<<snipped>> Not the transcription where the copyright resides with the transcriber ? <<snipped>> I doubt there is any *copyright* associated with a transcription as there is no original creation. There may be contractual rules agreed (explicitly or implicitly) between you and the transcriber. My brain also starts aching when it tries to decide whether wills are published or not, as the length and start of the copyright period is different. For this reason, I think it always pays to check the exact conditions on or with each site / archives, etc. Adrian

Hi Teresa I take is what you posted applies to a copy of the image of the will. Not the transcription where the copyright resides with the transcriber ? Mike in Droitwich

Hi Teresa: My comments related to will transcripts, not will images. TNA exercise tight control over their images, including of PCC wills, but these being Crown Copyright are I understand subject to the TNA’s rule about transcripts of Crown Copyright documents being freely publishable. (The Devon Record Office, when I last checked with them, followed the TNA’s practice.) Cheers Bran On 10 Sep 2014, at 08:49, Teresa Goatham via <devon@rootsweb.com> wrote: > Opinions seem divided, Brian's view is different from that of the > National Archives. > > According to the National Archives (see this PDF, in which they show > what in their holdings is exempt from Crown Copyright - section 5K, p.13 > in this: > http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/documents/information-management/use-of-tna-materials.pdf), > Crown copyright applies to probate statements (they say acts - I think > this includes sentences), NOT to the content of the wills - copyright in > that belongs to the heirs. > > "Copyright in a will or codicil is normally vested in the testator, and > passes (unless otherwise assigned) to his or her heirs. The reproduction > of wills therefore needs the permission of the descendants of the testator. > Copyright in the acts of a probate court (such as probate clauses and > letters of administration) is vested in the court. In the case of the > Prerogative Court of Canterbury and other probate jurisdictions > abolished by the Court of Probate Act 1857, ownership of the court’s > surviving copyright passed to the Crown. Acts of courts of probate since > 1857 are Crown copyright." > > They say that as a result permission is need from the descendants but > this seems wrong to me - heirs, of course, do not necessarily equate > with descendants. I would have thought the copyright will be in the > residue which will often go to one child. One will I have of an ancestor > left a small amount to each child and everything else to his second > wife, whom none of this children were descended from, so I think > copyright will have gone to her heirs, probably her family. With an 1852 > will it might be possible to work out who the heirs are; with so many > Devon wills destroyed and incomplete listings, I suspect with most > people who died more than a generation or so before 1858 it would be > impossible to be certain who the heirs are. > > I have assumed the National Archives are right and publish quite a few > wills of ancestors and other relations on my site, with a note that if > anyone owns copyright and wants it removed they should contact me. > So far I've only had thanks for what I've published. > > (I'm glad they do, I'm not complaining, but if as they say the Crown > does not have copyright, how do TNA give permission to the various > genealogy sites to publish the wills on their sites? The TNA may have > copyright in the image, but surely you can't have a readable image > without copyright in the content applying! So if they think it OK not to > get the permission of the descendants ...) > > I have found one will, quoted in full, in a Court of Chancery document; > they are Crown copyright - where does that leave the copyright of this > will? - I don't know. > > Teresa > > On 09/09/2014 08:01, devon-request@rootsweb.com wrote: >> Date: Mon, 8 Sep 2014 12:25:16 +0000 >> From: Brian Randell<brian.randell@newcastle.ac.uk> >> Subject: Re: [DEV] Transcribed Will of Henry Platel died 1852 >> To: Nuala NiShiochru<mygenieology@yahoo.com>,"devon@rootsweb.com" >> <devon@rootsweb.com> >> Cc: Brian Randell<brian.randell@newcastle.ac.uk> >> Message-ID:<DD538F2B-D614-4250-B95A-6190DBFD8236@ncl.ac.uk> >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" >> >> Hi Nuala: >> >> As long as the original will is from the National Archives, or a County Record Office, crown copyright applies, and allows the free publication (including online) of such transcripts. If it is private hands you should seek the owner?s permission. >> >> Cheers >> >> Brian >> >> On 8 Sep 2014, at 00:33, Nuala NiShiochru via<devon@rootsweb.com> wrote: >> >>>> Brian, >>>> I transcribed the above captioned will several years ago. There is now a closed website/forum for his decedents to which I would like to add the transcription. Before I share it with the site, I'd like to be sure there is not a problem with my doing so. Nuala > > > -- > ------------------------ > Teresa Goatham > > Sign the petition to open historic BMD registers - http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/62779 (UK residents / British citizens only) > > > ------------------------------------------ > The DEVON-L mailing list is co-sponsored by GENUKI/Devon > ( http://genuki.cs.ncl.ac.uk/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/DEVON/ > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to DEVON-request@rootsweb.com 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 EMAIL = Brian.Randell@ncl.ac.uk PHONE = +44 191 208 7923 URL = http://www.ncl.ac.uk/computing/staff/profile/brian.randell

Opinions seem divided, Brian's view is different from that of the National Archives. According to the National Archives (see this PDF, in which they show what in their holdings is exempt from Crown Copyright - section 5K, p.13 in this: http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/documents/information-management/use-of-tna-materials.pdf), Crown copyright applies to probate statements (they say acts - I think this includes sentences), NOT to the content of the wills - copyright in that belongs to the heirs. "Copyright in a will or codicil is normally vested in the testator, and passes (unless otherwise assigned) to his or her heirs. The reproduction of wills therefore needs the permission of the descendants of the testator. Copyright in the acts of a probate court (such as probate clauses and letters of administration) is vested in the court. In the case of the Prerogative Court of Canterbury and other probate jurisdictions abolished by the Court of Probate Act 1857, ownership of the court’s surviving copyright passed to the Crown. Acts of courts of probate since 1857 are Crown copyright." They say that as a result permission is need from the descendants but this seems wrong to me - heirs, of course, do not necessarily equate with descendants. I would have thought the copyright will be in the residue which will often go to one child. One will I have of an ancestor left a small amount to each child and everything else to his second wife, whom none of this children were descended from, so I think copyright will have gone to her heirs, probably her family. With an 1852 will it might be possible to work out who the heirs are; with so many Devon wills destroyed and incomplete listings, I suspect with most people who died more than a generation or so before 1858 it would be impossible to be certain who the heirs are. I have assumed the National Archives are right and publish quite a few wills of ancestors and other relations on my site, with a note that if anyone owns copyright and wants it removed they should contact me. So far I've only had thanks for what I've published. (I'm glad they do, I'm not complaining, but if as they say the Crown does not have copyright, how do TNA give permission to the various genealogy sites to publish the wills on their sites? The TNA may have copyright in the image, but surely you can't have a readable image without copyright in the content applying! So if they think it OK not to get the permission of the descendants ...) I have found one will, quoted in full, in a Court of Chancery document; they are Crown copyright - where does that leave the copyright of this will? - I don't know. Teresa On 09/09/2014 08:01, devon-request@rootsweb.com wrote: > Date: Mon, 8 Sep 2014 12:25:16 +0000 > From: Brian Randell<brian.randell@newcastle.ac.uk> > Subject: Re: [DEV] Transcribed Will of Henry Platel died 1852 > To: Nuala NiShiochru<mygenieology@yahoo.com>,"devon@rootsweb.com" > <devon@rootsweb.com> > Cc: Brian Randell<brian.randell@newcastle.ac.uk> > Message-ID:<DD538F2B-D614-4250-B95A-6190DBFD8236@ncl.ac.uk> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" > > Hi Nuala: > > As long as the original will is from the National Archives, or a County Record Office, crown copyright applies, and allows the free publication (including online) of such transcripts. If it is private hands you should seek the owner?s permission. > > Cheers > > Brian > > On 8 Sep 2014, at 00:33, Nuala NiShiochru via<devon@rootsweb.com> wrote: > >> >Brian, >> > I transcribed the above captioned will several years ago. There is now a closed website/forum for his decedents to which I would like to add the transcription. Before I share it with the site, I'd like to be sure there is not a problem with my doing so. Nuala -- ------------------------ Teresa Goatham Sign the petition to open historic BMD registers - http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/62779 (UK residents / British citizens only)

Martin, I have come across quite a few mis-transcriptions as I am sure most of us would have. I do also have the PR's on fiche but looking at my copy does not solve the issue as they both have the same mistake, I wonder if FMP cross reference with the the BT's if they cannot read the names. I do not think they have access to them, but wouldn't it be great if they did. I do detest all those EDWARDS in the PR's in Chivelstone/Stokenham and surrounds, I just wish they would go away. In 1851 if I cannot find a EDMONDS, I sometimes resort to EDWARDS and I have found the odd transcription mistake over the years, but not too many thankfully. I just wish I had a name that did not co exist so closely to another. I never thought of P**WOOD* so that is another thought, I thought it may have been an L**WOOD* but I do believe that it could be a true EDMONDS rather that an EDWARDS, even though there are not too many in Chivelstone this early, they certainly are in Stokenham/Slapton. I am grateful for your thoughts, and will continue to think about the name, I have the snipped bit open and I keep going back to it, I will solve the puzzle one day :) Bev -------------------------------------------------- From: "Martin Beavis via" <devon@rootsweb.com> Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 2014 9:09 AM To: <devon@rootsweb.com> Subject: Re: [DEV] EDMONDS marr 1645 Chivelstone > Hi Bev - This is a bit complicated because some of these very early PRs > are > so illegible. > > (1) FMP got the year wrong - they missed the faint 1642 near the top left > and attributed several marriages to 1645, so the EDMONDS marriage is > before > 1642, probably 1641. > (2) FMP could not read several of the names from the illegible parts of > this > PR. If you search all marriages in 1645 +/- 5 years, you get 18 names > sharing 14 different dates - only four couples can be matched up, and 10 > people (including EDMONDS) have no matching spouse. > (3) If FMP cannot read a surname, there is no transcription. If they can > read the surname, it is quite evidently often wrong, and there is usually > no > spouse forename or no spouse name at all. So searching by spouse surname > is > no good. > (4) Yes, the EDMONDS bride may be a Richord but there is an inconvenient > smudge. Her husband looks a bit like John P**WOOD* ??? > (5) Looking at Chivelstone births from (earliest) 1630 to 1650, and deaths > from 1650 to 1670, you will recognize births (and infant deaths?) from > some > of the marriages but there are no EDMONDS or anything like P**WOOD* in > this > parish. Perhaps the P**WOOD* groom was from another parish to which he > took > his Chivelstone bride. > > In the absence of any EDMONDS/EDMUNDS births or deaths, my best guess is > that FMP's transcription of the EDMONDS bride should be EDWARDS, which > occurs frequently in this parish, but in the absence of birth records > before > 1630 we cannot search for possible candidates. So unless you have > independent knowledge of EDMONDS in Chivelstone, I suspect FMP may have > led > you up the same garden path as me - been there, done that, did not find > what > the search results said was there! > > Regards - Martin > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: B. Edmonds via > Sent: Sunday, September 07, 2014 9:22 PM > To: DEVON-L@rootsweb.com > Subject: [DEV] EDMONDS marr 1645 Chivelstone > > FMP > > Edmonds - - - 1645 Devon Marriages Chivelstone, St Sylvester, Devon, > England > > Would SKS with FMP try to see what they make of the name for the couple in > this marriage with an EDMONDS. Leave the forname blank as even FMP > transcribers could not make it out. > > I am thing along the lines that her name could be something like Richord, > but then there appears > to be ..........therde? His name is John ?????? > Entry is about 3 inches from top of page and an entry up from Johne CHOPE > > Many thanks > > Bev Edmonds > > ------------------------------------------ > > ------------------------------------------ > The DEVON-L mailing list is co-sponsored by GENUKI/Devon > ( http://genuki.cs.ncl.ac.uk/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/DEVON/ > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > DEVON-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes > in the subject and the body of the message

Hi Bev - This is a bit complicated because some of these very early PRs are so illegible. (1) FMP got the year wrong - they missed the faint 1642 near the top left and attributed several marriages to 1645, so the EDMONDS marriage is before 1642, probably 1641. (2) FMP could not read several of the names from the illegible parts of this PR. If you search all marriages in 1645 +/- 5 years, you get 18 names sharing 14 different dates - only four couples can be matched up, and 10 people (including EDMONDS) have no matching spouse. (3) If FMP cannot read a surname, there is no transcription. If they can read the surname, it is quite evidently often wrong, and there is usually no spouse forename or no spouse name at all. So searching by spouse surname is no good. (4) Yes, the EDMONDS bride may be a Richord but there is an inconvenient smudge. Her husband looks a bit like John P**WOOD* ??? (5) Looking at Chivelstone births from (earliest) 1630 to 1650, and deaths from 1650 to 1670, you will recognize births (and infant deaths?) from some of the marriages but there are no EDMONDS or anything like P**WOOD* in this parish. Perhaps the P**WOOD* groom was from another parish to which he took his Chivelstone bride. In the absence of any EDMONDS/EDMUNDS births or deaths, my best guess is that FMP's transcription of the EDMONDS bride should be EDWARDS, which occurs frequently in this parish, but in the absence of birth records before 1630 we cannot search for possible candidates. So unless you have independent knowledge of EDMONDS in Chivelstone, I suspect FMP may have led you up the same garden path as me - been there, done that, did not find what the search results said was there! Regards - Martin -----Original Message----- From: B. Edmonds via Sent: Sunday, September 07, 2014 9:22 PM To: DEVON-L@rootsweb.com Subject: [DEV] EDMONDS marr 1645 Chivelstone FMP Edmonds - - - 1645 Devon Marriages Chivelstone, St Sylvester, Devon, England Would SKS with FMP try to see what they make of the name for the couple in this marriage with an EDMONDS. Leave the forname blank as even FMP transcribers could not make it out. I am thing along the lines that her name could be something like Richord, but then there appears to be ..........therde? His name is John ?????? Entry is about 3 inches from top of page and an entry up from Johne CHOPE Many thanks Bev Edmonds ------------------------------------------

Hi Bev I think it's Roger. Similar R and o as in Robert a couple of names above? Jane Gould Whitley Bay -----Original Message----- From: B. Edmonds via Sent: Sunday, September 07, 2014 9:22 PM To: DEVON-L@rootsweb.com Subject: [DEV] EDMONDS marr 1645 Chivelstone FMP Edmonds - - - 1645 Devon Marriages Chivelstone, St Sylvester, Devon, England Would SKS with FMP try to see what they make of the name for the couple in this marriage with an EDMONDS. Leave the forname blank as even FMP transcribers could not make it out. I am thing along the lines that her name could be something like Richord, but then there appears to be ..........therde? His name is John ?????? Entry is about 3 inches from top of page and an entry up from Johne CHOPE Many thanks Bev Edmonds ------------------------------------------ The DEVON-L mailing list is co-sponsored by GENUKI/Devon ( http://genuki.cs.ncl.ac.uk/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/DEVON/ ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to DEVON-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Hi Nuala: As long as the original will is from the National Archives, or a County Record Office, crown copyright applies, and allows the free publication (including online) of such transcripts. If it is private hands you should seek the owner’s permission. Cheers Brian On 8 Sep 2014, at 00:33, Nuala NiShiochru via <devon@rootsweb.com> wrote: > Brian, > I transcribed the above captioned will several years ago. There is now a closed website/forum for his decedents to which I would like to add the transcription. Before I share it with the site, I'd like to be sure there is not a problem with my doing so. Nuala > ------------------------------------------ > The DEVON-L mailing list is co-sponsored by GENUKI/Devon > ( http://genuki.cs.ncl.ac.uk/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/DEVON/ > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to DEVON-request@rootsweb.com 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 EMAIL = Brian.Randell@ncl.ac.uk PHONE = +44 191 208 7923 URL = http://www.ncl.ac.uk/computing/staff/profile/brian.randell

Dear All The database is not complete yet, and people are still linking data. This is the process. We firstly collected the data from the various record offices. Then we uploaded all this data on to the main database, but before we can make this available to the public we have to link all the locations in a diosese, and then the people. Because the project dates are rather wide, 1540-1835, we have divided the period into three sections, 1540-c.1660, c.1660-c.1760, and c.1760-1835. We usually link the locations first, and then work our way through the people. Most of the data linkers start at A and work to Z. If a name is not blue, it means it has been linked to a location, but not to a person. We do have some data that has not been linked at all, mainly in the 1660-1760 period, but we are still working on it. You may not realise that the funding for this project was spent years ago, so all linking work is done by three very busy academics, or volunteers - like me, and a few others. And you are absolutely right - ' it's folks like [you] who can spot the errors and split personalities and family relationships, so if you find such mismatches in your ancestry then I do urge you to send feedback to CCEd' Please send any errors you find to me. I'll look into them, correct what is needed and reply to you. Best wishes Mary ________________________________________ From: Martin Beavis [beavis.history@yahoo.co.uk] Sent: 03 September 2014 00:31 To: devon@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [DEV] searching CCEd Bev wrote: I am not sure how anyone can find the CCED site difficult to use, unless I am missing the meaning of what everyone is talking about. -------------------------------------- I think the problem with CCEd is the intractability of finding data that is there, but which an intuitive search might not have found, especially when you don't know what has or has not been found. Teresa did not find her GOTHAM in the A-Z person drop-down because he does not have a CCEd Person ID with a detailed career history comprising various CCEd Record IDs. He does appear as an unlinked grey name in the list of Brent Tor incumbents with the option to view a minimal CCEd Record of his appointment. If Teresa had not known he had been a curate at Brent Tor, she could not have found that by searching within CCEd. But a Google for [Gotham Brentor] does find that minimal record. So, as Teresa suggests, if you don't find your vicar on CCEd, try Google. But it's not that simple. For example, I have two Peter BEAVIS, father and son, holding multiple rectorships in Devon. So I do a Person Search on CCEd and find only the son, which links to a rather inadequate "Career Model Record" for Person ID 150557, which links to Record ID 240630, telling me that in 1762 he was Chaplain to Elizabeth, Countess of Home and had an MA (but not where from), that information being gleaned from a register of noblemen's chaplains. There is a separate link to view his broader "Person Record" showing four events: vicar of Chittlehampton, rector of Warkleigh and two for his chaplaincy to the Countess of Home. Three of those link to viewing the same Appointment Evidence Record (Record ID 8736), which tells me his MA was from Trinity College, Cambridge, that he was appointed vicar of Chittlehampton in 1762 with a living of about £120, and that his other appointments were Rector of Warkleigh (worth about £70) and chaplain to the Dowager Countess. That Person Record page has "Location" links for Chittlehampton, Warkleigh and the Countess which take me to the same pages I would have found had I done a Location search for those places, which proves a little more informative. The Chittlehampton page has links to that same Record ID 8736 and to a minimal record of his appointment. The Warkleigh page also has a link to Record ID 8736 (which links to Peter's Person ID 150557) and a link to Record ID 323090 which tells me he was appointed rector of Warkleigh in 1752, and that his patrons were his widowed mother and his sister, but which does not link to his Person ID. That Warkleigh page also lists the father, Petrus/Peter BEAVIS, appointed rector of Warkleigh in 1722 and died in 1750. But CCEd has no Person Record for that father Peter, which explains why he was not found by the Person Search for BEAVIS, and was only found through his Appointment Evidence Record associated with Warkleigh. Two years after the father's death, his successor resigned, probably to make way for the son. Both father and son were also rectors of the adjacent parish of Satterleigh at the same time as being rectors of Warkleigh, with similar Appointment Evidence Records, but no link from Satterleigh to the son's Person Record. I already know that Peter the father was also rector of the distant parish of Silverton near Exeter and, sure enough, CCEd records his appointment to that parish in 1733 until his death in 1750, but again does not link him to any Person Record. CCEd also records the termination of his Warkleigh tenure by "cession" in 1733 when he was appointed to Silverton, because one could not hold two such positions (except apparently in adjacent parishes) but also records his simultaneous re-appointment to Warkleigh - I believe his work-around was to appoint a stipendiary curate to handle Silverton. OK, that's a complicated example, but if you're confused then it has served its purpose by demonstrating the complexity and discontinuity within CCEd. I think that's what Teresa means when she warns that CCEd is not the easiest website to search. And her Google advice is well endorsed by my own search, which reminded me I had forgotten about Satterleigh! Please don't get me wrong - I'm not knocking CCEd. It is intended primarily for academic research in the humanities, and was evidently not designed to be family-history friendly but it's a great resource if you read all the how-to and persevere with the navigation. But it's folks like us who can spot the errors and split personalities and family relationships, so if you find such mismatches in your ancestry then I do urge you to send feedback to CCEd - which is why I'm bcc-ing this to CCEd (hence all the numbers in the text above for their info). Finally, Bev, when I referred to the compilation that did not include St Mary Arches or Milton Damerel, I meant Ecclesiastical Antiquities of Devon, not CCEd. And in view of recent comments on Devon-L, if you should feel moved to reply, please don't include all my spiel above - nobody wants to read that twice! Goodnight from Martin

FMP Edmonds - - - 1645 Devon Marriages Chivelstone, St Sylvester, Devon, England Would SKS with FMP try to see what they make of the name for the couple in this marriage with an EDMONDS. Leave the forname blank as even FMP transcribers could not make it out. I am thing along the lines that her name could be something like Richord, but then there appears to be ..........therde? His name is John ?????? Entry is about 3 inches from top of page and an entry up from Johne CHOPE Many thanks Bev Edmonds

The real point is we will probably never know for sure what the author really meant. -------------------------------------------------- From: "Mike Fisher via" <devon@rootsweb.com> Sent: Sunday, September 07, 2014 7:45 AM To: <devon@rootsweb.com> Subject: Re: [DEV] Independent Baptism N.S. [what does N.S. Mean?] > Calendar (New Style) Act of Parliament 1752 > > Prior to 1752 in England, the year began on 25 March (Lady Day). Lady > Day is one of the Quarter Days, which are still used in legal circles. > The Quarter Days divide the year in quarters (hence the name :-), and > the Quarter Days are: Lady Day (25 March), Midsummers Day (24 June), > Michaelmas Day (29 September), and Christmas Day (25 December). > > So, in England, the day after 24 March 1642 was 25 March 1643. The Act > changed this, so that the day after 31 December 1751 was 1 January 1752. > As a consequence, 1751 was a short year - it ran only from 25 March to > 31 December. > > Regards > > Mike Fisher in sunny Droitwich > ------------------------------------------ > The DEVON-L mailing list is co-sponsored by GENUKI/Devon > ( http://genuki.cs.ncl.ac.uk/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/DEVON/ > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > DEVON-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes > in the subject and the body of the message

Hi All Devon Researchers, Am trying to find our a bit about my ancestor Ann Rogers 1789-1866 daughter of Thomas born 1761 Stoke Fleming son of Richard & Anne and Ann Fraude born 1756 married Dartmouth 1785. Ann married Thomas Nankivell 1788-1849 in 1811. 1851 census Elbow Lane, Tavistock Ann Nankivell aged 60 with son John Nankivell, aged 16, Copper Miner. When her son Robert Roger Nankivell asked her to come to Melbourne to care for his youngest children she asked her youngest son John to come home from California and the embarked on the Roxburgh Castle arriving in 1857. Robert had remarried and relocated to Maldon so she and John settled at Maldon where she is buried. Any connections? Marg.

Brian, I transcribed the above captioned will several years ago. There is now a closed website/forum for his decedents to which I would like to add the transcription. Before I share it with the site, I'd like to be sure there is not a problem with my doing so. Nuala

Hi , the 1841 shows a single family of Rogers in Stoke Fleming, John and Jane both 45, and Benjamin and Jane both 15 ; there is a 25yr old Jane living in the village John and Jane live at Ivy Bank , MB. Familysearch has the chr of a Benjamin in 1786 to Thomas and Ann who is presumably a brother to your Ann . It would also seem likely that Benjamin and your Ann are perhaps siblings of John aged 45 . . life is hard . soften it with a cat \\\=^..^=/// ----- Original Message ----- From: "margmansfield via" <devon@rootsweb.com> To: <devon@rootsweb.com> Sent: Sunday, September 07, 2014 10:47 AM Subject: Re: [DEV] DEVON Digest, Vol 9, Issue 313 > Hi All Devon Researchers, > > Am trying to find our a bit about my ancestor Ann Rogers 1789-1866 > daughter of Thomas born 1761 Stoke Fleming son of Richard & Anne and Ann > Fraude born 1756 married Dartmouth 1785. > > Ann married Thomas Nankivell 1788-1849 in 1811. 1851 census Elbow Lane, > Tavistock Ann Nankivell aged 60 with son John Nankivell, aged 16, Copper > Miner. When her son Robert Roger Nankivell asked her to come to > Melbourne to care for his youngest children she asked her youngest son > John to come home from California and the embarked on the Roxburgh > Castle arriving in 1857. Robert had remarried and relocated to Maldon so > she and John settled at Maldon where she is buried. > > Any connections? > > Marg. > > > ------------------------------------------ > The DEVON-L mailing list is co-sponsored by GENUKI/Devon > ( http://genuki.cs.ncl.ac.uk/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/DEVON/ > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > DEVON-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes > in the subject and the body of the message >

On 7 Sep 2014 at 6:49, Brad Rogers via wrote: > On Sat, 6 Sep 2014 23:39:07 +0100 > Terry Blackmore via <devon@rootsweb.com> wrote: > > Hello Terry, > > > As it's an independent baptism it might just as well be "non > > secular". > > Given that the N.S. applies to all baptisms between 1 Jan and 25 Mar > 1752 and no others (that I could see) that seems rather unlikely. Also the absence of any evidence that any baptisms at all were ever described as "secular". -- Steve Hayes E-mail: shayes@dunelm.org.uk Blog: http://khanya.wordpress.com Web: http://www.khanya.org.za/stevesig.htm Phone: 083-342-3563 or 012-333-6727 Fax: 086-548-2525

Calendar (New Style) Act of Parliament 1752 Prior to 1752 in England, the year began on 25 March (Lady Day). Lady Day is one of the Quarter Days, which are still used in legal circles. The Quarter Days divide the year in quarters (hence the name :-), and the Quarter Days are: Lady Day (25 March), Midsummers Day (24 June), Michaelmas Day (29 September), and Christmas Day (25 December). So, in England, the day after 24 March 1642 was 25 March 1643. The Act changed this, so that the day after 31 December 1751 was 1 January 1752. As a consequence, 1751 was a short year - it ran only from 25 March to 31 December. Regards Mike Fisher in sunny Droitwich

This is the time of the calendar change so NS = new style - as in the new calendar that now started on 1st January instead of 25th March. Janet Few -----Original Message----- From: Brad Rogers via Sent: Sunday, September 07, 2014 6:49 AM To: DEVON@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [DEV] Independent Baptism N.S. [what does N.S. Mean?] On Sat, 6 Sep 2014 23:39:07 +0100 Terry Blackmore via <devon@rootsweb.com> wrote: Hello Terry, > As it's an independent baptism it might just as well be "non > secular". Given that the N.S. applies to all baptisms between 1 Jan and 25 Mar 1752 and no others (that I could see) that seems rather unlikely. -- Regards _ / ) "The blindingly obvious is / _)rad never immediately apparent" Well you tried it just the once and found it alright for kicks Orgasm Addict - Buzzcocks ------------------------------------------ The DEVON-L mailing list is co-sponsored by GENUKI/Devon ( http://genuki.cs.ncl.ac.uk/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/DEVON/ ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to DEVON-request@rootsweb.com 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: 2014.0.4765 / Virus Database: 4015/8165 - Release Date: 09/06/14

Oh dear, so it is the transcription page rather than the image page. Should have looked there too. Bev -------------------------------------------------- From: "Brad Rogers via" <devon@rootsweb.com> Sent: Sunday, September 07, 2014 5:57 AM To: <DEVON@rootsweb.com> Subject: Re: [DEV] FMP Wrong Transcriptions [re EDMUND- PITTWOODE] > On Sat, 6 Sep 2014 08:00:09 +1000 > "B. Edmonds via" <devon@rootsweb.com> wrote: > > Hello B., > >> There does not appear to a be a section for reporting this. Just if >> the >>image is >> bad or the wrong image, nothing that I can see for transcription error. > > Go to the transcription, scroll to bottom, look at LHS, there's a link > to "report transcription error" > > -- > Regards _ > / ) "The blindingly obvious is > / _)rad never immediately apparent" > I'll be the rubbish you'll be the bin > Love Song - The Damned > ------------------------------------------ > The DEVON-L mailing list is co-sponsored by GENUKI/Devon > ( http://genuki.cs.ncl.ac.uk/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/DEVON/ > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > DEVON-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes > in the subject and the body of the message

Thank you everyone, I knew it was going to be simple. Bev > On Sat, 6 Sep 2014 07:56:38 +1000 > "B. Edmonds via" <devon@rootsweb.com> wrote: > > Hello B., > >>baptisms from 1 Jan 1752 to 25th March the letters N.S. appear after >>that date. > > New Style. As opposed to Old Style. > > -- > Regards _ > / ) "The blindingly obvious is > / _)rad never immediately apparent" > Tell the dinosaurs they just won't survive > The History Of The World (Part 1) - The Damned > ------------------------------------------ > The DEVON-L mailing list is co-sponsored by GENUKI/Devon > ( http://genuki.cs.ncl.ac.uk/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/DEVON/ > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > DEVON-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes > in the subject and the body of the message

On Sat, 6 Sep 2014 23:39:07 +0100 Terry Blackmore via <devon@rootsweb.com> wrote: Hello Terry, > As it's an independent baptism it might just as well be "non > secular". Given that the N.S. applies to all baptisms between 1 Jan and 25 Mar 1752 and no others (that I could see) that seems rather unlikely. -- Regards _ / ) "The blindingly obvious is / _)rad never immediately apparent" Well you tried it just the once and found it alright for kicks Orgasm Addict - Buzzcocks