1959.html ) _1960_ ( http://www.infoplease.com/year/1960.html ) _1961_ ( http://www.infoplease.com/year/1961.html ) _1962_ ( http://www.infoplease.com/year/1962.html ) _1963_ ( http://www.infoplease.com/year/1963.html ) _1964_ ( http://www.infoplease.com/year/1964.html ) _1965_ ( http://www.infoplease.com/year/1965.html ) _1966_ ( http://www.infoplease.com/year/1966.html ) _1967_ ( http://www.infoplease.com/year/1967.html ) _1968_ ( http://www.infoplease.com/year/1968.html ) _1969_ ( http://www.infoplease.com/year/1969.html ) _1970_ ( http://www.infoplease.com/year/1970.html ) _1971_ ( http://www.infoplease.com/year/1971.html ) _1972_ ( http://www.infoplease.com/year/1972.html ) _1973_ ( http://www.infoplease.com/year/1973.html ) _1974_ ( http://www.infoplease.com/year/1974.html ) _1975_ ( http://www.infoplease.com/year/1975.html ) _1976_ ( http://www.infoplease.com/year/1976.html ) _1977_ ( http://www.infoplease.com/year/1977.html ) _1978_ ( http://www.infoplease.com/year/1978.html ) _1979_ ( http://www.infoplease.com/year/1979.html ) _1980_ ( http://www.infoplease.com/year/1980.html ) _1981_ ( http://www.infoplease.com/year/1981.html ) _1982_ ( http://www.infoplease.com/year/1982.html ) _1983_ ( http://www.infoplease.com/year/1983.html ) _1984_ ( http://www.infoplease.com/year/1984.html ) _1985_ ( http://www.infoplease.com/year/1985.html ) _1986_ ( http://www.infoplease.com/year/1986.html ) _1987_ ( http://www.infoplease.com/year/1987.html ) _1988_ ( http://www.infoplease.com/year/1988.html ) _1989_ ( http://www.infoplease.com/year/1989.html ) _1990_ ( http://www.infoplease.com/year/1990.html ) _1991_ ( http://www.infoplease.com/year/1991.html ) _1992_ ( http://www.infoplease.com/year/1992.html ) _1993_ ( http://www.infoplease.com/year/1993.html ) _1994_ ( http://www.infoplease.com/year/1994.html ) _1995_ ( http://www.infoplease.com/year/1995.html ) _1996_ ( http://www.infoplease.com/year/1996.html ) _1997_ ( http://www.infoplease.com/year/1997.html ) _1998_ ( http://www.infoplease.com/year/1998.html ) _1999_ ( http://www.infoplease.com/year/1999.html ) _2000_ ( http://www.infoplease.com/year/2000.html ) _2001_ ( http://www.infoplease.com/year/2001.html ) _2002_ ( http://www.infoplease.com/year/2002.html ) _2003_ ( http://www.infoplease.com/year/2003.html ) _2004_ ( http://www.infoplease.com/year/2004.html ) _2005_ (http://www.infoplease.com/year/2005.html ) _2006_ (http://www.infoplease.com/year/2006.html ) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 10.0.1204 / Virus Database: 1435/3419 - Release Date: 02/02/11

On Sat, 05 Feb 2011 20:34:11 -0000, liverpud <liverpud-49@rogers.com> wrote: > The Vandyke of Fishponds does look posh -- > http://www.flickr.com/photos/brizzlebornandbred/4413324693/ Thanks for the picture, Edna. Yes, the steps leading up to the doors of the Vandyck Cinema certainly made an impression. Just looking at the picture made me think of all the films I once enjoyed there. One in particular came to mind, which my parents took me to see when I was a child. This morning, I didn't know the name of it, but I knew that Max Bygraves starred in it and that it was about orphans. On, the wonders of the internet! All I had to do was put "Max Bygraves""film""orphan" into Google and the name and date of the film appeared. The film was called A Cry from the Streets (1958). Josephine -- Josephine Jeremiah www.ianandjo.dsl.pipex.com

My correspondent, who is researching Quaker family history, has drawn my attention to the Quaker Burial Ground, which used to be in Redcliff(e), Bristol. I can see it marked on my Alan Godfrey Old Ordnance Survey Map of Bristol (SW)& Bedminster 1902 as Friends' Burial Ground. It was between Redcliff(e) Wharf and St. Mary Redcliff(e) Church. (I've put the final e in brackets as the 1902 map gives the spelling Redcliff and my current Bristol map gives it as Redcliffe.) Does anyone have access to the B & A FHS Finding Index for Avon Memorial Inscriptions, please? If so, is the Friends' Burial Ground at Redcliff(e)included and are there any monumental inscriptions for anyone with the surname ELLIS, please? Josephine -- Josephine Jeremiah www.ianandjo.dsl.pipex.com

----- Original Message ----- From: "Jenny Davis" <jenny.davis@zen.co.uk> To: <bristol_and_somerset@rootsweb.com> Sent: Saturday, February 05, 2011 7:52 PM Subject: Re: [B&S] Combe St Nicholas (FARRANT) > On 05 Feb 2011 Peter wrote: > I think the marriage was probably 12th February 1832 at Otterford between > William Farrant and Hannah Marks, but I have not had the opportunity as > yet > to look at the original record and see how well it fits. > > > Hello again Peter, > > Certainly those marriage details are exactly as found on Roy Parkhouse's > website: > > here http://www.genuki.org.uk/big/eng/SOM/Otterford/OttMar.html Thanks again Jenny I see the site also contains the following baptism: Farrant Sarah 04 Aug 1833 d William/Hannah, shoemaker, Bishopswood which again fits with the Combe St Nicholas Farrant family, so I think that confirms that the marriage is the one applicable to the Combe St Nicholas family. Interestingly the website also has another Farrant baptism for me to investigate Farrant Walter 11 Dec 1842 s Thomas/Ann, shoemaker, Royston Water and Axminster William did have a younger brother called Thomas who I had not hitherto tracked down....... Regards Peter