The marriage is not on FMP yet. I've already checked. There are no Brixton marriages pre 1754 and only films of originals after 1759. Regards, Deborah OBrien Devon OPC Co-ordinator DFHS Member 11261 http://genuki.cs.ncl.ac.uk/DEV/OPCproject.html Online Parish Clerk for Meavy, Newton Ferrers, Roborough by Torrington, Sheepstor, Walkhampton http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~dob7/index.html Researching SQUANCE, LILLICRAP, SURTEES, DANKESTER & YATES -----Original Message----- From: cornish-gen-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:cornish-gen-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Liz & Tom Thompson via Sent: 14 December 2014 16:41 To: cornish-gen@rootsweb.com; Devon@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [CORNISH-GEN] Familysearch - Susanna Tregelly Hello, Again, thanks to everyone who spared the time to help me solve the problem. >From the advice received, and because the Tregelly result is from a submitted source, I have decided to forgo it, although I will keep the record. It appears that my main option now is to bite the bullet and, against my instincts, invest in FMP, since Devon CC has sold out to them. I will then be able to trawl through the marriage records for Devon parishes. But, before I do, could someone please explain how the credits work. Does one credit give access to one Parish, one record, one page or just one line on the page? If only the latter, I will have to go for a more expensive package. Many thanks, Tom Thompson. ------------------------------- Listmom: ybowers@gmail.com or CORNISH-GEN-admin@rootsweb.com Visit the OPC (Online Parish Clerk) web page for transcription information http://www.cornwall-opc.org/ ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to CORNISH-GEN-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message
Hello, Again, thanks to everyone who spared the time to help me solve the problem. >From the advice received, and because the Tregelly result is from a submitted source, I have decided to forgo it, although I will keep the record. It appears that my main option now is to bite the bullet and, against my instincts, invest in FMP, since Devon CC has sold out to them. I will then be able to trawl through the marriage records for Devon parishes. But, before I do, could someone please explain how the credits work. Does one credit give access to one Parish, one record, one page or just one line on the page? If only the latter, I will have to go for a more expensive package. Many thanks, Tom Thompson.
My opinion is that credits make sense only for the limited/occasional user, as the cost mounts every time you look at a record. So for the person using the site on a regular basis, the subscription will usually make more sense in the long run. You can get the UK subscription and save a few pounds compared to the world subscription, but admittedly it is still pricey. When I was buying world subscriptions for Ancestry and FMP plus a few other US websites, it really added up. The LDS Family History Centers usually have access to these premium websites and can be used at the center without charge. There are two in Cornwall, at Helston and at St Austell (I think that they do not have a center at the church in Redruth), but neither is immediately adjacent to St Agnes for a quick look up for something you are researching. The hours are limited (longer opening times in Plymouth), so you would want to confirm opening and available resources before making the trip and probably make a list of all the things for which you are looking in order to maximize the efficiency of your visit there. David Coppin -----Original Message----- From: cornish-gen-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:cornish-gen-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Liz & Tom Thompson via Sent: Sunday, December 14, 2014 9:41 AM To: cornish-gen@rootsweb.com; Devon@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [CORNISH-GEN] Familysearch - Susanna Tregelly It appears that my main option now is to bite the bullet and, against my instincts, invest in FMP, since Devon CC has sold out to them. I will then be able to trawl through the marriage records for Devon parishes. But, before I do, could someone please explain how the credits work. Does one credit give access to one Parish, one record, one page or just one line on the page? If only the latter, I will have to go for a more expensive package. Many thanks, Tom Thompson.
I'm glad you understand it! Tom. ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Coppin via" <cornish-gen@rootsweb.com> To: "'Nivard Ovington'" <ovington.one@gmail.com>; <cornish-gen@rootsweb.com> Sent: Friday, December 12, 2014 11:09 PM Subject: Re: [CORNISH-GEN] Familysearch - Susanna Tregelly > Just as a matter of clarification, the IGI patron submissions and the > extracted data have never been removed from the Family Search website, but > "New Family Search" is as good as gone, in the last stages of being phased > out and is in a "read-only" condition. Even that will soon be gone, with > a > complete shutdown of that site, as found in the following announcement: > > NEW.FAMILYSEARCH.ORG WILL BE TURNED OFF ON FEBRUARY 1, 2015 > > The next step to fully implement FamilySearch Family Tree on > FamilySearch.org is to disable the ability for users to login to and > access > new.FamilySearch.org. This milestone is planned to occur on February 1, > 2015. > > On February 1, all public APIs (application programming interfaces) will > be > turned off, as will be the ability to access the program. This step is > necessary as we enter the final phase, which is to transfer and > synchronize > all of the remaining data from new.FamilySearch.org to FamilySearch Family > Tree. It is anticipated that this final phase of data testing, transfer, > and > retesting will require a year to complete. Once this phase is completed in > early 2016, new.FamilySearch.org will be completely shut down. > > It is important to note that many highly desired features of FamilySearch > Family Tree cannot begin to be developed until new.FamilySearch.org has > reached the final milestone and is completely shut-off. Once that has > happened, work can begin on features such as: > > Merging of gateway ancestors and other people with large records. > Highlighting and fixing other data eccentricities, such as when a > person > appears to have been married before birth, a child older than a parent, a > child who is the spouse of parent or grandparent, and so on. > The ability for users to change the gender of an ancestor. > The ability to see a spouse's ancestral line by default. > > The patron submissions as well as the extracted data have always been and > continue to be included and accessible, but one has to know where to find > them. They can be accessed at the following URL: > https://familysearch.org/search/collection/igi > You will see two categories to be searched, (1) Community Contributed IGI > (Personal family information submitted to the LDS Church) (these are the > patron submissions), and (2) Community Indexed IGI (Vital and church > records > from the early 1500s to 1885), the indexed (extracted) records, nearly all > of which are baptisms (christenings) and marriages. So the marriages that > were extracted data and found in the IGI are still found there, as well as > the baptisms. One can search by name, date, place, and/or batch numbers > using the IGI, and you can search either patron submitted or extracted > data, > or both. The IGI is not being updated (and has not been added to for some > time), but Family Search has expressed a commitment to keep all the > information in the IGI on the Family Search website and to keep it > available > and searchable. All new data is going directly into Family Search Family > Tree, with older data migrated to Family Tree. > > There are redundant ways to find much of the information, but hopefully > this > short summary will be helpful to those trying to find record data on > Family > Search. > > David Coppin > OPC Cardinham and St Winnow > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: cornish-gen-bounces@rootsweb.com > [mailto:cornish-gen-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Nivard Ovington via > Sent: Friday, December 12, 2014 1:07 PM > To: cornish-gen@rootsweb.com > Subject: Re: [CORNISH-GEN] Familysearch - Susanna Tregelly > > > In the case of the marriage you found in the old IGI, I would suggest you > found it on the old site and kept a record of it, when new familysearch > was > launched it did not and still does not include patron submissions from the > old IGI, hence why you couldn't find it > > > ------------------------------- > Listmom: ybowers@gmail.com or CORNISH-GEN-admin@rootsweb.com > > Visit the OPC (Online Parish Clerk) web page for transcription information > http://www.cornwall-opc.org/ > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > CORNISH-GEN-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message >
Hello, Tom. Nancy is a pet form of Ann - but your problem is that, like Agnes (pronounced Annis and often spelled that way till comparatively recently), Susanna or Susannah has the sound "ann" within it. Susanna (lily) comes from "The Book of Susanna", in the Apocrypha; Ann, oddly enough, isn't in the *Concise Bible Dictionary*, but I'm sure that I remember her from Sunday School as Mary's cousin, as in the paintings of St Ann and the Virgin. I think that an attempt to turn a Nancy into a Susanna could only end in tears, but if I were in your situation I'd definitely print the Nancy record and file it for future reference. A sidelight: I often find Nanny as a name in Cornwall, but Nancy only rarely. And an afterthought: I have a Susan Ann MILL (born in Australia; parents from Illogan) in my family who is also recorded as Susanna. Perhaps in Cornwall they did mix and match like that. Phoebe
The problem is that the LDS are trying to resolve your problem by suggesting what is the most common fix for current problems That being browser problems, they like most help assistants can only base their advice on what they think the problem is as described by the user Many users are having problems with browsers, Chrome in particular, so they may have thought that was your issue as well Nothing to do with being redirected In the case of the marriage you found in the old IGI, I would suggest you found it on the old site and kept a record of it, when new familysearch was launched it did not and still does not include patron submissions from the old IGI, hence why you couldn't find it You can interrogate the old IGI as I described previously, that would be the only other way you could have found it The LDS were clearly not expecting your having found it in the old IGI and that is why they didn't mention it Nancy is not a diminutive of Susanna Variants of Nancy are Annis, later Ann(e), Nanette, Nanny Agnes and Nancy are commonly interchangeable in Scotland But not Susanna Variants of Susanna are Susan, Sukie, Susannah You would need to search out the marriage to prove it is correct and not a figment of someones imagination, more often those with just a year are made up to fit other events, whereas a date as yours has tends to have some basis of truth, but I would certainly not accept it without some other evidence The reason you only get the births on the present familysearch is they have those transcribed but not the marriage, that does not mean it doesn't exist, only that they may not have reached that record so far Nivard Ovington in Cornwall (UK) On 12/12/2014 14:21, Liz & Tom Thompson via wrote: > > Hello to all, > > Many, many thanks to all those who responded over my FamilySearch problem. > It is truly remarkable how people rally round. > > I have found the Thomas Mitchell/Susanna Tregelly marriage entry and have > printed it off for safe keeping! > > However, I'm still puzzled over how this problem came about. Having been > told by FS that I had to update my browser, I have gone over to Firefox and > FS appears to work perfectly. But, how did I find that marriage entry in > the "old" FS if I was being directed to the "new" one by virtue of the > updated browser? > > And I'm still puzzled by the fact that a search for a marriage (approached > from the Susanna direction) only produced birth entries. I don't think that > even FS know the answer! > > All that aside, I am left with a basic problem over whether to accept this > TM/ST marriage as the one I want as there could be lots of other TM > marriages out there which aren't showing up. Any ideas? > > If I could establish that Nancy is a diminutive of Susanna, that would help > as I have found a burial for a Nancy Mitchell in St Agnes at a date that > would fit. > > Again, many thanks for all the help received. > > Tom Thompson, > St Agnes.
Web browsers are something like automobiles. YOU tell it where to go. Hopefully YOU don't get lost. If your car doesn't pass inspection, you may not drive it, at least to certain locations. Like cars, some browsers are better than others for certain jobs. And like cars the more practice, the better you get.Every time I entered UK from the continent I drove on the rightfor a few seconds.What works in one placewith your car or your browser doesn't always work in another. JimS On Friday, December 12, 2014 6:23 AM, Liz & Tom Thompson via <cornish-gen@rootsweb.com> wrote: Hello to all, Many, many thanks to all those who responded over my FamilySearch problem. It is truly remarkable how people rally round. I have found the Thomas Mitchell/Susanna Tregelly marriage entry and have printed it off for safe keeping! However, I'm still puzzled over how this problem came about. Having been told by FS that I had to update my browser, I have gone over to Firefox and FS appears to work perfectly. But, how did I find that marriage entry in the "old" FS if I was being directed to the "new" one by virtue of the updated browser? And I'm still puzzled by the fact that a search for a marriage (approached from the Susanna direction) only produced birth entries. I don't think that even FS know the answer! All that aside, I am left with a basic problem over whether to accept this TM/ST marriage as the one I want as there could be lots of other TM marriages out there which aren't showing up. Any ideas? If I could establish that Nancy is a diminutive of Susanna, that would help as I have found a burial for a Nancy Mitchell in St Agnes at a date that would fit. Again, many thanks for all the help received. Tom Thompson, St Agnes. ------------------------------- Listmom: ybowers@gmail.com or CORNISH-GEN-admin@rootsweb.com Visit the OPC (Online Parish Clerk) web page for transcription information http://www.cornwall-opc.org/ ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to CORNISH-GEN-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message
Just as a matter of clarification, the IGI patron submissions and the extracted data have never been removed from the Family Search website, but "New Family Search" is as good as gone, in the last stages of being phased out and is in a "read-only" condition. Even that will soon be gone, with a complete shutdown of that site, as found in the following announcement: NEW.FAMILYSEARCH.ORG WILL BE TURNED OFF ON FEBRUARY 1, 2015 The next step to fully implement FamilySearch Family Tree on FamilySearch.org is to disable the ability for users to login to and access new.FamilySearch.org. This milestone is planned to occur on February 1, 2015. On February 1, all public APIs (application programming interfaces) will be turned off, as will be the ability to access the program. This step is necessary as we enter the final phase, which is to transfer and synchronize all of the remaining data from new.FamilySearch.org to FamilySearch Family Tree. It is anticipated that this final phase of data testing, transfer, and retesting will require a year to complete. Once this phase is completed in early 2016, new.FamilySearch.org will be completely shut down. It is important to note that many highly desired features of FamilySearch Family Tree cannot begin to be developed until new.FamilySearch.org has reached the final milestone and is completely shut-off. Once that has happened, work can begin on features such as: Merging of gateway ancestors and other people with large records. Highlighting and fixing other data eccentricities, such as when a person appears to have been married before birth, a child older than a parent, a child who is the spouse of parent or grandparent, and so on. The ability for users to change the gender of an ancestor. The ability to see a spouse's ancestral line by default. The patron submissions as well as the extracted data have always been and continue to be included and accessible, but one has to know where to find them. They can be accessed at the following URL: https://familysearch.org/search/collection/igi You will see two categories to be searched, (1) Community Contributed IGI (Personal family information submitted to the LDS Church) (these are the patron submissions), and (2) Community Indexed IGI (Vital and church records from the early 1500s to 1885), the indexed (extracted) records, nearly all of which are baptisms (christenings) and marriages. So the marriages that were extracted data and found in the IGI are still found there, as well as the baptisms. One can search by name, date, place, and/or batch numbers using the IGI, and you can search either patron submitted or extracted data, or both. The IGI is not being updated (and has not been added to for some time), but Family Search has expressed a commitment to keep all the information in the IGI on the Family Search website and to keep it available and searchable. All new data is going directly into Family Search Family Tree, with older data migrated to Family Tree. There are redundant ways to find much of the information, but hopefully this short summary will be helpful to those trying to find record data on Family Search. David Coppin OPC Cardinham and St Winnow -----Original Message----- From: cornish-gen-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:cornish-gen-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Nivard Ovington via Sent: Friday, December 12, 2014 1:07 PM To: cornish-gen@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [CORNISH-GEN] Familysearch - Susanna Tregelly In the case of the marriage you found in the old IGI, I would suggest you found it on the old site and kept a record of it, when new familysearch was launched it did not and still does not include patron submissions from the old IGI, hence why you couldn't find it
Hello to all, Many, many thanks to all those who responded over my FamilySearch problem. It is truly remarkable how people rally round. I have found the Thomas Mitchell/Susanna Tregelly marriage entry and have printed it off for safe keeping! However, I'm still puzzled over how this problem came about. Having been told by FS that I had to update my browser, I have gone over to Firefox and FS appears to work perfectly. But, how did I find that marriage entry in the "old" FS if I was being directed to the "new" one by virtue of the updated browser? And I'm still puzzled by the fact that a search for a marriage (approached from the Susanna direction) only produced birth entries. I don't think that even FS know the answer! All that aside, I am left with a basic problem over whether to accept this TM/ST marriage as the one I want as there could be lots of other TM marriages out there which aren't showing up. Any ideas? If I could establish that Nancy is a diminutive of Susanna, that would help as I have found a burial for a Nancy Mitchell in St Agnes at a date that would fit. Again, many thanks for all the help received. Tom Thompson, St Agnes.
With respect to FamilySearch, browser choice can indeed make a difference. Unless you enjoy interminably slow page loading times, computer freeze-ups, and crashes, I would strongly recommend that you do NOT use Internet Explorer when using FamilySearch. Chrome usually works fine, and the Family History Library in Salt Lake City, as well as most of the local branch Family History Libraries generally use Chrome. Firefox works very well, and for some of the functions on the FamilySearch website, Firefox is noticeably faster than Chrome. So I used Firefox nearly all the time, especially when using FamilySearch. Incidentally, I have personally found Firefox to work better with most functions on Ancestry, as well. David Coppin Logan, Utah OPC Cardinham and St Winnow -----Original Message----- From: cornish-gen-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:cornish-gen-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Jim Sindberg via Sent: Friday, December 12, 2014 10:35 AM To: Liz & Tom Thompson; cornish-gen@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [CORNISH-GEN] Familysearch - Susanna Tregelly Web browsers are something like automobiles. YOU tell it where to go. Hopefully YOU don't get lost.
A Nicholas GROSE (bap 23 Oct 1728 in Lanivet) married Rebecca OLIVER on 20 Dec 1752 in Madron. They moved back to the Lanivet area. Three children were baptised at Lanhydrock. Rebecca died & was buried in Lanivet in Feb 1767. But who was Rebecca OLIVER? Is there anyone with OLIVER relatives down west (or anywhere else) that know of her family? I don’t know how or why Nicholas strayed so far, the family are based in Lanivet/Luxulyan. I thought she might be a widow but haven’t found a suitable match. I did email the Madron OPC a few weeks ago but no response yet. Thanks in advance. Dee studying GROSE in Luxulyan, Lanivet and around.
Hello list, re this question of anonymous family members, we just have to accept that this was the accepted form at the time, and our kind transcribers can only copy what's printed. Regarding Bill Curnow's informative post re the Berriman family, the Lutey family were still farming at Carfury until recently, but the name itself has mow I think died out, about the last of them, Herbert Lutey, was a long serving local councillor, and sometime chairman of Penwith District Council. The White family continued at Merry Meeting until at least he 1990's; the farm is just outside Heamoor. If I don't post again before the day, a Happy Christmas to all listers from Horton in bright and breezy Penzance -----Original Message----- From: cornish-gen-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:cornish-gen-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Liz via Sent: 09 December 2014 20:33 To: 'Jim Sindberg'; cornish-gen@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [CORNISH-GEN] The West Briton, 29 Oct 1858, BMDs,THOMAS or JAMES birth at Towednack Someone is bitter. Joy and I were just mentioning that it would be good for the name of a child to be mentioned when he/she is born and equally the wife's name should be mentioned as it is today in Western countries. Chattel or not, without her the child would not be born, she often had no choice in the matter...what woman could possibly ask for so many. I know my gran didn't even want for 4 children she had...she told me how she went on long bicycle rides in the hope of getting rid of the 4th child. Both are responsible for the arrival of a child unless, of course, as often happened, the husband suddenly vanishes leaving his wife to raise 8 to 12 children leaving her penniless while he bigamously marries in some foreign country. Or, she meets someone else knowing that her husband has no intention of returning to support his family. A woman would find it extremely difficult to abandon her children, especially in days gone past but a man often abandoned them all. I speak from research experience. Liz -----Original Message----- From: Jim Sindberg [mailto:sindbergj@yahoo.com] Sent: 09 December 2014 19:41 To: Joy Hungerford; Liz; cornish-gen@rootsweb.com; cornish-gen@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [CORNISH-GEN] The West Briton, 29 Oct 1858, BMDs, THOMAS or JAMES birth at Towednack What this has to do with the subject: The West Briton... I have no idea. But here is my 2 cents worth. Each was chattel to the other. The husband had to protect his wife and children, even to death. The husband had to provide for his wife and children. Generally he worked away from the comforts of his home and in a more dangerous environment than his wife. The husband was expected to sire children for his wife. He was her chattel also. They both had responsibilities to each other. Back then life expectancy was about the same for both. Not like it is today where husbands die several years younger than their wives. Husband still protect their wives better than wives their husbands. Wives still make the babies, husbands don't/can't. JimS chattel of Karen On Tuesday, December 9, 2014 9:36 AM, Joy Hungerford via <cornish-gen@rootsweb.com> wrote: I agree with you, Liz, about Bill's valuable contributions. But what really gets me is the reporting of a woman as 'the wife of ??' Just a chattel, of course! Kind regards Chattel of Michael Hungerford ------------------------------- Listmom: ybowers@gmail.com or CORNISH-GEN-admin@rootsweb.com Visit the OPC (Online Parish Clerk) web page for transcription information http://www.cornwall-opc.org/ ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to CORNISH-GEN-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message
Dear Gordon: Actually there is a death for one William Crabb, buried at Cardinham 4 March 1763. Unfortunately, the register provides no other information, such as age or residence. If your man moved to Braddoc and raised a family there, this is obviously not the burial for the man married in 1762, but it is probably their infant son, William Crabbe, who was born a few weeks before their marriage and baptized at Cardinham 10 February 1761. He is identified in the baptismal register as "a base son of William Crabb and Elizabeth Bunt." Inasmuch as marriages usually occurred soon after publishing the banns, perhaps the inconveniently-timed birth of the child delayed the marriage and may explain the passage of nearly 3 months from banns to marriage. The burial of Elizabeth Crabb on 26 Dec 1819 at Cardinham, reported to be 82, might be the burial of Elizabeth (née Bunt) who married William Crabb. There are also several will for members of the Bunt family, including Elizabeth's father in 1763, at the Cornwall record office. These sometime provide a place of residence if Elizabeth is named as a beneficiary. There are also several wills for men named William Crabb at that time, but I do not see any for Broadoak. There is additional information about the married couple found in the banns register: "The banns of marriage between William Carb of the parish of Broadoak and Elizabeth Bunt of this parish of Cardinham were published according to act of Parliament in the Parish church of Cardinham without denial on Sunday the 21st day of December 1760 by Samuel Thomas, Vicar of St Neot, and the 28th day of December 1760 and the 4th day of January 1761 by Henry Bennett, rector." A subsequent note is made in the banns register confirming the marriage of William Crabb of the parish of Broadoak and Elizabeth Bunt of the parish of Cardinham, by banns on the 21st day of March 1761 at the church in Cardinham by H Bennett, rector. The groom signed the register as "William Crabb." Elizabeth Bunt signed by mark. The witnesses were J Bennett and Petherick Bunt. So at least at the time of their banns and marriage, William Crabb was living in Broadoak (Braddoc), and there are a number of baptisms at Braddoc for their children 1765-1781. They had a son John 1762, so that might be the name of his father. After 3 daughters, the next son in 1773 was also named William, an apparent recycling of the name after the child of 1761 died. The next son after him was named Thomas, so that might also be the name of the father of William Crabb. There are many trees on Ancestry that include Elizabeth Bunt, and of course, many of them are of questionable reliability and accuracy, some just copying bad data from another tree and perpetuating errors and myths. However, if you have not looked at them, there is certainly a possibility that someone may have found a valuable nugget that shows up on his tree and may actually be factual. I hope that this information may be of some help to you. David Coppin OPC Cardinham -----Original Message----- From: cornish-gen-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:cornish-gen-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Gordon via Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2014 10:09 AM To: CORNISH-GEN@rootsweb.com Subject: [CORNISH-GEN] Fw: Can someone help please Dear List After several years of chasing my CRABB tree, I arrive at the doorstep of William Crabb who married Elizabeth Bunt in Cardinham in 1762. Their son John who married ( I believe) Mary Kelly in St Austell circa 1792 is my direct line. The problem now is William. There were no Crabb families in Braddock/Cardinham in 1762. There are no deaths of an adult William Crabb to be found in Braddock/Cardinham. But William and Elizabeth were married in Cardinham and raised their family in Braddock. Where did he come from? Where did he go? What was his age? Who were his parents? The marriage entry lists no parents for William and indicates he was living in the area at the time. I have no conclusive evidence of anything. None I am leaning to him being William Crabb of Lanlivery the son of John Crabb and Elizabeth Berry who were married in Fowey. They raised their family in Lanlivery then they too disappeared. William Crabb of Lanlivery was born in 1724 which would have made him 15 years older than Elizabeth Bunt. That concerns me a little. The only clues I have ( based on my limited genealogy experience) are two items. but I have no proof. 1. Lanlivery is a lot closer to Cardinham than other William Crabb’s who would be in the appropriate age bracket at that time. 2. When I examine the names of the children of William and Elizabeth, I find them to be the same names as the siblings of William of Lanlivery. Obviously that is not proof and gives me little satisfaction. The OPC’s have been very helpful with their efforts and I would like to thank them for their support but I still have no proof. My hope is that there may be someone on the list who has researched this family and can take me a step further. I would appreciate any help. Kindest regards, Gordon Crabb, USA
Dear List After several years of chasing my CRABB tree, I arrive at the doorstep of William Crabb who married Elizabeth Bunt in Cardinham in 1762. Their son John who married ( I believe) Mary Kelly in St Austell circa 1792 is my direct line. The problem now is William. There were no Crabb families in Braddock/Cardinham in 1762. There are no deaths of an adult William Crabb to be found in Braddock/Cardinham. But William and Elizabeth were married in Cardinham and raised their family in Braddock. Where did he come from? Where did he go? What was his age? Who were his parents? The marriage entry lists no parents for William and indicates he was living in the area at the time. I have no conclusive evidence of anything. None I am leaning to him being William Crabb of Lanlivery the son of John Crabb and Elizabeth Berry who were married in Fowey. They raised their family in Lanlivery then they too disappeared. William Crabb of Lanlivery was born in 1724 which would have made him 15 years older than Elizabeth Bunt. That concerns me a little. The only clues I have ( based on my limited genealogy experience) are two items. but I have no proof. 1. Lanlivery is a lot closer to Cardinham than other William Crabb’s who would be in the appropriate age bracket at that time. 2. When I examine the names of the children of William and Elizabeth, I find them to be the same names as the siblings of William of Lanlivery. Obviously that is not proof and gives me little satisfaction. The OPC’s have been very helpful with their efforts and I would like to thank them for their support but I still have no proof. My hope is that there may be someone on the list who has researched this family and can take me a step further. I would appreciate any help. Kindest regards, Gordon Crabb, USA
Thanks Nivard and Diane for the information about calling up rootsweb to search many lists for an individual subject. That hadn't occurred to me at all - I've got my novices hat on here and have to confess I rarely look at rootsweb these days. The reminder is most welcome. Thanks also Nivard (and Tom for bringing it up) for information about the entries on the old IGI site that don't appear on today's version. We always knew that when it was changed there appeared to be lots of stuff missing, but I guess over time you tend to forget and expect it to be there still. I've experienced a deal of frustration over the last couple of years with this site, although there have been times when they're the only site to have a mention of a person I'm researching. I don't know if it's just me, but I also find Findmypast's search engine extremely frustrating and difficult to pin it down to the exact things I'm looking for. It seems the more they try to cram into one search, the harder it is to find what we're looking for. I won't be renewing my subscription again as I get no pleasure in searching on there any more. Jean Cornwall
Hi Tom The marriage you seek is on the old IGI and looks to be a patron submission Hence the reason you can't find it on familysearch as the "new" familysearch does not include patron submissions To get to the old IGI, select search, then browse all record collections Let the search page load and enter IGI in the search You have a choice of extractions (indexed IGI) or Contributed (patron submissions or unsourced entries) or both together The marriage you mentioned :- Susanna Tregelly death: more spouse: Thomas Mitchell marriage: 24 December 1747 death: Additional Information for Susanna Tregelly Sources (1) Family History Library Microfilm: 1235253 Citing This Record "International Genealogical Index (IGI)," database, FamilySearch (http://familysearch.org/pal:/MM9.2.1/M6PC-D23 : accessed 2014-12-10), entry for Susanna Tregelly. The International Genealogical Index (IGI) is a computer file created by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. It was first published in 1973 and continued to grow through December 2008. It contains several hundred million entries, each recording one event, such as a birth, baptism (christening), marriage, or death. The information has not been verified against any official records. Duplicate entries and inconsistent information are common. Always verify contributed entries against sources of primary information. Learn more >> Nivard Ovington in Cornwall (UK) On 10/12/2014 15:31, Liz & Tom Thompson via wrote: > > Hello, > > Apologies in advance for a lengthy email, but I hope it will be of interest > to all parties. > > I have recently had problems with FamilySearch in trying to relocate some > previous search results, so I wrote to FS, and below are the replies. > > I had located a marriage record for a Thomas Mitchell to a Susanna Tregelly > at Brixton, Devon, on 24 December 1747. Because it didn't wholly match what > I hoped to find, I searched around through FS without much more success. > When I tried to go back to the original search it didn't show up. Nor did a > similar search for Susanna Tregelly. I had also found that when I searched > for a marriage I got results for everything but. Hence my query to FS.
Hello, Apologies in advance for a lengthy email, but I hope it will be of interest to all parties. I have recently had problems with FamilySearch in trying to relocate some previous search results, so I wrote to FS, and below are the replies. I had located a marriage record for a Thomas Mitchell to a Susanna Tregelly at Brixton, Devon, on 24 December 1747. Because it didn't wholly match what I hoped to find, I searched around through FS without much more success. When I tried to go back to the original search it didn't show up. Nor did a similar search for Susanna Tregelly. I had also found that when I searched for a marriage I got results for everything but. Hence my query to FS. --0-- We understand your frustration at not being able to replicate a search. We tried to replicate your findings ourselves and could only find Thomas's birth record: We could find no connection with a Susanna in that date range. We even searched on our partner site, Ancestry.com and could not find a marriage record there either. We do know that collections come and go according to the laws of the country that owns them. This may or may not be the case. We are also having issues with our search engine and hope to rectify that in the near future. As to your second question, church records often include birth, baptism, marriages and deaths. When the records are digitized, they will digitize all of the records they have, therefore there may be other types of records included in marriage records. --0-- Hello again, Thanks for looking. I don't really follow your logic regarding the laws of different countries. Once a record has been released, surely it stays released. I also don't follow your logic regarding the church records. Once a record has been digitised, surely a search should pick out what is being searched for, and not produce a birth record when looking for a marriage. Somehow the search process is not working. If that is going to happen there's no point in specifying a particular search option. --0-- Thank you for responding. We are afraid it is not our logic. We have quoted from our knowledge article below. And as we said, it may not be because of this. Once our search engine is revamped, it should be easier to find people more than one time. And that will make us happy, too. Best of luck. Record access is subject to change. You may see more or fewer records in FamilySearch.org for several reasons: FamilySearch does not own the historical records published on the FamilySearch.org site. Therefore, while we can publish free indexes, we may not be able to publish the accompanying images for all users. The viewing of records is subject to the laws of political entities and to the wishes of the record custodians (archives, societies, governments, etc.); they govern the following viewing privileges. Privacy for the records of living people and people within specific time spans; for example, many countries do not allow the viewing of certain records until a person has been deceased for 75 years. Which users can view images. For example, only registered users, or members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (the sponsoring organization). The place the record can be accessed; for example, only in family history centers. Record access will change as the laws that govern records change. Access to census records and birth, marriage, death, and other records is determined by the country, state, or entity that has stewardship over the records. To make sure you have access to the most records available, you can do the following: Sign in to familysearch.org before your search. (In the upper right corner of the home page, click Sign in, and sign in with your FamilySearch account user name and password.) Search for records from a family history center. Some records are only available at family history centers. Note: There is no limit on the number of users that can view a record at the same time. Regards, FamilySearch --0-- I still don't follow the logic, and I wasn't (on that occasion) trying to view actual images. It seems a bit like an excuse to me. However, it seems we will have to await the updated search engine, unless someone else is better aware of what is happening! Many thanks for your patience, and I hope it helps someone. Best wishes, Tom Thompson. .
Hi Jean The archives of all lists can be searched by keyword, either individually or all together You can search by name/place or any word and or sender and or date http://www.rootsweb.ancestry.com/ Select mailing lists from the top bar menu, and either use the top box to search all (there are also advanced search options) or the lower box to find the list in particular you are interested in Its usually better to search all as you never know who may be interested in the same name or place as you are and may have posted to another list you are unaware of Nivard Ovington in Cornwall (UK) > > On 12/9/2014 3:53 AM, icemaiden47 via wrote: >> I’m sure like me, people have found the recent copies of the 1850s newspaper articles really interesting to read. None of them have ever related to anyone known to me in my family history, but as we never know where that will take us, I wondered whether in the future there was likely to be any way we could call up those mentioned without trawling through loads of old e-mails. Are they being collated anywhere that we’ll be able to call up easily? >> >> Jean
A lovely man! I always looked forward to his individual views on topics and his characteristic humour. I also loved his one-to-one messages and essential Cornishness. Kind regards Joy in the Garden of England Yvonne wrote:- > What sad news. Tom and I have many "behind the scenes" conversations. He will be missed. > Liz, thanks for letting us know.
Hi Everybody Recently my aunt passed away and her children are looking for information about her ancestors. One of them is JAMES SHONE Born 1826 Hanmer Flintshire Wales D 14/2/1901 Nhill Vic. m Anne WHITE I am wondering if anyone could help me to find anything about James's parents. Hope everyone has a very Merry Christmas and Happy New Year. Hope 2015 finds everyone healthy and hopefully wealthy in their lifes. Lyn Gilmour Newcastle New South Wales Australia.