I have just started using the BTs on FamilySearch so far to cross off a few of my 'to dos'. A QUESTION It is clear from trying the 'search' page that only a few of the entries have been indexed so far, so I have been browsing. However, when I do this I get a list of file no.s rather than parish names. They are clearly alphabetical and it hasn't been too much trouble to find what I want but does anyone know if there is a list linking the parish to the no.? I thought the appropriate ref. would be on FamilySearch's page for the parish, but I couldn't see it there. A CORRECTION When BTs were mentioned a while back, I gave what now seems to be bad (or incomplete) advice. I suggested using the Devon Heritage Centre online catalogue to find out what survives for a given parish. However, I now realise this seems to lack coverage from 1700 to the start of the Late BTs (1813 or 1814). So, looking there can be useful if you are interested in the C17th; from what I have seen it is accurate for that period, or for the Late BTs, but not for the C18th, for which many but not all survive. Most (but not all) of the parishes I have looked at seem to lack any mention of these in the catalogue entries. FAMILY SEARCH coverage (so far) For anyone who has not yet use or noticed the availability of the BTs, they can be searched / browsed from page https://familysearch.org/search/collection/2515875 . From a fairly quick look *I think* everything is there for parishes from the beginning of the alphabet to Ide, then a complete gap until Plymouth St Andrews, then for that parish on just the late BTs. Potentially particularly useful are the BTs for those parishes who refused permission for their PRs to go onto FMP - I have ancestors from both Buckland Monachorum and East Allington (the latter found under Allington, East). Thanks, Teresa

I've been keeping an eye on the collection "England, Devon Bishop's Transcripts, 1558-1887" https://familysearch.org/search/collection/2515875 since it was added -- the "Browse all Published Collections" page says the collection was updated on 16 Feb 2016. As Theresa said, cicking through to the images, right now you only get the digital file numbers. When I first tried to access the collection, I couldn't view it remotely -- I got a message that I had to be at a FHC. But trying it again this morning, I can now view the images. Several people at FamilySearch have said that FS has recently changed the procedure they have for putting images online. It used to be that collections weren't put up until they were indexed. Now they are putting up the images to browse first, and linking up the index later, after the indexing is done. There are also intermediate steps like introducing named waypoints. Presumably linking up the individual parishes in the collection to the place entry in the catalog is part of the process, but I don't know in what order they do all these steps. Adrian suggests that "cataloguing is ahead of loading" -- I would guess that the basic catalog entry for a collection has to be made public before the images are, or we wouldn't have an access point to get at the images. But there's no telling what the workflow is for the behind-the-scenes server-side work. And Adrian's correct -- Hugh Wallis' site and the Archer Software site are concerned with the IGI, which won't necessarily cover all the parishes in the new images. In a webinar last week about the history and future of the FHL, research specialist Jason Harrison said that the new collections are digitally imaged, and hard drives go into in the Granite Vault. The goal is to eventually have all the microfilms digitally imaged, too. Re: Paul Hockie's comments about the BTs -- I would repeat Dr. Tom Jones' caution against source snobbery. If both BTs and Registers exist for the same records, I will always consult both. It's likely that the clerk making the BT was far more familiar with the handwriting of the person who wrote the register than we can be -- with the BTs we have a second opinion about what the register said, which can be valuable. There are also some cases where the person making copies for the BTs added information which was not on the original registers, or made corrections to them, and if you always skip the BTs in favor of the registers you would miss that information. We should consider that the BTs are secondary when we evaluate the information in them, but I wouldn't make that a reason to reject them out of hand. Jan Murphy [email protected]

subscribe

Morning all, In case anyone has lost this family. Table Talk (Melbourne, Vic. : 1885 - 1939) Friday 1 July 1892 In the Will of Edward WILSON of " Sandleigh " Easternwick, Victoria dated 4 May 1892 Beneficiaries include:- Thomas Henry HOWARD, clergyman of Plymouth Albert HOWARD of Ivybridge, Clergyman Plus lots of other names. Not my family. Regards Bev Edmonds

Hi, I sent a big thank you to everyone who took the time to help out with my query about this use of aliases and it seems to have been eaten by the cat so my apologies if this turns up mysteriously twice. I really appreciated all the information and thinking that went into the responses and it has all given me much food for thought. I am particularly grateful for the links to the two articles. Now I lean towards either illegitimacy or protection of inheritance but am not firmly committed. One of my Reede or Blackmores left a will but only in the Index so no real help there except to know one existed. Since my post I have gone searching for more examples of this use of surnames and have found a couple in my chosen area - Barnstaple - and around the same dates. So I will try to find more info on them. All good fun. Thanks again. Carolyne Sydney Oz

Morning, I generally lurk on the mailing lists simply because in a majority of times that little word 'Thank you' hasn't been used when I have answered or even done research for someone. How refreshing it is to see Carolyne's sincere thank you message. Returning now to my lurking. Heather --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus

Hi Listers, Many thanks to all of you who tackled my 'alias' query and came up with some real food for thought. At this point I'm not sure I am much the wiser but I am chewing it all over and will keep it in mind and see where it leads. I like the notion of an alias being linked somehow to legitimacy and particularly inheritance as the Reed family married into wealth and land along the way. . As I mentioned I think, no Blackmores have popped up as yet in my tree but fingers crossed. Especial thanks for the links to the two articles which are fascinating. I will post re progress in due course [trusting that there is some :) ] Regards, Carolyne Sydney Oz

Bev, Are you aware of the following on FMP First name(s) Penelope Last name Hortup Birth year - Baptism year 1787 Baptism date 18 Nov 1787 Denomination Anglican Baptism place Broadwoodwidger Father's first name(s) Roger Mother's first name(s) Joanna Mother's last name - County Devon Country England Archive South West Heritage Trust Archive reference 3421A/PR/1/3 Record set Devon Baptisms Category Birth, Marriage & Death (Parish Registers) Subcategory Births & baptisms Collections from United Kingdom There are other Hortups in Broadwoodwidger Cheers Paul -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of B. Edmonds via Sent: 10 April 2016 21:19 To: Tim Treeby (Genealogy); [email protected] Subject: Re: [DEV] Samuel STANSBURY and Priscilla [or Penelope] Hello Tim, I am pleased that other's come up against the same problem. Trying to find a Penelope in any of the records has been unfruitful, at this stage I think her name was mistaken on the baptism for some reason and that she was really Priscilla. I have made copious notes just in case. Regards Bev -------------------------------------------------- From: "Tim Treeby (Genealogy)via" <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, April 11, 2016 12:36 AM To: <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [DEV] Samuel STANSBURY and Priscilla [or Penelope] > Not this particular family, but I have one even more peculiar. > > Baptised as Priscilla in 1824. > Marries as Lucy in 1845 > Shown on 1851 Census as Lucy. > Baptism of next to last Child in 1858 shown as Lucy. > Baptism of Last Child in 1861 shown as Priscilla. > Shown on 1861 Census as Priscilla. > Buried in 1862 as Lucy. > > Apart from her name keep changing absolutely everything else matches, > PoB, Age etc. > > So quite possible that Priscilla - Mother of Mary is in fact Penelope. > > Tim Treeby > DFHS 13926. > > On 08/04/2016 22:45, Beverley Edmonds via wrote: >> Morning, >> >> Mary Stansbury was bapt at Plymouth Charles 12 Nov 1815 d/o Samuel >> STANSBURY and Priscilla . >> >> The only marriage I can find is that of Samuel STANBURY and Penelope >> HORTUP at Stoke Damerel 25 March 1815 >> >> I am wondering if the Vicar got the bride's name incorrect on the >> marriage, or is the mother's name on the baptism of Mary [Priscilla] >> incorrect? >> >> 1851 has a Samuel Stanbury 65 and Penelope 63 are at Sydenham Damerel. >> >> All research so far indicates that she really was Penelope Hortup but >> there is also the lingering niggle that maybe she wasn't. >> >> Has anyone else come up against this family? >> >> Regards >> Bev Edmonds >> > > ------------------------------------------ > The DEVON-L mailing list is co-sponsored by GENUKI/Devon > http://www.genuki.org.uk/big/eng/DEV/ > and > the Devon FHS (http://www.devonfhs.org.uk/ ) List archive for Devon > can be found at > http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/index?list=devon > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > > ----- > No virus found in this message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 2016.0.7226 / Virus Database: 4545/12006 - Release Date: > 04/10/16 > ------------------------------------------ The DEVON-L mailing list is co-sponsored by GENUKI/Devon http://www.genuki.org.uk/big/eng/DEV/ and the Devon FHS (http://www.devonfhs.org.uk/ ) List archive for Devon can be found at http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/index?list=devon ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Apologies if this comes through twice Afternoon, I do know that someone else on the List had this family in their Tree also. I believe that I have found a marriage for Sarah in Canada on Familysearch as follows Image available [how good is that] Everything tallies. 15 August 1873, Smithville, Lincoln, Ontario, Canada John NICHOLSON Sarah EDMONDS d/o Edmond EDMONDS [sic] & Rebecca Regards Bev Edmonds

Afternoon This could be useful at looking for missing relatives. http://www.locateancestors.com Regards Bev

Hi Terry: Thanks for posting this. I’ve added the details into each appropriate parish page in GENUKI/Devon. Cheers Brian > On 11 Apr 2016, at 12:34, Terry Leaman via <[email protected]> wrote: > > The last Deanery CD was released at WDYTYA?- Live, and is now listed in > the shop, also available on USB stick. CD064 > http://www.devonfhs.org.uk/shop/product_list.php?cat_id=5 > > An index of baptisms, marriages and burials in the parishes of Bampton, > Bickleigh, Burlescombe, Calverleigh, Clayhanger, Culmstock, Halberton, > Hockworthy, Holcombe Rogus, Huntsham, Loxbeare, Morebath, Petton > Chapelry, Sampford Peverell, Tiverton St. Peter, Tiverton Cove, > Uffculme, Uplowman, Washfield and Willand. With photographs of the > churches and extracts from White’s Directory (1850) and Kelly’s > Directory of Devonshire (1902). > > Bampton > Bapt: 1813-1838 > Mar: 1754-1837 > Bur: 1814-1838 > Bickleigh > Bapt: 1813-1839 > Mar: 1755-1836 > Bur: 1800-1837 > Burlescombe > Bapt: 1813-1839 > Mar: 1755-1838 > Bur: 1813-1837 > Calverleigh > Bapt: 1813-1840 > Mar: 1757-1837 > Bur: 1813-1837 > Clayhanger > Bapt: 1813-1839 > Mar: 1754-1833 > Bur: 1750-1852 > Culmstock > Bapt: 1813-1840 > Mar: 1754-1837 > Bur: 1813-1837 > Halberton > Bapt: 1813-1840 > Mar: 1754-1837 > Bur: 1813-1837 > Hockworthy > Bapt: 1813-1840 > Mar: 1759-1837 > Bur: 1813-1838 > Holcombe Rogus > Bapt: 1813-1839 > Mar: 1755-1844 > Bur: 1813-1837 > Huntsham > Bapt: 1813-1840 > Mar: 1755-1836 > Bur: 1750-1838 > Loxbeare > Bapt: 1813-1841 > Mar: 1755-1837 > Bur: 1813-1983 > Morebath > Bapt: 1813-1840 > Mar: 1754-1837 > Bur: 1800-1837 > Petton Chapelry > Bampton Parish > Bapt: 1813-1839 > Bur: 1813-1861 > Sampford Peverell > Bapt: 1813-1840 > Mar: 1754-1837 > Bur: 1813-1837 > Tiverton St Peter > Bapt: 1813-1839 > Mar: 1754-1837 > Bur: 1813-1837 > Tiverton Cove > Bapt: 1813-1839 > Mar: 1682-1837 > Bur: 1815-1837 > Uffculme > Bapt: 1813-1839 > Mar: 1783-1837 > Bur: 1813-1837 > Uplowman > Bapt: 1813-1839 > Mar: 1755-1837 > Bur: 1813-1837 > Washfield > Bapt: 1813-1839 > Mar: 1755-1837 > Bur: 1800-1837 > Willand > Bapt: 1813-1839 > Mar: 1754-1837 > Bur: 1800-1837 > ------------------------------------------ > The DEVON-L mailing list is co-sponsored by GENUKI/Devon > http://www.genuki.org.uk/big/eng/DEV/ > and > the Devon FHS (http://www.devonfhs.org.uk/ ) > List archive for Devon can be found at http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/index?list=devon > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message -- School of Computing Science, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE1 7RU, UK EMAIL = [email protected] PHONE = +44 191 208 7923 FAX = +44 191 208 8232 URL = http://www.cs.ncl.ac.uk/people/brian.randell

The last Deanery CD was released at WDYTYA?- Live, and is now listed in the shop, also available on USB stick. CD064 http://www.devonfhs.org.uk/shop/product_list.php?cat_id=5 An index of baptisms, marriages and burials in the parishes of Bampton, Bickleigh, Burlescombe, Calverleigh, Clayhanger, Culmstock, Halberton, Hockworthy, Holcombe Rogus, Huntsham, Loxbeare, Morebath, Petton Chapelry, Sampford Peverell, Tiverton St. Peter, Tiverton Cove, Uffculme, Uplowman, Washfield and Willand. With photographs of the churches and extracts from White’s Directory (1850) and Kelly’s Directory of Devonshire (1902). Bampton Bapt: 1813-1838 Mar: 1754-1837 Bur: 1814-1838 Bickleigh Bapt: 1813-1839 Mar: 1755-1836 Bur: 1800-1837 Burlescombe Bapt: 1813-1839 Mar: 1755-1838 Bur: 1813-1837 Calverleigh Bapt: 1813-1840 Mar: 1757-1837 Bur: 1813-1837 Clayhanger Bapt: 1813-1839 Mar: 1754-1833 Bur: 1750-1852 Culmstock Bapt: 1813-1840 Mar: 1754-1837 Bur: 1813-1837 Halberton Bapt: 1813-1840 Mar: 1754-1837 Bur: 1813-1837 Hockworthy Bapt: 1813-1840 Mar: 1759-1837 Bur: 1813-1838 Holcombe Rogus Bapt: 1813-1839 Mar: 1755-1844 Bur: 1813-1837 Huntsham Bapt: 1813-1840 Mar: 1755-1836 Bur: 1750-1838 Loxbeare Bapt: 1813-1841 Mar: 1755-1837 Bur: 1813-1983 Morebath Bapt: 1813-1840 Mar: 1754-1837 Bur: 1800-1837 Petton Chapelry Bampton Parish Bapt: 1813-1839 Bur: 1813-1861 Sampford Peverell Bapt: 1813-1840 Mar: 1754-1837 Bur: 1813-1837 Tiverton St Peter Bapt: 1813-1839 Mar: 1754-1837 Bur: 1813-1837 Tiverton Cove Bapt: 1813-1839 Mar: 1682-1837 Bur: 1815-1837 Uffculme Bapt: 1813-1839 Mar: 1783-1837 Bur: 1813-1837 Uplowman Bapt: 1813-1839 Mar: 1755-1837 Bur: 1813-1837 Washfield Bapt: 1813-1839 Mar: 1755-1837 Bur: 1800-1837 Willand Bapt: 1813-1839 Mar: 1754-1837 Bur: 1800-1837

Hi: The bad news is that, due to a flood in Newcastle University’s computer room, http://genuki.cs.ncl.ac.uk/DEV/ is currently unavailable. The good news is that this is the URL for the *old* version of GENUKI/Devon, so the new improved version is still available - at http://www.genuki.org.uk/big/eng/DEV Cheers Brian Randell -- School of Computing Science, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE1 7RU, UK EMAIL = [email protected] PHONE = +44 191 208 7923 FAX = +44 191 208 8232 URL = http://www.cs.ncl.ac.uk/people/brian.randell

Hi Brian Many thanks for the the web address you sent. I have not worked on those particular lines of my family for some time so had not followed up on any new leads. I have been concentrating on trying to get my families into book form and thought I had finished the Devon and Cornwall lines but new information is always welcome. Cheers Marie -----Original Message----- From: Brian Randell Sent: Sunday, April 10, 2016 7:14 PM To: Marie McCulloch ; [email protected] Cc: Brian Randell ; Carolyne Bruyn Subject: Re: [DEV] REEDE OR BLACKMORE - Alternative Surnames Hi Marie: The Mike Brown essay you’ve pointed to is not the only one on aliases in GENUKI/Devon/Names, Personal. You may also find this one by Max Hooper helpful: http://www.genuki.org.uk/big/eng/DEV/DevonMisc/AliasesDiscriminant Cheers Brian On 10 Apr 2016, at 01:13, Marie McCulloch via <[email protected]> wrote:

Hello Paul, Thank you. I have looked at the actual image in Familysearch and it says the same, mother Priscilla [BT's]. No Penelope burial found so I have almost given up the thought that she was Penelope. I think the Vicar should have written Priscilla. He may have had a senior moment, I am sure it happened in those days to: ) Bev -------------------------------------------------- From: "Paul Hockie via" <[email protected]> Sent: Sunday, April 10, 2016 11:15 PM To: <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [DEV] Samuel STANSBURY and Priscilla [or Penelope] > Bev, > > The image on FMP for the 1815 marriage is clearly Penelope. There is an > 1813 marriage of a Samuel Stanbury to Catherine Harvey in Stoke Damerel. > Similarly Priscilla is on the baptism. entry. > > I also found that Familysearch has free images of Bishops Transcripts > including Mary d of Priscilla. You do have to sign up for an account. > > Cheers > > Paul > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On > Behalf Of Beverley Edmonds via > Sent: 08 April 2016 22:46 > To: [email protected] > Subject: [DEV] Samuel STANSBURY and Priscilla [or Penelope] > > Morning, > > Mary Stansbury was bapt at Plymouth Charles 12 Nov 1815 d/o Samuel > STANSBURY > and Priscilla . > > The only marriage I can find is that of Samuel STANBURY and Penelope > HORTUP > at Stoke Damerel 25 March 1815 > > I am wondering if the Vicar got the bride's name incorrect on the > marriage, > or is the mother's name on the baptism of Mary [Priscilla] incorrect? > > 1851 has a Samuel Stanbury 65 and Penelope 63 are at Sydenham Damerel. > > All research so far indicates that she really was Penelope Hortup but > there > is also the lingering niggle that maybe she wasn't. > > Has anyone else come up against this family? > > Regards > Bev Edmonds > > ------------------------------------------ > The DEVON-L mailing list is co-sponsored by GENUKI/Devon > http://www.genuki.org.uk/big/eng/DEV/ > and > the Devon FHS (http://www.devonfhs.org.uk/ ) List archive for Devon can be > found at http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/index?list=devon > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes > in > the subject and the body of the message > > ------------------------------------------ > The DEVON-L mailing list is co-sponsored by GENUKI/Devon > http://www.genuki.org.uk/big/eng/DEV/ > and > the Devon FHS (http://www.devonfhs.org.uk/ ) > List archive for Devon can be found at > http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/index?list=devon > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes > in the subject and the body of the message > > > ----- > No virus found in this message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 2016.0.7226 / Virus Database: 4545/12006 - Release Date: 04/10/16 >

Hello Tim, I am pleased that other's come up against the same problem. Trying to find a Penelope in any of the records has been unfruitful, at this stage I think her name was mistaken on the baptism for some reason and that she was really Priscilla. I have made copious notes just in case. Regards Bev -------------------------------------------------- From: "Tim Treeby (Genealogy)via" <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, April 11, 2016 12:36 AM To: <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [DEV] Samuel STANSBURY and Priscilla [or Penelope] > Not this particular family, but I have one even more peculiar. > > Baptised as Priscilla in 1824. > Marries as Lucy in 1845 > Shown on 1851 Census as Lucy. > Baptism of next to last Child in 1858 shown as Lucy. > Baptism of Last Child in 1861 shown as Priscilla. > Shown on 1861 Census as Priscilla. > Buried in 1862 as Lucy. > > Apart from her name keep changing absolutely everything else matches, > PoB, Age etc. > > So quite possible that Priscilla - Mother of Mary is in fact Penelope. > > Tim Treeby > DFHS 13926. > > On 08/04/2016 22:45, Beverley Edmonds via wrote: >> Morning, >> >> Mary Stansbury was bapt at Plymouth Charles 12 Nov 1815 d/o Samuel >> STANSBURY and Priscilla . >> >> The only marriage I can find is that of Samuel STANBURY and Penelope >> HORTUP at Stoke Damerel 25 March 1815 >> >> I am wondering if the Vicar got the bride's name incorrect on the >> marriage, or is the mother's name on the baptism of Mary [Priscilla] >> incorrect? >> >> 1851 has a Samuel Stanbury 65 and Penelope 63 are at Sydenham Damerel. >> >> All research so far indicates that she really was Penelope Hortup but >> there is also the lingering niggle that maybe she wasn't. >> >> Has anyone else come up against this family? >> >> Regards >> Bev Edmonds >> > > ------------------------------------------ > The DEVON-L mailing list is co-sponsored by GENUKI/Devon > http://www.genuki.org.uk/big/eng/DEV/ > and > the Devon FHS (http://www.devonfhs.org.uk/ ) > List archive for Devon can be found at > http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/index?list=devon > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes > in the subject and the body of the message > > > ----- > No virus found in this message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 2016.0.7226 / Virus Database: 4545/12006 - Release Date: 04/10/16 >

As already suggested I would think the most likely reason for the two surnames is illegitimacy. One would be the mother's maiden name and the other the name she took when she married. I have an example in my tree from Lapford, Devon. John Brewer was baptised 26 May 1816, illegitimate son of Ricord Brewer, a weaver. 8 Nov 1820 Richord Brewer married John Rounsefell and John Brewer took his step father's name from then on. When John Brewer married in 1839 the parish record entry reads: Brewer, John (usually called Rounsefell) son of John Rounsefell Paul Challice Daventry UK --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus

Not this particular family, but I have one even more peculiar. Baptised as Priscilla in 1824. Marries as Lucy in 1845 Shown on 1851 Census as Lucy. Baptism of next to last Child in 1858 shown as Lucy. Baptism of Last Child in 1861 shown as Priscilla. Shown on 1861 Census as Priscilla. Buried in 1862 as Lucy. Apart from her name keep changing absolutely everything else matches, PoB, Age etc. So quite possible that Priscilla - Mother of Mary is in fact Penelope. Tim Treeby DFHS 13926. On 08/04/2016 22:45, Beverley Edmonds via wrote: > Morning, > > Mary Stansbury was bapt at Plymouth Charles 12 Nov 1815 d/o Samuel > STANSBURY and Priscilla . > > The only marriage I can find is that of Samuel STANBURY and Penelope > HORTUP at Stoke Damerel 25 March 1815 > > I am wondering if the Vicar got the bride's name incorrect on the > marriage, or is the mother's name on the baptism of Mary [Priscilla] > incorrect? > > 1851 has a Samuel Stanbury 65 and Penelope 63 are at Sydenham Damerel. > > All research so far indicates that she really was Penelope Hortup but > there is also the lingering niggle that maybe she wasn't. > > Has anyone else come up against this family? > > Regards > Bev Edmonds >

Bev, The image on FMP for the 1815 marriage is clearly Penelope. There is an 1813 marriage of a Samuel Stanbury to Catherine Harvey in Stoke Damerel. Similarly Priscilla is on the baptism. entry. I also found that Familysearch has free images of Bishops Transcripts including Mary d of Priscilla. You do have to sign up for an account. Cheers Paul -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Beverley Edmonds via Sent: 08 April 2016 22:46 To: [email protected] Subject: [DEV] Samuel STANSBURY and Priscilla [or Penelope] Morning, Mary Stansbury was bapt at Plymouth Charles 12 Nov 1815 d/o Samuel STANSBURY and Priscilla . The only marriage I can find is that of Samuel STANBURY and Penelope HORTUP at Stoke Damerel 25 March 1815 I am wondering if the Vicar got the bride's name incorrect on the marriage, or is the mother's name on the baptism of Mary [Priscilla] incorrect? 1851 has a Samuel Stanbury 65 and Penelope 63 are at Sydenham Damerel. All research so far indicates that she really was Penelope Hortup but there is also the lingering niggle that maybe she wasn't. Has anyone else come up against this family? Regards Bev Edmonds ------------------------------------------ The DEVON-L mailing list is co-sponsored by GENUKI/Devon http://www.genuki.org.uk/big/eng/DEV/ and the Devon FHS (http://www.devonfhs.org.uk/ ) List archive for Devon can be found at http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/index?list=devon ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Many years ago (decades) I was searching for the reason for my ancestors having alias's. I eventually found the following web site which you may find explains a lot. I have checked my copy of the names and alias's but there is no REED/REID/READE/ETC or BLACKMORE which is no help to your direct query but reading the information may help you. http://genuki.cs.ncl.ac.uk/DEV/DevonMisc/Aliases.html Some Devon Surname Aliases by Mike Brown I hope this has been of some assistance Marie -----Original Message----- From: Carolyne Bruyn via Sent: Saturday, April 09, 2016 3:46 PM To: [email protected] Subject: [DEV] REEDE OR BLACKMORE - Alternative Surnames Hi, My query isn't specific to Devon but the names I am wondering about are connected to my Devon lines and maybe I can also pick up more info on them. My apologies if not appropriate for this list. I am researching a REED / REID / READE / ETC line and have come across one JOSEPH REEDE or BLACKMORE, born 1662 in Barnstaple Devon. His father is apparently JAMES REEDE or BLACKMORE, also from Barnstaple [no firm dates as yet]. I think I have James's father as JAMES REED [ no Blackmore ]. In the bits of documentation I have for these two, the alternatives are clearly given in each case, REEDE or BLACKMORE. Does anyone have any idea why these two, and only these two, generations would offer a choice of surname? Is OR a substitute for a hyphen? Thanks for any insight. Regards, Carolyne ------------------------------------------ The DEVON-L mailing list is co-sponsored by GENUKI/Devon http://www.genuki.org.uk/big/eng/DEV/ and the Devon FHS (http://www.devonfhs.org.uk/ ) List archive for Devon can be found at http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/index?list=devon ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message