I have just received the birth certificate of my husband's grandfather and where he was born was Pitstone, Bucks "RSD" Can anyone tell me what the RSD stand for - is it residence? meaning he was born at home? Judy BC Canada

There are parishes in Cornwall, as well as at least one of which I'm aware in Notts (the one I need, of course), where the CofE (possibly the local parish council) would not grant the LDS the right to film. However, the registers have been filmed by the archives/record offices and formatted to fiche, but they will not sell duplicates for love or money. Bottom line: the only access is in person at the archives/records office, or by hiring someone near that records office. Sadly, for a great many people these logistics and/or costs are prohibitive to undertaking family history research. -Sandy On Tuesday, April 19, 2005, at 12:01 PM, Kevin Quick wrote: > The answer at the time > (as best I can now remember) was that the vast majority of the > microfilms were produced for the Record Office either at the expense of > the Latter Day Saints, or by them (not sure which it was). These films, > the Record Office did not have the rights to duplicate for private > individuals, so it was not possible to get copies made at all. There > were a very few places where the Record Office had been responsible for > producing the films themselves, and they were in principle willing to > get duplicates made (note this is duplicate rolls not converting film to > fiche), but before they could do so, permission first had to be sought > from the relevant parish council.

Hi, i am interested in SMITHS from Marsworth can anyone help or is anyone researching this line ? THANK YOU. Keith in Malta.

Hi Kevin This is very interesting info too. I suspect nothing much has changed at Bucks RO as my enquiry about getting copies of PRs was made only a few months ago. But do listers have any comments on the possibility of asking LDS if they would ease up their restrictions on copying the Bucks PRs?? Of course they may be restrained by parishes or dioceses too, but maybe it's worth asking... Celia In Chesterfield -----Original Message----- From: Kevin Quick [mailto:k.a.quick@open.ac.uk] Sent: 19 April 2005 18:02 To: BUCKS-L@rootsweb.com Subject: RE: [BKM] Parish registers on fiche >I think you are right that a microfilm copy could be cheaper than (or at >least about equal cost to) buying fiche copies and that photocopying adds up >to an astronomical amount.  But I don't think Northants RO (or Bucks RO for >that matter) will sell film copies.  I have a feeling I asked Bucks this >when I enquired about fiche copies, but I can always check again - or maybe >other listers know the answer to this. A number of years back I enquired at the Bucks Record Office re. getting copies made of some of the microfilms for myself. The answer at the time (as best I can now remember) was that the vast majority of the microfilms were produced for the Record Office either at the expense of the Latter Day Saints, or by them (not sure which it was). These films, the Record Office did not have the rights to duplicate for private individuals, so it was not possible to get copies made at all. There were a very few places where the Record Office had been responsible for producing the films themselves, and they were in principle willing to get duplicates made (note this is duplicate rolls not converting film to fiche), but before they could do so, permission first had to be sought from the relevant parish council. It just happened that one of the Parishes I was interested in fell into this category and I applied for a copy - it was very nearly a year later by the time the Parish Council had considered the application and the duplicate was produced (perhaps I was unlucky with the council concerned re. the time it took). Of course this may not be the situation now as it was a number of years ago, but I would not be surprised if the same restrictions applied. Kevin Quick ==== BUCKS Mailing List ==== As of 30 December 2004: 386 list subscribers 175 digest subscribers 561 total subscribers

>I think you are right that a microfilm copy could be cheaper than (or at >least about equal cost to) buying fiche copies and that photocopying adds up >to an astronomical amount.  But I don't think Northants RO (or Bucks RO for >that matter) will sell film copies.  I have a feeling I asked Bucks this >when I enquired about fiche copies, but I can always check again - or maybe >other listers know the answer to this. A number of years back I enquired at the Bucks Record Office re. getting copies made of some of the microfilms for myself. The answer at the time (as best I can now remember) was that the vast majority of the microfilms were produced for the Record Office either at the expense of the Latter Day Saints, or by them (not sure which it was). These films, the Record Office did not have the rights to duplicate for private individuals, so it was not possible to get copies made at all. There were a very few places where the Record Office had been responsible for producing the films themselves, and they were in principle willing to get duplicates made (note this is duplicate rolls not converting film to fiche), but before they could do so, permission first had to be sought from the relevant parish council. It just happened that one of the Parishes I was interested in fell into this category and I applied for a copy - it was very nearly a year later by the time the Parish Council had considered the application and the duplicate was produced (perhaps I was unlucky with the council concerned re. the time it took). Of course this may not be the situation now as it was a number of years ago, but I would not be surprised if the same restrictions applied. Kevin Quick

Hi Sandy I am so grateful for your comments and for being the first person to give me an understandable reason why there may be restrictions on transcribing (and publishing) the whole or large part of a register. Thanks to my son asking a very sensible question when I was moaning about this issue for the umpteenth time (he said "Who owns the original church registers?") my brain had previously reached the point of thinking that registers deposited at ROs may still belong to another body - the individual church or chapel for instance - and, therefore, the RO may have to protect the owners' interests, including their copyright. But no-one (including Bucks RO) had actually SAID at any time that this was the reason for not having Bucks PRs available on fiche. I suppose too it still begs the question why Northants are free to copy and sell PRs and Bucks are not - perhaps it comes down simply to different depositing agreements with document owners, or different dioceses having different attitudes, or other local reasons, like you say. I think you are right that a microfilm copy could be cheaper than (or at least about equal cost to) buying fiche copies and that photocopying adds up to an astronomical amount. But I don't think Northants RO (or Bucks RO for that matter) will sell film copies. I have a feeling I asked Bucks this when I enquired about fiche copies, but I can always check again - or maybe other listers know the answer to this. Since we have BFHS and BGS members on these lists - and I'll guess we also have people with RO and diocesan level contacts - can I register a plea? Is it possible to negotiate different arrangements for Bucks PRs? Those listers with appropriate influence may be able to transform life for all Bucks researchers.... Celia Renshaw In Chesterfield UK -----Original Message----- From: Sandy [mailto:teylu@earthlink.net] Sent: 19 April 2005 15:56 To: Celia Renshaw Cc: BUCKS-L@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [BKM] Parish registers on fiche Celia, I may be misunderstanding, but in reading your messages I wonder if the difference between Northants and Bucks has more to do with restrictions which preclude duplication of the fiche than it does with the cost associated with duplicating a roll of microfilm. The cost of purchasing a duplicate roll of microfilm (while higher than purchasing a few fiche) shouldn't approach the usual definition of exorbitant. I've not purchased a duplicate roll of film in the UK, but I've usually paid somewhere between $8 to $12 USD per roll when purchasing from archives and libraries in the U.S. By contrast, the cost of putting the film on a reader-printer and making "paper photocopies" of an entire roll, paying by the printed sheet, would approach the astronomical (by my budget anyway). ;-) But the same could be said for doing this same thing with a number of microfiche. However, I ran into what seems to be a similar situation concerning Cornwall Illogan and Nottingham St. Mary's. You can view the images of the original registers (on fiche, I believe) at the CRO or Notts archives, but they do not allow the sale of duplicates of those fiche. I think it is even necessary to obtain specific permission to be allowed to produce transcriptions of the registers (not so much as regards each particular entry, as to transcribe the full, or perhaps some great segment). As best I've been able to ascertain, the nature and reasons for the restrictions seem to differ from one county records/diocesan archives to the next, with some (such as Northants) seeming not to have restrictions. In the case of Illogan and Notts St. Mary's, I believe the restrictions come from the church (although I'm not certain whether from the parish level or the diocese). Also, in some cases there seem to be arrangements or agreements between the records/archives office and the local FHS, but I am not personally familiar with any of those and such arrangements might also differ from place to place. Eve likely would know more about whether the Bucks FHS or BucksGS has any such particular arrangement. I don't know if any of this helps, or simply serves to further muddy the waters. But I agree it is an undesirable situation for researchers. -Sandy > On Saturday, April 16, 2005, at 07:28 AM, Celia Renshaw wrote: > However, Northants RO also offers a fiche copying service - £2 per > fiche. > It costs a lot for a whole parish - from, say, 1500s to 1900s it could > be > about £50, but one can buy just two or three at a time, good when one's > on a > budget. Since Northants do this, I thought it odd that Bucks did not. > Maybe it's because Northants have copied their registers onto fiche in > the > first place and Bucks have used film, so for Bucks to put them all onto > fiche as well would be prohibitive. I'm only guessing here but how I > wish > they could make fiche copies available. As I've said in another > message, it > looks like the 'trustworthy' transcriptions you mention are going to be > the > only option and the 'primary source' research we're exhorted to do is > nigh > impossible for many. > > Thanks again > Celia > In Chesterfield > > -----Original Message----- > From: Eve McLaughlin [mailto:eve@varneys.demon.co.uk] > Sent: 15 April 2005 12:24 > To: Celia Renshaw > Cc: BUCKS-L@rootsweb.com > Subject: Re: [BKM] Parish registers on fiche > > >> >> It does seem rather odd that if Northants supplies copies, Bucks >> doesn't.. > > No, this stems from a complicated leasing arrangement which Northants > had for a photocopier, many years ago. They had to pay x (large) pounds > a month for a set maximum quota whether they used the copier or not, so > they made sure they did take up the full quota, by copying all the BTs, > systematically. > Result was good for them =- they got the value, and very good for > researchers, because there were sets of copies of every parish sitting > on a shelf, at hand. Presumably they are now duplicating and selling > these copies. The copier company withdrew the arrangement. > Bucks didn't use the same system - and there is a general Archive rule > that actual parchment and any bound volumes cannot be copied (using > normal copiers) > - so while you vould probably arrange for a film to be made, at serious > cost, there will not be photocopies now. > Our own (BGS) transcribed registers are normally carefully checked - I > did most of the older period ones and have checked personally some of > the later ones. Where copies are unchecked, we usually say so. I do know > that some other transcriptions have been issued where there are gaps and > omissions. > If you can borrow that car again and come down to Aylesbury for our > Family History Feast on April 23, you will be able to see all the > livrary transcriptions. > > -- > Eve McLaughlin > > Author of the McLaughlin Guides for family historians > Secretary Bucks Genealogical Society > > > > > ==== BUCKS Mailing List ==== > To search the BUCKS list message archives, go to: > http://listsearches.rootsweb.com/cgi-bin/listsearch.pl?list=BUCKS >

Hi Keith, Could you give us a bit more info? Like names and dates, we can then look up certain census records in line with your dates. Eileen

Celia, I may be misunderstanding, but in reading your messages I wonder if the difference between Northants and Bucks has more to do with restrictions which preclude duplication of the fiche than it does with the cost associated with duplicating a roll of microfilm. The cost of purchasing a duplicate roll of microfilm (while higher than purchasing a few fiche) shouldn't approach the usual definition of exorbitant. I've not purchased a duplicate roll of film in the UK, but I've usually paid somewhere between $8 to $12 USD per roll when purchasing from archives and libraries in the U.S. By contrast, the cost of putting the film on a reader-printer and making "paper photocopies" of an entire roll, paying by the printed sheet, would approach the astronomical (by my budget anyway). ;-) But the same could be said for doing this same thing with a number of microfiche. However, I ran into what seems to be a similar situation concerning Cornwall Illogan and Nottingham St. Mary's. You can view the images of the original registers (on fiche, I believe) at the CRO or Notts archives, but they do not allow the sale of duplicates of those fiche. I think it is even necessary to obtain specific permission to be allowed to produce transcriptions of the registers (not so much as regards each particular entry, as to transcribe the full, or perhaps some great segment). As best I've been able to ascertain, the nature and reasons for the restrictions seem to differ from one county records/diocesan archives to the next, with some (such as Northants) seeming not to have restrictions. In the case of Illogan and Notts St. Mary's, I believe the restrictions come from the church (although I'm not certain whether from the parish level or the diocese). Also, in some cases there seem to be arrangements or agreements between the records/archives office and the local FHS, but I am not personally familiar with any of those and such arrangements might also differ from place to place. Eve likely would know more about whether the Bucks FHS or BucksGS has any such particular arrangement. I don't know if any of this helps, or simply serves to further muddy the waters. But I agree it is an undesirable situation for researchers. -Sandy > On Saturday, April 16, 2005, at 07:28 AM, Celia Renshaw wrote: > However, Northants RO also offers a fiche copying service - £2 per > fiche. > It costs a lot for a whole parish - from, say, 1500s to 1900s it could > be > about £50, but one can buy just two or three at a time, good when one's > on a > budget. Since Northants do this, I thought it odd that Bucks did not. > Maybe it's because Northants have copied their registers onto fiche in > the > first place and Bucks have used film, so for Bucks to put them all onto > fiche as well would be prohibitive. I'm only guessing here but how I > wish > they could make fiche copies available. As I've said in another > message, it > looks like the 'trustworthy' transcriptions you mention are going to be > the > only option and the 'primary source' research we're exhorted to do is > nigh > impossible for many. > > Thanks again > Celia > In Chesterfield > > -----Original Message----- > From: Eve McLaughlin [mailto:eve@varneys.demon.co.uk] > Sent: 15 April 2005 12:24 > To: Celia Renshaw > Cc: BUCKS-L@rootsweb.com > Subject: Re: [BKM] Parish registers on fiche > > >> >> It does seem rather odd that if Northants supplies copies, Bucks >> doesn't.. > > No, this stems from a complicated leasing arrangement which Northants > had for a photocopier, many years ago. They had to pay x (large) pounds > a month for a set maximum quota whether they used the copier or not, so > they made sure they did take up the full quota, by copying all the BTs, > systematically. > Result was good for them =- they got the value, and very good for > researchers, because there were sets of copies of every parish sitting > on a shelf, at hand. Presumably they are now duplicating and selling > these copies. The copier company withdrew the arrangement. > Bucks didn't use the same system - and there is a general Archive rule > that actual parchment and any bound volumes cannot be copied (using > normal copiers) > - so while you vould probably arrange for a film to be made, at serious > cost, there will not be photocopies now. > Our own (BGS) transcribed registers are normally carefully checked - I > did most of the older period ones and have checked personally some of > the later ones. Where copies are unchecked, we usually say so. I do know > that some other transcriptions have been issued where there are gaps and > omissions. > If you can borrow that car again and come down to Aylesbury for our > Family History Feast on April 23, you will be able to see all the > livrary transcriptions. > > -- > Eve McLaughlin > > Author of the McLaughlin Guides for family historians > Secretary Bucks Genealogical Society > > > > > ==== BUCKS Mailing List ==== > To search the BUCKS list message archives, go to: > http://listsearches.rootsweb.com/cgi-bin/listsearch.pl?list=BUCKS >

I have a Lucy Mary Jane PLATO born 11th April 1860 who has been described by others of her generation as "handicapped and couldn't walk or speak properly." In the 1891 census her entry was tagged 'imbecile'. I have often thought she may have suffered from Cerebral Palsy or whatever it was called then. I think that era may even have preceded the now politically incorrect spastic' - perhaps 'imbecile' covered it! It is sad to follow her life even at the ten year census intervals; 1861 at home with Mum & Dad, 1871 with her brother John at her father's mother's house, 1881 after both her parents had died with her mother's sister's family and in 1891 with her mother's 80 year old mother. What happened to her after that makes for somewhat sombre contemplation. Alan Plato Melbourne, Australia

In message <BAY104-F13616C21B7BEB4ED4F76F48A280@phx.gbl>, Family History <genealogy101@hotmail.com> writes >Hi > >In the 1871 census, > >Source information: RG10/1412 >Registration district: Aylesbury >Sub-registration district: Aylesbury >ED, institution, or vessel: County Pauper Lunatic Asylum >Folio: 101 >Page: 7 >Household schedule number: 1 > >i found an entry for a Hannah MARKHAM who could possibly be related to me... > >She is shown as being a 'lunatic' - How in 1871 did you get catagorised as a >lunatic as oposed to an idiot or an imbecile??? How were the catagories >defined??? The perception was generally in the eyes of the family and/or the enumerator. (There is a percebntage level of intelligence to help now) A lunatic was at least intermittemntly dangerous/potential so to himself or others. The condition could be the result of being hit on the head or some chemical disturbance in the brain or condition acquired as an dult. > an imbecile (normally from birth) was not ninepence in the shilling, unable to function well independently but usually able to dress himself, feed himself, even do very simple repetitive work like the lowest level of farm work/ An idiot (usually from birth) was ineducable, usually unable to manage even simple toilet functions, speech, feeding etc. (Sometimes the cause was starvation of oxygen during birth to an elderly mother, sometimes the more sinister attempt to 'purge' an unwanted pregnancy, which damaged the foetus rather than expelling it.) >if it is the same person then in 1851 she living in Hardwick with hubby and >children... What a way to end up! puerperal fever could get you classified as mad - even despair from having too many children and too little food or money. You could imagine she might just have snapped. -- Eve McLaughlin Author of the McLaughlin Guides for family historians Secretary Bucks Genealogical Society

"Family History" <genealogy101@hotmail.com> wrote : <snip> > She is shown as being a 'lunatic' - How in 1871 did you get catagorised as > a lunatic as oposed to an idiot or an imbecile??? How were the catagories > defined??? 'Googling' for 'imbecile lunatic idiot' throws up about 10,000 results, at least some with explanations. One of the first is at http://www.institutions.org.uk/poor_law_unions/imbeciles.htm which seems quite helpful. John B Leic., Eng "Helpful Advice & urls for London Listers" at http://londongenhelp.blogspot.com/

Hello Tezz, In period 1881 an Epileptic was classed as an Imbecile, I found one of my Maddox family some years back who was in Kingston Union Workhouse for 19 years, then was transfered to Brookwood Mental Hospital on 22/06/1889, and died there on 30/06/1929. Thanks Pete a kid from Shoreditch.

Hello Tezz, I have a Caroline Stranks (nee Carter), also a resident of Hardwick, who was admitted to the Bucks County Lunatic Asylum at Stone in June 1879. In 1853 she had married Richard Stranks, with whom she had 11 children, and was living at Hardwick with her family at the time of the 1861 and 71 censuses. She was a lace-maker in 1861. The records of Stone Lunatic Asylum give a lot of details about her; her "form of mental disorder" is described as "chronic mania". The first symptoms of insanity were said to have been observed about 1868, and the supposed cause was stated to be "sudden shock through one of her children being burned". From the list of symptoms, she seems to have been suffering from a number of delusions about herself and her family. She was said not to be suicidal, and "dangerous to others only by threats". She is shown at Stone Asylum in the 1881, 1891 and 1901 censuses, and died there in April 1906. Caroline Stranks was the grandmother of Charles James Stranks, who became Archdeacon of Durham Cathedral, and who wrote the book "Country Boy" about his childhood in Hardwick and Weedon. It was written under the pseudonym "Richard Hillyer", and the names of the villages and residents are also changed, no doubt because of the way in which he criticised the characters and behaviour of some of the inhabitants he considered to have abused their power over the labouring classes (of which he was one). However, the "Copyright 1966 C. J. Stranks" and the dedication "To E.L.S." (his wife, Elsie Lilian Stranks, nee Buckley) rather give the game away! Rosemary Jenkins (North Yorks.)

Dear List, Playing in Ancestry.com tonight I found my SMITH family just prior to their 1872 emigration to Toronto, Ontario. I had been back and forth looking for them in Canada and Bucks. Definitely them: Martin Luther Smith is my great-grandfather. And two new brother to investigate! I'm assuming the sisters worked at Loudwater Mill! 1871 Census [ NOTE: All in family - except border - born in same location as census: Parish of Chipping, Wycombe, Loudwater District, Flackwell Heath, Buckinghamshire, England ] William Smith 1825 (head) Shoemaker 46 Mary Smith 1829 [wife] Lacemaker 42 Sarah Smith 1852 [daughter] Works at Paper Mill, 19 Ellen Smith 1856 [daughter] Works at Paper Mill, 15 Thomas Smith 1859 [son] Scholar 12 Martin L Smith 1863 [son] Scholar 8 Newman H Smith 1865 [son] Scholar 6 Benjamin Spencer 1849 born Saunderton, Buckinghamshire, England Lodger Ag Labourer 22 Rebecca Wheeler 1792 Widow, Lodger [Mary Ann's mother!] Lacemaker 79 Al Dawson, Iowa City, Iowa - MA, History, UNC-Chapel Hill, 1973 Visit my website at:  www.familytreemaker.com/users/d/a/w/Al--Dawson/ Ancestor Anniversary: Matthew Webster & Elizabeth Ashton, April 17, 1587, Cossington, Leicestershire, England. Source: Compiled by Mrs. S. H. Skillington, of Leicester, England and communicated by Dr. and Mrs. Bruce Hunter Sisler of Chattanooga, Tennessee, "The Ancestry of Governor John Webster" (The American Genealogist, Whole Number 96, Vol. XXIV, No. 4, October, 1948, pp. 197-214.

Hi In the 1871 census, Source information: RG10/1412 Registration district: Aylesbury Sub-registration district: Aylesbury ED, institution, or vessel: County Pauper Lunatic Asylum Folio: 101 Page: 7 Household schedule number: 1 i found an entry for a Hannah MARKHAM who could possibly be related to me... She is shown as being a 'lunatic' - How in 1871 did you get catagorised as a lunatic as oposed to an idiot or an imbecile??? How were the catagories defined??? if it is the same person then in 1851 she living in Hardwick with hubby and children... What a way to end up! Kind regards Tezz _________________________________________________________________ It's fast, it's easy and it's free. Get MSN Messenger today! http://www.msn.co.uk/messenger

Shiela Thanks for that, thought i had put them on (Senior moment) John Dewberry 1795 Bucks married 1822 Waddesdon Ann Wheeler 1800 bnWaddesdon Bucks John Dewberry 1761 married Clarrisa Hines (1761) in 1783 believe this to be in Waddesdon also John Dewberry 1733 married Ann Saunders (1738) in 1759 Ditto John Dewberry 1702 married Mary Hartwell (1706)in1727 Ditto Thomas Ridgeway( bn ?) married Hannah Holland(1788) in 1809 Waddesdon Bucks Sarah Bull( bn ?) married 1755 Pilgrim Ridgeway(1736)in Upper Winchendon Bucks Love to hear from anyone connected to the above . Bill

Hi All Just listing my interests. Ridgeway, Dewberry, Wheeler, Saunders, Bull, Hines & Hartwell Bill

In message <4261D954.2070706@bigpond.com>, Bill <eubil@bigpond.com> writes >Hi All >Just listing my interests. Ridgeway, Dewberry, Wheeler, Saunders, Bull, >Hines & Hartwell At a guess, at least some of those will be in Waddesdon, adjoining Wootton Underwood and Quainton - it usually helps to say where, then you may get lucky and find instant cousins on the list. -- Eve McLaughlin Author of the McLaughlin Guides for family historians Secretary Bucks Genealogical Society

Some from Waddesdon? Looks like it, from those names. You may benefit from the 1841 Waddesdon census. Online at http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~lanchbury/waddesdon1841.html Link on Genuki Bucks site, Waddesdon parish page. Paul Bill wrote: > Hi All > Just listing my interests. Ridgeway, Dewberry, Wheeler, Saunders, > Bull, Hines & Hartwell > Bill > > > ==== BUCKS Mailing List ==== > Advertising for financial gain is not permitted on this List, although > subscribers may include a link to their website in their signature. > > > -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.9.15 - Release Date: 16/04/05

Dear List, I have reason to believe, from the 1851 census, that the head of this all-male family group in 1881 was the younger brother of my great-great-grandfather, William H. Smith, also a shoemmaker. William, and his wife Mary Ann (WHEELER) and family emigrated to Toronto, Ontarion 1870-1871. Household: Name RelationMarital StatusGenderAgeBirthplaceOccupationDisability George SMITH Head W Male 46 Flackwell Heath, Buckingham, England Shoemaker James SMITH Son U Male 23 Flackwell Heath, Buckingham, England Shoemaker William SMITH Son Male 13 Flackwell Heath, Buckingham, England Shoemaker Arthur SMITH Son Male 10 Flackwell Heath, Buckingham, England Scholar Sidney SMITH Son Male 4 Flackwell Heath, Buckingham, England Scholar Source Information: Dwelling Flackwell Heath Census PlaceWycombe, Buckingham, England Family History Library Film 1341355 Public Records Office Reference RG11 Piece / Folio 1464 / 112 Page Number 6