Add SHARPLIN to the list Nivard Ovington in Cornwall (UK) I was recently asked to do a look up for a Northumberland marriage from a contact in the USA. This drew a blank and I looked a little farther afield for the surname (Sharpton). Again I drew a blank. There is only one marriage for a Sharpton in the BMD although this was in London.

Hi Vivian Do you have some names and details to check out Of the SHARPTONs I found in the census, I found that some were SHARPLES, others SHACKLETON, perhaps yours has a similar origin rather than SHARPTON Nivard Ovington in Cornwall (UK) I was recently asked to do a look up for a Northumberland marriage from a contact in the USA. This drew a blank and I looked a little farther afield for the surname (Sharpton). Again I drew a blank. There is only one marriage for a Sharpton in the BMD although this was in London. I then looked at the census from 1841-1901. Although I could not find any Sharptons born in Northumberland or Durham there are a number of Sharpton families, from other regions, born in the UK. However, there is NOT ONE birth registration for a Sharpton in the BMD in any district/county. This is a complete mystery and I wonder if anyone can throw any light on this. I could understand one or two names being transcribed wrongly but it simply isn't possible that generation after generation of Sharptons are not registered. I realise this is probably not the list to write to, not having found any Sharptons in the Northumberland area, but hope no-one minds. Best wishes. Vivian

I was recently asked to do a look up for a Northumberland marriage from a contact in the USA. This drew a blank and I looked a little farther afield for the surname (Sharpton). Again I drew a blank. There is only one marriage for a Sharpton in the BMD although this was in London. I then looked at the census from 1841-1901. Although I could not find any Sharptons born in Northumberland or Durham there are a number of Sharpton families, from other regions, born in the UK. However, there is NOT ONE birth registration for a Sharpton in the BMD in any district/county. This is a complete mystery and I wonder if anyone can throw any light on this. I could understand one or two names being transcribed wrongly but it simply isn't possible that generation after generation of Sharptons are not registered. I realise this is probably not the list to write to, not having found any Sharptons in the Northumberland area, but hope no-one minds. Best wishes. Vivian _________________________________________________________________ View your Twitter and Flickr updates from one place – Learn more! http://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/137984870/direct/01/

Hi Vivian In view of all the posts that have been received on this, I think the enquirer should be very expansive with regard to spelling - other suggestions that come to my mind are starting with Ch as well as Sh [- and the Northumbrian name of CHARLTON has a similar sound!!!] But really - looking for a name is not the way to go as we have been told so many times!. Start with what you know and work back one generation at a time, obtaining birth, marriage and death certificates, and census records as well as other supporting information. Just my two pennorth! Heather >

Just to add that on the 2003 UK-Info disk there are 6 Sharpson; 7 Sharpston; and 37 Sharpstone. Stan Mapstone

Hi Vivian, There are no Sharptons in the ONS database. http://www.taliesin-arlein.net/names/search.php This is an extract of an Office of National Statistics database, and contains a list of surnames in use in England, Wales and the Isle of Mann in September 2002. I can find no entries in Free BMD. There are some entries in the Censuses but, without looking at all of them, I suspect they could be wrongly transcribed, and could be Sharpson, Sharpston, or Sharpstone. There are no people called Sharpton in the UK on the 2003 Uk-Info Disk which is based on the 2001 full electoral Roll. Stan Mapstone

> > > > 1. What the IGI doesn't tell you - a wonderful marriage entry > > (Roy Stockdill) What a marvelous account, really does make you wonder what happened after the marriage !! thank you Roy for my morning smile. Marilyn

Roy Brilliant!! Where can I purchase this book? Best wishes. Vivian > From: [email protected] > To: [email protected] > Date: Fri, 29 May 2009 19:39:04 +0100 > Subject: [DUR-NBL] What the IGI doesn't tell you - a wonderful marriage entry! > > Being a keen aficianado of those weird and wonderful entries from parish > registers, censuses, wills, MIs and other sources, etc, that we all so love, > I possess a super little book compiled and published in 1996 by one > Michael Southwick, of Winlaton, Tyne and Wear. This is a compendium > of such tales called "Ancestral Anomalies" and in it the author includes > what must surely be the longest and most wonderful marriage entry in a > parish register even seen! _________________________________________________________________ Share your photos with Windows Live Photos – Free. http://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/134665338/direct/01/

In a message dated 29/05/2009 19:41:51 GMT Daylight Time, [email protected] writes: published in ye church but John and ye bride ________________________________________________________________________ Hi Roy, I hope you don't mind me pointing out that the word should not be 'ye' but 'the.' þ, the now obsolete letter (known as 'thorn') was still used in this period to represent a 'th' sound. Most often it looks exactly like a y, and it is in this form that it is to this day misunderstood in countless establishments with names like 'ye olde tea shoppe'. When you see 'ye' you are looking at 'þe' and it should be trancscribed as 'the'. Similarly with 'yat' you are looking at 'þat' and should transcribe it as 'that', on the understanding that þ consistently represents 'th'. Stan Mapstone

Thank you Roy for that brilliant account of protracted banns and the couple's stormy relationship - I loved it! And wonder how they fared as man & wife when they eventually made it to the altar? Marie Kerr

Being a keen aficianado of those weird and wonderful entries from parish registers, censuses, wills, MIs and other sources, etc, that we all so love, I possess a super little book compiled and published in 1996 by one Michael Southwick, of Winlaton, Tyne and Wear. This is a compendium of such tales called "Ancestral Anomalies" and in it the author includes what must surely be the longest and most wonderful marriage entry in a parish register even seen! Firstly, let's look at the usual bald entry in the IGI, totally lacking in any detail..... JOHN WATSON, spouse JAN HUNTER Marriage: 31st Jan 1672, Bedlington, Northumberland, England Batch no. M000111, source the Bedlington parish registers Now here is the full transcription from the registers for Jan 31 1672 (with little punctuation, so read carefully)..... "(marriage of) John Watson (&) Jan Hunter, both in Bedlington, was 2 several times published in ye church but John and ye bride had a great contest so they did discharge ye minister for calling them any more so, within 14 days after ye said John came to ye minister and did desire him to call them 3 times in ye church, with much ado ye minister did cause them to be called out of ye church so of ye Thursday after John and a great company of men rode abroad ye parish and several other parishes and invited all his friends and neighbours to ye wedding against that date since to accompanying him to ye church and to come and dine with him which wedding day should have been on Thursday ye 21st day of November, 1671 but by misfortune the bridegroom lay back and would not be married and doth call ye bride both whore and jade and broken faced queen, but small that she is so kind that she will sit down upon his knee and both kiss him and clap him and call him both honey and heart, so ye wedding never went any further as yet but ye bride did invite a few good neighbours to come and eat a fat goose and a piece of good roast beef that same day and to be sure that they should provide good store of moneys along with them, but ye said John came in at night and called all that was at ye dinner both knaves and rascals and bid them begone and told ye bride before them all that he had occupied her both in ye bed and among ye meadow and in ye bier which she could not deny, so ye wedding was ended with much shame but ye bride did nothing but laugh, so fair..... "But now it happened that upon ye 30th day of January that ye said John Watson came to ye clerk Ralph Mitford and did desire him to speak to ye parson that he would be pleased to marry ye said John and Jan Hunter but ye said Janes children came to ye churchgarth and made a sore outcry that ye whole town did make an uproar so ye said John went his way and met ye bride coming to ye church to be married so they both returned and then ye bride went to friends house and John together, but some cross words began between them that ye bride did run away almost a mile out of ye town which many neighbours did follow and ye bridegroom did borrow a roaning mare of a young man in ye town and did bring ye bride back and so it happened upon ye Friday being ye 31st January that as it pleased God that both ye parties came to ye minister and clerk and were lawfully married upon ye 31st of Jan. 1672" Well, talk about a pair of star-crossed lovers!!! Several questions arise from this wonderful account of a marriage..... 1) Has anyone ever seen a more vivid and brilliant description of events in a parish register? Don't you just love that phrase "called her whore and jade and broken faced queen" and "that he had occupied her both in ye bed and among ye meadow and in ye bier"? 2) How many pages of the register did it take up? 3) Who were Jane's children, John's, illegitimate or by a previous marriage. 4) Did the couple live happily ever after? 5) Do they have any living descendants today? If so, aren't they lucky to have this amazing account of their ancestors' wedding! * With thanks to Michael Southwick and I hope he doesn't mind my repeating this classic story here. -- Roy Stockdill Professional genealogical researcher, writer & lecturer Newbies' Guide to Genealogy & Family History: www.genuki.org.uk/gs/Newbie.html "There is only one thing in the world worse than being talked about, and that is not being talked about." OSCAR WILDE

Hello Roy Just wonderful..... Thank you. Best regards Heather Carbis Online Parish Clerk for Morvah Cornwall http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~morvah Visit my Family Tree at GOODWIN and GORDON http://heatherac.tribalpages.com --- On Fri, 29/5/09, Roy Stockdill <[email protected]> wrote: > Subject: [DUR-NBL] What the IGI doesn't tell you - a wonderful marriage entry! > To: [email protected] > Being a keen aficianado of those > weird and wonderful entries from parish > registers, censuses, wills, MIs and other sources, etc, > that we all so love, > I possess a super little book compiled and published in > 1996 by one > Michael Southwick, of Winlaton, Tyne and Wear. This is a > compendium > of such tales called "Ancestral Anomalies" and in it the > author includes > what must surely be the longest and most wonderful marriage > entry in a > parish register even seen! > > Firstly, let's look at the usual bald entry in the IGI, > totally lacking in any > detail..... > > JOHN WATSON, spouse JAN HUNTER > Marriage: 31st Jan 1672, Bedlington, Northumberland, > England > Batch no. M000111, source the Bedlington parish registers > > Now here is the full transcription from the registers for > Jan 31 1672 (with > little punctuation, so read carefully)..... >

Oh Roy what a gem that tale is and don't I wish that they belonged in my family tree. Thank you for brightening my morning Tia in Australia ________________________________ From: Roy Stockdill <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Saturday, 30 May, 2009 4:39:04 AM Subject: [DUR-NBL] What the IGI doesn't tell you - a wonderful marriage entry! Being a keen aficianado of those weird and wonderful entries from parish registers, censuses, wills, MIs and other sources, etc, that we all so love, I possess a super little book compiled and published in 1996 by one Michael Southwick, of Winlaton, Tyne and Wear. This is a compendium of such tales called "Ancestral Anomalies" and in it the author includes what must surely be the longest and most wonderful marriage entry in a parish register even seen! Firstly, let's look at the usual bald entry in the IGI, totally lacking in any detail..... JOHN WATSON, spouse JAN HUNTER Marriage: 31st Jan 1672, Bedlington, Northumberland, England Batch no. M000111, source the Bedlington parish registers Now here is the full transcription from the registers for Jan 31 1672 (with little punctuation, so read carefully)..... "(marriage of) John Watson (&) Jan Hunter, both in Bedlington, was 2 several times published in ye church but John and ye bride had a great contest so they did discharge ye minister for calling them any more so, within 14 days after ye said John came to ye minister and did desire him to call them 3 times in ye church, with much ado ye minister did cause them to be called out of ye church so of ye Thursday after John and a great company of men rode abroad ye parish and several other parishes and invited all his friends and neighbours to ye wedding against that date since to accompanying him to ye church and to come and dine with him which wedding day should have been on Thursday ye 21st day of November, 1671 but by misfortune the bridegroom lay back and would not be married and doth call ye bride both whore and jade and broken faced queen, but small  that she is so kind that she will sit down upon his knee and both kiss him and clap him and call him both honey and heart, so ye wedding never went any further as yet but ye bride did invite a few good neighbours to come and eat a fat goose and a piece of good roast beef that same day and to be sure that they should provide good store of moneys along with them, but ye said John came in at night and called all that was at ye dinner both knaves and rascals and bid them begone and told ye bride before them all that he had occupied her both in ye bed and among ye meadow and in ye bier which she could not deny, so ye wedding was ended with much shame but ye bride did nothing but laugh, so fair..... "But now it happened that upon ye 30th day of January that ye said John Watson came to ye clerk Ralph Mitford and did desire him to speak to ye parson that he would be pleased to marry ye said John and Jan Hunter but ye said Janes children came to ye churchgarth and made a sore outcry that ye whole town did make an uproar so ye said John went his way and met ye bride coming to ye church to be married so they both returned and then ye bride went to friends house and John together, but some cross words began between them that ye bride did run away almost a mile out of ye town which many neighbours did follow and ye bridegroom did borrow a roaning mare of a young man in ye town and did bring ye bride back and so it happened upon ye Friday being ye 31st January that as it pleased God that both ye parties came to ye minister and clerk and were lawfully married upon ye 31st of Jan. 1672" Well, talk about a pair of star-crossed lovers!!! Several questions arise from this wonderful account of a marriage..... 1) Has anyone ever seen a more vivid and brilliant description of events in a parish register? Don't you just love that phrase "called her whore and jade and broken faced queen" and "that he had occupied her both in ye bed and among ye meadow and in ye bier"? 2) How many pages of the register did it take up? 3) Who were Jane's children, John's, illegitimate or by a previous marriage. 4) Did the couple live happily ever after? 5) Do they have any living descendants today? If so, aren't they lucky to have this amazing account of their ancestors' wedding! * With thanks to Michael Southwick and I hope he doesn't mind my repeating this classic story here. -- Roy Stockdill Professional genealogical researcher, writer & lecturer Newbies' Guide to Genealogy & Family History: www.genuki.org.uk/gs/Newbie.html "There is only one thing in the world worse than being talked about, and that is not being talked about." OSCAR WILDE ==== DUR-NBL Mailing List ==== To Post a message to this list send it to, [email protected] ==== DUR-NBL Mailing List ==== List Web Page http://www.communigate.co.uk/ne/durhamgenealogy/index.phtml ------------------------------- 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 Need a Holiday? Win a $10,000 Holiday of your choice. Enter now.http://us.lrd.yahoo.com/_ylc=X3oDMTJxN2x2ZmNpBF9zAzIwMjM2MTY2MTMEdG1fZG1lY2gDVGV4dCBMaW5rBHRtX2xuawNVMTEwMzk3NwR0bV9uZXQDWWFob28hBHRtX3BvcwN0YWdsaW5lBHRtX3BwdHkDYXVueg--/SIG=14600t3ni/**http%3A//au.rd.yahoo.com/mail/tagline/creativeholidays/*http%3A//au.docs.yahoo.com/homepageset/%3Fp1=other%26p2=au%26p3=mailtagline

Best regards Heather Carbis >From The News of The World, Sunday 19 September 1886 COUNTRY NEWS NORTHUMBERLAND A SINGULAR FATALITY occurred on Tuesday morning at the steel works of Sir W. G. Armstrong, Mitchell, and Co., Elswick, Newcastle. Two men named George ATKINSON and James M'KEOWN, bricklayers, had on Saturday left their tools in a gas flue. On entering the flue on Tuesday to get the tools they were overcome by the gas. A fellow-workman named MILLARD, rescued M'KEOWN, but was unable to return and rescue ATKINSON owing to the gas affecting him. Another work-man, however, after first putting a rope around his waist, entered the flue and brought out ATKINSON, though not until it was too late, for he died about ten minutes after being brought into the open-air. M'KEOWN is in a dangerous condition, and the two rescuers were also considerably overcome by the gas. Online Parish Clerk for Morvah Cornwall http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~morvah Visit my Family Tree at GOODWIN and GORDON http://heatherac.tribalpages.com

More from the News of The World Just to let listers know, I have transcribed these reports exactly as they appeared in the newspapers and have no further information on the articles. Best regards Heather Carbis Sunday 19 September 1886 COUNTRY NEWS DURHAM A lamentable accident has occurred off Seaham Harbour, by which two men were drowned. The day was fixed for the usual annual regatta, and one of the boats entered for the sailing race, a pilot coble named the John and Mary, was having a little practice about half a mile off the pier-end shortly before 1 o'clock in the afternoon. There were five men in the coble- Morley SCOTT, pilot; William WILLIS, assistant pilot; Thomas THURLBECK, sailor; Alexander JOHNSON, fisherman; and Thomas SPOORS, fitter; all the men, with the exception of Johnson, who belongs to Sunderland, being from Seaham Harbour. A strong breeze was blowing at the time, and the coble appeared to be carrying too much sail, as she turned over on her side, and, filling with water, sank almost instantly. The men made desperate efforts to keep themselves afloat by clinging to the floating gear, and three cobles from the shore, named The Rose, The Spring and The Elizabeth, making good sail, picked up SCOTT, WILLIS and SPORES, but were unable to save THURLBECK and JOHNSON, who unfortunately, sank and were drowned in sight of a large number of people on shore. JOHNSON was married and leaves a widow and a large family. THURLBECK was only about 18 years of age and was unmarried. The Viceroy of Ireland, the Marquis of Londonderry, with the Marchioness of Londonderry, and their two children were on the North pier at the time of the accident, and did all they could in getting assistance sent to the drowning men. The Regatta was postponed to some future day, and it is singular that a similar thing happened about 13 years ago, when on the day of the regatta the man Morley SCOTT, who had charge of the boat on Saturday, was in charge of a coble which sank, and five men were drowned. Online Parish Clerk for Morvah Cornwall http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~morvah Visit my Family Tree at GOODWIN and GORDON http://heatherac.tribalpages.com

Hello All This may be of use to somebody someday! Heather Carbis >From The News of The World, Sunday 24 January 1886 DURHAM CURIOUS EXPLOSION.- A serious accident has occurred at the works of the South Shields Gas Company at Jarrow. Two men named HEPPEL, father and son, were attempting to open a barrel of gas-tar, and to effect this the elder Heppel used a red hot-poker. An explosion resulted, and both men were knocked down and severely injured. Heppel, sen., was rendered unconscious, and his son was much burnt about the face. Online Parish Clerk for Morvah Cornwall http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~morvah Visit my Family Tree at GOODWIN and GORDON http://heatherac.tribalpages.com

Thanks Stan, Richard, and others who replied for helping to reduce the level of my ignorance Cheers Steve [email protected] wrote: > In a message dated 25/05/2009 17:57:22 GMT Daylight Time, > [email protected] writes: > I understand getting married in the Register Office, but "by Certificate"? > ______________________________________________________________________ > > Marriages in England and Wales could be by: > 1) Banns > 2) Surrogate’s or Common Licence > 3) Special Licence > 4) Superintendent Registrar’s Certificate > 5) Superintendent Registrar’s Licence > > Under (1) (2) and (3) marriages may be solemnized by a Clergyman of the > Established Church of England in a licensed Church or Chapel of the Church of > England, or, if by Special Licence, in any place and at any time. > Under (4) they may, as in cases (1) and (2), be solemnized by a Clergyman > of the Established Church of England subject to his being willing to accept > the Certificate in lieu of Banns; and under (4) and (5) by or before a > Registrar of Marriages in a building of Roman Catholic or other denomination > duly registered by the Registrar-General; before a Registrar of Marriages and > a Superintendent Registrar in the District Register Office; or after the > 1898 Act .(Marriage; Nonconformist Places of Worship), before a person duly > authorised under the Act. Under this Act Roman Catholics and > Nonconformists were not required to have a civil Registrar present. > > Stan Mapstone > > > ==== DUR-NBL Mailing List ==== > To Post a message to this list send it to, > [email protected] > > ==== DUR-NBL Mailing List ==== > List Web Page > http://www.communigate.co.uk/ne/durhamgenealogy/index.phtml > > ------------------------------- > 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

> And is it usual to have a Registrar attending as well as the Minister? Many Ministers are appointed as deputy or assistant Registrars and therefore do not need the presence of the Registrar. However, those who are not appointed as such can only perform marriages in the presence of the Registrar. Appointments are also area dependent, so if a duly appointed Minister performs a ceremony outside their official area, they also need a Registrar to record the details. Richard

Great grand-da Thomas HETHERINGTON married great grand-ma Sarah TAYLOR on 21-FEB-1874 and the certificate has the printed "according to the Rites and Ceremonies of the" crossed out and where the type of church would be the "by Certificate" written in. I understand getting married in the Register Office, but "by Certificate"? And looking through I find that their daughter Sarah married George FORSTER at the Presbyterian Church, Widdrington "according to the Rites and Ceremonies of the Presbyterians by Certificate" by a Minister and a Registrar. Again, by Certificate? And is it usual to have a Registrar attending as well as the Minister? Slightly confused Steve

In a message dated 24/05/2009 00:13:24 GMT Daylight Time, [email protected] writes: What I am wondering is; to be buried in Consecrated Ground; need the twins girls be Baptised/Christened? ____________________________________________________________________________ ____ Yes, unbaptised children were normally buried in unconsecrated ground. Adults were usually assumed to have been baptised, and buried in consecrated ground. Stan Mapstone