Hello Folks, Horrified at finding a notable first-cousin marriage in Wirksworth in 1872, I looked up the matter in Wikipedia to find the following: "England maintained a small but stable proportion of cousin marriages for centuries, with proportions in 1875 estimated by George Darwin at 3.5 percent for the middle classes and 4.5 percent for the nobility, though this had declined to under 1 percent in the 20th century. Queen Victoria and Prince Albert were a preeminent example". The United States has the only bans on cousin marriage in the Western world. Regards, John Palmer, Dorset, England Author of Wirksworth website www.wirksworth.org.uk

 Hello to the list I am researching the family BREWELL living in Wirksworth I have a German/Gordon  Ernest BREWELL living Bole Hill and given as Quarryman As I have a marriage at the methodist chapel Bole Hill, can anyone help or connect to this family please Aileen

Hi All I am looking for the parents of my great great grandfather a George Hill who has stated on all census records that he was born in Chesterfield in 1808/09 he later moved to Mansfield where he married Ann Ward from Walesby Nottinghamshire on 15 November 1845 @ Mansfield he was a Cordwainer & he had 3 children Sarah Ann, Elizabeth, George William all born in Mansfield 1848, 1850, & 27 May 1860 I have a copy of his Marriage Certificate to Ann Ward but his fathers signature is hard to read I think it could be James but other members of my family think it could be George I have been unable to find a birth for him or a Christening there are a lot of Hill's in the Chesterfield registration district but very few if any in Chesterfield My G.G.Grandfather & all his family later moved to Gainsborough in Lincolnshire where they all died I live too far from Matlock to go there to check the records there any help with this would be much appreciated Thanking you in anticipation Colin Pacey North Lincolnshire

A lot of us wouldn't fit in in the "old days".  The technical term for marrying "too" closely is consanguinity.  You can find more about the laws over time at: http://www.genuki.org.uk/big/eng/LIN/consanguinity.html     Lou -snip- Hello Folks, Horrified at finding a notable first-cousin marriage in Wirksworth in 1872, -snip-

I'm afraid I have an example of a first cousin marriage which is even closer than normal - the cousins were children of two brothers and two sisters. My grandmother was their daughter. We have pread the genes about a bit since then to include Scottish, French and US strains. -----Original Message----- From: John Palmer <johnpalmer@wirksworth.org.uk> To: DERBYSGEN-L <DERBYSGEN-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Sun, 28 Apr 2013 10:54 Subject: [DBY] First cousin marriage in 1872 Hello Folks,Horrified at finding a notable first-cousin marriagein Wirksworth in 1872, I looked up the matter in Wikipediato find the following: "England maintained a small but stable proportion ofcousin marriages for centuries, with proportions in 1875estimated by George Darwin at 3.5 percent for the middle classesand 4.5 percent for the nobility, though this had declined to under1 percent in the 20th century.Queen Victoria and Prince Albert were a preeminent example".The United States has the only bans on cousin marriage in the Western world.Regards,John Palmer, Dorset, EnglandAuthor of Wirksworth websitewww.wirksworth.org.uk -------------------------------To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to DERBYSGEN-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Thanks Peter - the two Wildgooses I know of in my ancestry lived into their nineties! Sorry I caused you trouble, but if you tidied your office it's not all bad! Alison -----Original Message----- From: Peter Patilla <ppatilla@me.com> To: derbysgen <derbysgen@rootsweb.com> Sent: Sat, 27 Apr 2013 14:21 Subject: Re: [DBY] Crich 1811 census and BMD for K - 1821 Militia? AllisonIt has been my belief that the upper age limit was 55 BUT... I cannot find the source of that belief! I will be guided by Nivard on that.Thos & Geo Wildgoose do stick out rather in the recordI have searched through my office to see if I copied it from a photostat (I may have transcribed from the original at DRO of course) and to see if I had omitted some information or mistranscribed. Could not find a photo copy but my office became tidier in the process!I have to go to the DRO very soon to check up on some details for my WWI project so I will take another look at the 1821 census to double check my accuracy. Would hate there to be an error.Mind you the local Wildgoose family were a tough breed and a geriatric soldier would not be a surprise :-)I will let you knowPeterOn 27 Apr 2013, at 13:50, Nivard Ovington wrote:> Hi Allison> > I will leave it to Peter to clarify but Militia lists of that period are > usually a full list of all men, by age> > So a means to establish who was eligible to serve and who was exempt> > Those above 60 were exempt so your men are listed but exempt from duty> > Nivard Ovington in Cornwall (UK)> > On 27/04/2013 12:38, Alison wrote:>> Hi list,>> >> I've just been having a browse through seeking some of my Wildgoose,>> Holmes, Higgott connections. I had a look on the 1821 Militia page and>> found a couple of Wildgoose entries - the people were between 60-70 and>> 70-80.>> Is there any explanation for this?>> >> Alison Merricks> > -------------------------------> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to DERBYSGEN-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 DERBYSGEN-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

I would take the claims of 98.5% accuracy with a large pinch (shovel) of salt Clearly a claim they can't substantiate, as errors are legion on their site as they are on all sites Understandable in some case, not so in others We have a better chance when we look at them as we know what it should say, the people who transcribe do not have that luxury As to why people put what they did in the census or any other record, its impossible to say in most cases Misunderstood the form, wilfully wanted to mislead or had one to many down the Red Lion before filling in the schedule, its anyones guess at times I suspect there will be just as many in the last census we had in the UK Can you imagine how many immigrants would understand all the questions, and the native population will not be much better, I have no doubt Thankfully I will never need to consult that one <g> Nivard Ovington in Cornwall (UK) On 27/04/2013 17:02, Joy Hungerford wrote: > Hi Nivard > > I should have realised that the handwriting was that of my GGF, and I think now that he tried to alter his mistaken > 'wife' to 'daughter' for Ethel, which fazed the transcriber; but why on earth would he claim that > Hearl was his nephew? He was born in wedlock (although that family had a history of jumping the gun, as it were). > > It just seems that certain people were not at their brightest, so maybe you're right about the 'Friday afternoon car.' > A 1911 Census website I saw claims 98.5% accuracy in its transcription. Did I get the entire 5% thrown at me? I ask myself. > > So, the imposition still stands, Dear Transcriber. > > Thanks for your take on this problem, Nivard. Now, back to Phyllis Mary. > > Kind regards > > Joy

>A 1911 Census website I saw claims 98.5% accuracy in its transcription. Did I get the entire 5% thrown at me? I ask myself. Sorry - I meant, of course, 1.5%  :o) This torpor is catching!! Kind regards Joy

Hi Nivard I should have realised that the handwriting was that of my GGF, and I think now that he tried to alter his mistaken  'wife' to 'daughter' for Ethel, which fazed the transcriber; but why on earth would he claim that  Hearl was his nephew? He was born in wedlock (although that family had a history of jumping the gun, as it were). It just seems that certain people were not at their brightest, so maybe you're right about the 'Friday afternoon car.' A 1911 Census website I saw claims 98.5% accuracy in its transcription. Did I get the entire 5% thrown at me? I ask myself. So, the imposition still stands, Dear Transcriber. Thanks for your take on this problem, Nivard. Now, back to Phyllis Mary. Kind regards Joy > Date: Sat, 27 Apr 2013 15:16:41 +0100 > From: ovington.one@gmail.com > To: derbysgen@rootsweb.com > Subject: Re: [DBY] BIRCH/RODDIS and STOKES! > > Hi Joy > > Although the transcript does leave a great deal to be desired, a certain > amount of the blame can be levelled at Thomas STOKES whose writing you > see in the 1911, the enumerator had no part in it > > Thomas's flowery writing is part of the problem however the transcriber > is not blameless, I think this was the equivalent of the Friday > afternoon car <g> > > The Hearl appears to be correct > > Births Dec 1907 ROBINSON Hearl Belper 7b 693 > > As does the Willie Zenas > > England & Wales, FreeBMD Marriage Index, 1837-1915 about Willie Zenas > Robinson > Name: Willie Zenas Robinson > Date of Registration: Apr-May-Jun 1906 > Registration district: Belper > Inferred County: Derbyshire > Volume Number: 7b > Page Number: 1314 > > I didn't find a birth under that name though > > Did you resolve the parents of Phyllis yet ? > > Nivard Ovington in Cornwall (UK) > > > > On 27/04/2013 14:26, Joy Hungerford wrote: > > I'd like to extend my thanks for help on this subject to Nivard Ovington and > > Kathy Orford-Perkins, who have each spent time and effort to help me find results. > > > > First of all, having tried Ancestry Yet Again, I find that I was already on the Old Search. > > Another go just now yielded no results, so I'll have to look into that. > > > > But - Kathy provided me with information which astonished me. > > She found my GGF, Thomas STOKES, at 9 Prospect Street, Alfreton. > > > > He was listed as Thomas SLOBES, thus:- > > Thomas Slobes 61 > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to DERBYSGEN-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Hi Joy Although the transcript does leave a great deal to be desired, a certain amount of the blame can be levelled at Thomas STOKES whose writing you see in the 1911, the enumerator had no part in it Thomas's flowery writing is part of the problem however the transcriber is not blameless, I think this was the equivalent of the Friday afternoon car <g> The Hearl appears to be correct Births Dec 1907 ROBINSON Hearl Belper 7b 693 As does the Willie Zenas England & Wales, FreeBMD Marriage Index, 1837-1915 about Willie Zenas Robinson Name: Willie Zenas Robinson Date of Registration: Apr-May-Jun 1906 Registration district: Belper Inferred County: Derbyshire Volume Number: 7b Page Number: 1314 I didn't find a birth under that name though Did you resolve the parents of Phyllis yet ? Nivard Ovington in Cornwall (UK) On 27/04/2013 14:26, Joy Hungerford wrote: > I'd like to extend my thanks for help on this subject to Nivard Ovington and > Kathy Orford-Perkins, who have each spent time and effort to help me find results. > > First of all, having tried Ancestry Yet Again, I find that I was already on the Old Search. > Another go just now yielded no results, so I'll have to look into that. > > But - Kathy provided me with information which astonished me. > She found my GGF, Thomas STOKES, at 9 Prospect Street, Alfreton. > > He was listed as Thomas SLOBES, thus:- > Thomas Slobes 61

I'd like to extend my thanks for help on this subject to Nivard Ovington and Kathy Orford-Perkins, who have each spent time and effort to help me find results. First of all, having tried Ancestry Yet Again, I find that I was already on the Old Search. Another go just now yielded no results, so I'll have to look into that. But - Kathy provided me with information which astonished me. She found my GGF, Thomas STOKES, at 9 Prospect Street, Alfreton. He was listed as Thomas SLOBES, thus:- Thomas Slobes 61 Luey Slobes 60 Elhel Robrnson 28 Elsie Slohes 21 Hsare Robemson 3 Willie Jemes Robemson 30 So, nobody's name was correct. We won't go into that, but take it from me. Nobody's birthplace was correct. Thomas and Lucy's WOR villages appeared as Leigh Senlon and Maluerv Lunk, and Alfreton itself, the census place, was Alpreow. Ethel, daughter of the house, was down as stepdaughter and Hearl, her son, was  'nephew' rather than grandson. Elsie, apparently, was a sich nurse. I know that Hearl and Zenas are not names you might come across every day, but the enumerator's writing was quite clear, so I'm only having him for the incorrect  relationships. But the transcriber will not only be kept in to do it again, I shall not be allowing  him to give out the pencils in the foreseeable future. Be warned, particularly if you are new to genealogy. All may not be as it seems. Kind regards Joy

Allison It has been my belief that the upper age limit was 55 BUT... I cannot find the source of that belief! I will be guided by Nivard on that. Thos & Geo Wildgoose do stick out rather in the record I have searched through my office to see if I copied it from a photostat (I may have transcribed from the original at DRO of course) and to see if I had omitted some information or mistranscribed. Could not find a photo copy but my office became tidier in the process! I have to go to the DRO very soon to check up on some details for my WWI project so I will take another look at the 1821 census to double check my accuracy. Would hate there to be an error. Mind you the local Wildgoose family were a tough breed and a geriatric soldier would not be a surprise :-) I will let you know Peter On 27 Apr 2013, at 13:50, Nivard Ovington wrote: > Hi Allison > > I will leave it to Peter to clarify but Militia lists of that period are > usually a full list of all men, by age > > So a means to establish who was eligible to serve and who was exempt > > Those above 60 were exempt so your men are listed but exempt from duty > > Nivard Ovington in Cornwall (UK) > > On 27/04/2013 12:38, Alison wrote: >> Hi list, >> >> I've just been having a browse through seeking some of my Wildgoose, >> Holmes, Higgott connections. I had a look on the 1821 Militia page and >> found a couple of Wildgoose entries - the people were between 60-70 and >> 70-80. >> Is there any explanation for this? >> >> Alison Merricks > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to DERBYSGEN-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Hi Allison I will leave it to Peter to clarify but Militia lists of that period are usually a full list of all men, by age So a means to establish who was eligible to serve and who was exempt Those above 60 were exempt so your men are listed but exempt from duty Nivard Ovington in Cornwall (UK) On 27/04/2013 12:38, Alison wrote: > Hi list, > > I've just been having a browse through seeking some of my Wildgoose, > Holmes, Higgott connections. I had a look on the 1821 Militia page and > found a couple of Wildgoose entries - the people were between 60-70 and > 70-80. > Is there any explanation for this? > > Alison Merricks

Afternoon all A couple of updates on www.crichparish.co.uk The 1811 census for Crich had been updated & amended, thanks to Heather Eaton The BMD records for names starting with K have been updated On with re-looking at L names. Very appropriate as I married a Lynam! Peter

Thank you sir.Just off to work so will try this weekend. Barry from Canada -----Original Message----- From: Nivard Ovington Sent: Saturday, April 27, 2013 2:01 AM To: derbysgen@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [DBY] BIRCH/RODDIS in Chesterfield Hi Barry No they try and steer any new users to new search but Old Search is still there and thank goodness for that ! Log in to Ancestry Click the search in the top bar menu On the following screen look top right and select Go back to Old Search On the next screen enter a tick in Exact Matches only And you are now in control of your search Unlike the blunderbuss version in New Search Nivard Ovington in Cornwall (UK) On 27/04/2013 01:58, Barry's Email wrote: > How does one get on to old search, I thought they had done away with it? > Thanks Barry ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to DERBYSGEN-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Hi Barry No they try and steer any new users to new search but Old Search is still there and thank goodness for that ! Log in to Ancestry Click the search in the top bar menu On the following screen look top right and select Go back to Old Search On the next screen enter a tick in Exact Matches only And you are now in control of your search Unlike the blunderbuss version in New Search Nivard Ovington in Cornwall (UK) On 27/04/2013 01:58, Barry's Email wrote: > How does one get on to old search, I thought they had done away with it? > Thanks Barry

Many thanks for your prompt reply, Nivard Ovington - much appreciated. Alison -----Original Message----- From: Nivard Ovington <ovington.one@gmail.com> To: derbysgen <derbysgen@rootsweb.com> Sent: Sat, 27 Apr 2013 13:52 Subject: Re: [DBY] Crich 1811 census and BMD for K - 1821 Militia? Hi AllisonI will leave it to Peter to clarify but Militia lists of that period are usually a full list of all men, by ageSo a means to establish who was eligible to serve and who was exemptThose above 60 were exempt so your men are listed but exempt from dutyNivard Ovington in Cornwall (UK)On 27/04/2013 12:38, Alison wrote:> Hi list,>> I've just been having a browse through seeking some of my Wildgoose,> Holmes, Higgott connections. I had a look on the 1821 Militia page and> found a couple of Wildgoose entries - the people were between 60-70 and> 70-80.> Is there any explanation for this?>> Alison Merricks-------------------------------To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to DERBYSGEN-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Hi list, I've just been having a browse through seeking some of my Wildgoose, Holmes, Higgott connections. I had a look on the 1821 Militia page and found a couple of Wildgoose entries - the people were between 60-70 and 70-80. Is there any explanation for this? Alison Merricks -----Original Message----- From: Peter Patilla <ppatilla@mac.com> To: Derbysgen Derbyshire <derbysgen@rootsweb.com> Sent: Sat, 27 Apr 2013 12:12 Subject: [DBY] Crich 1811 census and BMD for K Afternoon allA couple of updates on www.crichparish.co.ukThe 1811 census for Crich had been updated & amended, thanks to Heather EatonThe BMD records for names starting with K have been updatedOn with re-looking at L names. Very appropriate as I married a Lynam!Peter-------------------------------To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to DERBYSGEN-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Hi Nivard Thank you for your advice. I'll have another go at tracing my GGF's address. You're right about Phyllis's maiden name. This is why I thought an informal arrangement might have been made with her aunt and uncle. I'm grateful for your time and trouble. Kind regards Joy > Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2013 19:17:00 +0100 > From: ovington.one@gmail.com > To: derbysgen@rootsweb.com > Subject: Re: [DBY] BIRCH/RODDIS in Chesterfield > > Hi Joy > > Are you using Ancestry or another supplier? > > On Ancestry, use old search, in advanced search enter the address in the > keyword box > > If it does not come up try abbreviating the Street to St or Road to Rd > if still no hits remove parts of the address to get pertinent hits, if > your house number does not pop up try no number and pick one close by in > the enumerators summaries > > In 1911 the enumerator did a street listing, (the RG78) they are called > the enumerators summaries on Ancestry > > They will list the houses around and about your target > > As Phyllis married as a BIRCH it suggests she was not adopted, otherwise > who would have married as POUNTAIN surely? > > This appears to back up your theroy it was her > > England & Wales, Death Index, 1916-2006 about Phyllis Mary Roddis > Name: Phyllis Mary Roddis > Birth Date: 15 Sep 1906 > Date of Registration: Jan-Feb-Mar 1970 > Age at Death: 63 > Registration district: Chesterfield > Inferred County: Derbyshire > Volume: 3a > Page: 274 > > If you can't find the address let us know and we can search for you > > Nivard Ovington in Cornwall (UK) > > On 26/04/2013 18:42, Joy Hungerford wrote: > > I made some enquiries a while ago about Phyllis Mary BIRCH, a 4-year-old niece, living with > > my GU, Benjamin Henry POUNTAIN, in Chesterfield, in 1911. I suspect that she was the niece of his wife, > > Margaret [JONES], who was born in Flintshire. Phyllis was born in Cheshire and, as I've found a marriage > > (to George R RODDIS in 1942) and three children, 1942, 1946 and 1947, all events in Chesterfield, I wonder > > if Phyllis was adopted or 'adopted' by Ben and Margaret. > > > > I'm no nearer pinpointing her relationship, but as my father had a good friend and colleague, Arthur RODDIS, > > I've spent a few entertaining hours trying to find a link between the two RODDIS families. > > > > So far, nothing, but as a baby in 1911, Arthur was living with his family in Prospect St, Alfreton, where my GGF, > > Thomas STOKES, was living, in a house, for which he had done all the beautiful carpentry himself, with his wife > > and youngest children. > > > > Can anyone tell me, please, how to trawl the 1911 Census for a particular address? I thought this would be fairly > > simple, but find that each schedule has a cover sheet, then the schedule itself. There doesn't seem to be a useful > > way of telling who the neighbours were. I also found that Thomas, and other family members, seem to have ignored > > the requirement to fill in a Census Return for 1911. I'm quite cross, really. > > > > Anyway, if anyone knows more about any of these people, I'd be very pleased to hear from them. > > > > > > Kind regards > > > > Joy > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to DERBYSGEN-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Many thanks Janet - It seems definitely to be 2 different families - so yes I am on the right track now it looks i need to do a blanket search using Elizabeth Joliane and Mary Stones (stoones) well rome wasn't built in day - and I guess that goes for family history... On 26 April 2013 19:57, Janet Booth <janet@boothworld.co.uk> wrote: > Hello Karen, > > >From Notts FHS Baptismal Index: > > 4 Oct 1696 at Basford Wm son of Richd & Mary ENGLAND > 1 February 1700 at Basford Sarah daughter Richd & Mary ENGLAND > 31 October 1703 at Basford Richard son Richard & Mary ENGLAND > 29 October 1706 at Basford Richard son of Richard & Mary ENGLAND > 26 March 1710 at Basford Mary daughter Rich & Mary ENGLAND > > 12 July 1683 at Basford Samuell son of Richard ENGLAND > 13 February 1687 at Basford John son of Richard ENGLAND > 3 March 1690 at Basford Mary daughter of Richard ENGLAND > > >From Notts FHS Burial Index: > > 16 September 1702 at Basford Mary ENGLAND daughter of Ricard > 6 June 1705 at Basford Ann ENGLAND wife of Ricard > 9 September 1723 at Basford Samuel ENGLAND son of Richard & Mary > 12 September 1733 at Basford Mary ENGLAND, wife of Richard > 19 February 1758 at Basford Richard ENGLAND > > >From Phillimore's Marriage Index of Basford: > > 25 August 1683 David ENGLAND & Elizabeth JOLIANE > 12 July 1705 Richard ENGLAND & Mary STOONES > > There are subsequent ENGLAND marriages but I cannot find Richard's marriage > to Ann at Basford, nor indeed at all on my copy (admittedly an old one) of > the Notts FHS Marriage Index. > > Not too sure whether this will help determine the parentage of Samuel, John > & Mary and I would think the probability is that the burial record for > Samuel in 1723 is a different Samuel to the one baptised in 1683 as the > latter would be unlikely to be considered the son of anybody by 1723. > > Hope this helps confirm a few dates for you if nothing else. > > Janet > > > > I have accessed the following information information from Parish Records > > Online - Basford for ENGLAND > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > DERBYSGEN-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 > DERBYSGEN-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message >