Hi Marina Do you mean that two children with the same surname have exactly the same reference i.e. same registration district, same year & quarter, same volume number and same page reference? This would indeed be the case if they were twins, but there is a small chance they could be cousins and their fathers popped into the register office together, and a chance that it is just a co-incidence (depending on how common the name is). I have a case of twins occurring on successive pages - one must have been the last entry on a page so the other twin was on the next page. Good luck, Ingrid > Found two birth registrations with the same numbers in 1925, on Free > bmd. These may have been twins, so do twins share the same birth > registration number? >

Hello Listers, Found two birth registrations with the same numbers in 1925, on Free bmd. These may have been twins, so do twins share the same birth registration number? Regards, Marina New Zealand

Just a note on this subject of twins which no one has mentioned yet. If they were twins it is almost certain that on both birth certificates there will be the time of birth recorded and this only normally appears in the case of twins. Regards Terry ----- Original Message ----- From: "Borlands" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, April 24, 2009 3:02 AM Subject: Re: [DUR-NBL] Birth Registration Of Twins > Thank you to those kind folks who responded. Grateful for your assistance > with this one. > > Regards, > > Marina > New Zealand > ==== 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 >

Hi Marina There are more than one name to a page so its possible that they are twins but it could be a co-incidence of the same name being registered on the same day You can also have twins that happen to be the last reg on one page and the first on the next, so consecutive numbers Best wishes Nivard Ovington, in Cornwall (UK) > Hello Listers, > > Found two birth registrations with the same numbers in 1925, on Free bmd. > These may have been twins, so do twins share the same birth registration > number? > > Regards, > > Marina > New Zealand

Hello, Does anyone know if St Hilda Terrace in South Shields is still standing? It was there in 1945 when a friend's relative got baptised. I can't find it on streetmap, so it suggests it has been knocked down. Jan

Stan that was amazingly fast! Thank you. I didn't think to look at the Durham Record Office site for that information - I will in future. I'm interested in both sets but especially a possible 1824 entry so I'm off hunting.Thanks again See http://nd.durham.gov.uk/recordoffice/dro.nsf/vwebplaces The 'Place Names Index' can help you to determine which Church of England parish a County Durham place/settlement was situated in, at any given date. Shotley Bridge Lanchester All Saints (-1848) Benfieldside St. Cuthbert (1848 -) _________________________________________________________________ View your Twitter and Flickr updates from one place – Learn more! http://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/137984870/direct/01/

Hi all Requesting advice please. Which parish registers would cover Shotley Bridge? I have looked at Genuki and the archive of Rootsweb, but I'm still unclear as to where it comes under. I got the impression form earlier posts that it might not be under Northumberland Shotley, but the descriptors for Lanchester, Tanfield or Medomsley don't seem to tally either. Any advice gratefully received. Thanks _________________________________________________________________ View your Twitter and Flickr updates from one place – Learn more! http://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/137984870/direct/01/

See http://nd.durham.gov.uk/recordoffice/dro.nsf/vwebplaces The 'Place Names Index' can help you to determine which Church of England parish a County Durham place/settlement was situated in, at any given date. Shotley Bridge Lanchester All Saints (-1848) Benfieldside St. Cuthbert (1848 -) Stan Mapstone

For anyone with an interest in the east Co. Durham area, in particular around Seaham, this is a good site: http://www.east-durham.co.uk/index1.htm It includes lots of old photos of places & people to browse through. Ian

I had difficulties trying to find a family on the 1911 census - Naunton was transcribed as Haunton - just the way the N was written. So don't give up hope - keep trying. Regards Anne -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of [email protected] Sent: 14 April 2009 08:02 To: [email protected] Subject: DUR-NBL Digest, Vol 4, Issue 118 Administrivia: To unsubscribe from DUR-NBL-D, send a message to [email protected] that contains in the body of the message the command unsubscribe and no other text. No subject line is necessary, but if your software requires one, just use unsubscribe in the subject, too. To contact the DUR-NBL-D list administrator, send mail to [email protected] Today's Topics: 1. Re: 1911 CENSUS - BOAK FAMILY (Vivian Simmonds) 2. Death of Ellen Ann/Nancy/Ann O'Rourke/Rourke Wardley Jarrow ([email protected]) 3. Re: Death of Ellen Ann/Nancy/Ann O'Rourke/Rourke Wardley Jarrow (Roy Stockdill) 4. BUCKINGHAM STREET, NEWCASTLE UPON TYNE (Vivian Simmonds) 5. Re: BUCKINGHAM STREET, NEWCASTLE UPON TYNE (Nivard Ovington) 6. Familysearch response re query about source of Batch I045075 (Ingrid Clausen) 7. Swan, Mary E. (Barb Reid) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message: 1 Date: Mon, 13 Apr 2009 08:22:47 +0000 From: Vivian Simmonds <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [DUR-NBL] 1911 CENSUS - BOAK FAMILY To: <[email protected]> Message-ID: <[email protected]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" I think my reply only went to Ian and not to the list: 'Hi Ian Yes - I have tried alternative spellings, wild cards, first names etc etc. None of the Boags are mine. Have had another go tonight with no success. The Boak family just do not seem to be there! Thanks for looking.' Has anyone on the list encountered a similar problem? Where do I go from here? Best wishes. Vivian > Date: Sun, 12 Apr 2009 20:34:31 +0100 From: [email protected] To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [DUR-NBL] 1911 CENSUS - BOAK FAMILY Have you tried alternative spellings, eg BOAG? All four of your given Christian names appear in Newcastle as Boag, though there are only Robert instances not Robert Robinson. Ian _________________________________________________________________ Share your photos with Windows Live Photos ? Free. http://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/134665338/direct/01/ ------------------------------ Message: 2 Date: Mon, 13 Apr 2009 12:22:36 +0100 From: <[email protected]> Subject: [DUR-NBL] Death of Ellen Ann/Nancy/Ann O'Rourke/Rourke Wardley Jarrow To: [email protected] Message-ID: <[email protected]com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Dear All Please can you save me and my sister's sanity? We're looking for the death of our 2nd Ggrandmother last known at Reservoir Street Wardley FellingJarrow in 1901 census living with sons Michael and Patrick and daughter Elizabeth Ann. She has been called various first names - Ellen Ann, Nancy and Ann and various spellings of surnames. Rourke, Orourke, Orooke and possibly any other variation you can think of. She was born in Ireland about 1835 and married an Andrew Rourke in Wigan in 1859. They moved to Quarrington Hill, Cassop and Wheatley Hill. We've searched the BMDs for all variations we can think of from Jan 1901 to June 1911 as we can't find her in 1911 but we have found her children still living in the Wardley area. Anyone with access to Catholic parish records for that area or possible pointers as to where to go next??? I live in London but my sis lives in Durham County. Cathy ------------------------------ Message: 3 Date: Mon, 13 Apr 2009 13:08:22 +0100 From: "Roy Stockdill" <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [DUR-NBL] Death of Ellen Ann/Nancy/Ann O'Rourke/Rourke Wardley Jarrow To: [email protected], <[email protected]> Message-ID: <[email protected]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII From: <[email protected]> > Please can you save me and my sister's sanity? We're looking for the > death of our 2nd Ggrandmother last known at Reservoir Street Wardley > Felling Jarrow in 1901 census living with sons Michael and Patrick and > daughter Elizabeth Ann. She has been called various first names - > Ellen Ann, Nancy and Ann and various spellings of surnames. Rourke, > Orourke, Orooke and possibly any other variation you can think of. She > was born in Ireland about 1835 and married an Andrew Rourke in > Wigan in 1859. They moved to Quarrington Hill, Cassop and Wheatley > Hill. > We've searched the BMDs for all variations we can think of from Jan > 1901 to June 1911 as we can't find her in 1911 but we have found her > children still living in the Wardley area. > Anyone with access to Catholic parish records for that area or > possible pointers as to where to go next??? I live in London but my > sis lives in Durham County. Cathy The fact you can't find her in 1911 does not necessarily mean she had died by then. It is possible she'd moved to another part of the UK or perhaps gone back to Ireland to spend her final years. Might it be possible she'd ended up in an institution, such as the workhouse or a hospital/asylum? If so, sometimes inmates were only identified by initials. BTW, forgive me mentioning it, and it's a tiny point of semantics, but the correct description is County Durham, not Durham County. Durham is the only English county that takes the appendage "County" but as a prefix and not a suffix. The other counties that are also described in this way are the counties of Ireland, i.e. County Down, not Down County. To put "county" after the name is an Americanism not used here because in the US a county is a sub-division of a state, whereas in Britain and Ireland the county is in effect the state. -- 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 ------------------------------ Message: 4 Date: Mon, 13 Apr 2009 16:41:21 +0000 From: Vivian Simmonds <[email protected]> Subject: [DUR-NBL] BUCKINGHAM STREET, NEWCASTLE UPON TYNE To: <[email protected]> Message-ID: <[email protected]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Hi Listers I have relatives living at 57 Buckingham Street in the 1901 census. In the 1911 census no. 57 does not appear - neither do many other houses in the street. Can anyone give an explanation please. Best wishes. Vivian _________________________________________________________________ Share your photos with Windows Live Photos ? Free. http://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/134665338/direct/01/ ------------------------------ Message: 5 Date: Mon, 13 Apr 2009 18:29:17 +0100 From: "Nivard Ovington" <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [DUR-NBL] BUCKINGHAM STREET, NEWCASTLE UPON TYNE To: "Vivian Simmonds" <[email protected]>, <[email protected]> Message-ID: <[email protected]> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="Windows-1252"; reply-type=original Hi Vivian You are perhaps entering to much data 57 BUCKINGHAM ST NEWCASTLE ON TYNE Westgate Newcastle upon Tyne Northumberland If you are entering Street it will not find it, entering just Buckingham in the residential area of Newcastle finds the above Less is more and all that :-) Best wishes Nivard Ovington, in Cornwall (UK) Hi Listers I have relatives living at 57 Buckingham Street in the 1901 census. In the 1911 census no. 57 does not appear - neither do many other houses in the street. Can anyone give an explanation please. Best wishes. Vivian ------------------------------ Message: 6 Date: Tue, 14 Apr 2009 06:09:53 +1200 From: Ingrid Clausen <[email protected]> Subject: [DUR-NBL] Familysearch response re query about source of Batch I045075 To: Harold Heslop <[email protected]>, [email protected] Message-ID: <[email protected]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes For anyone interested, here is the response from the Familysearch site about the two "I" batches Harold came across: > > "The batch number I045075 is on film number 2107175. These records > were micofilmed from original records stored in the Durham county > office. One source of these records is the Primitive Methodist > Church. There are other sources listed on the film in the Library > catalog. > > The batch number I024951 is on film number 2107289. The first source > for these records is Wesleyan Methodist Church. Other sources are > listed in the film description. Use the Library catalog for more > information of sources for the batch records. > > We hope this information is helpful and wish you success in your > research. Please contact us if you have more questions. > > Sincerely, > Family History Research Support > [email protected] > FHD/jer > We invite you to visit http://forums.familysearchsupport.org/ to > post your research question. ------------------------------ Message: 7 Date: Mon, 13 Apr 2009 22:23:40 -0300 From: "Barb Reid" <[email protected]> Subject: [DUR-NBL] Swan, Mary E. To: <[email protected]> Message-ID: <[email protected]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Marriage SWAN, Mary E., to a BURNS, at Easington in Jan. Feb. Mar. Quarter 1915 - 10a 701 Can anyone tell me if the marriage record would show if this Mary E. Swan was a widow on the marriage certificate? I am assuming these records can only be viewed if purchased - but should I be wrong in my assumption would anyone have access to this record? Thanks Barb ------------------------------ To contact the DUR-NBL list administrator, send an email to [email protected] To post a message to the DUR-NBL mailing list, send an email to [email protected] __________________________________________________________ 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 email with no additional text. End of DUR-NBL Digest, Vol 4, Issue 118 ***************************************

Having spent hours looking for my grandparents without success, I wrote to the 1911 'help team', and am copying their reply in case anyone is having similar problems. I have searched for a further five Boak families - again without success. Followed the link they gave but can't believe six families are all missing due to one or other of the reasons suggested. Thank you for contacting us, Please find the answer to your enquiry below: I have attempted a search with the information you have provided and unfortunately I cannot find a match. There will be a small number of cases where an ancestor, house or even a whole street is not included in the census. Please refer to the link below for information as to why http://www.1911census.co.uk/content/default.aspx?r=24&98 Best wishes. Vivian _________________________________________________________________ Share your photos with Windows Live Photos – Free. http://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/134665338/direct/01/

Thanks Nivard - success! Best wishes. Vivian > From: [email protected] > To: [email protected]; [email protected] > Subject: Re: [DUR-NBL] BUCKINGHAM STREET, NEWCASTLE UPON TYNE > Date: Mon, 13 Apr 2009 18:29:17 +0100 > > Hi Vivian > > You are perhaps entering to much data > > 57 BUCKINGHAM ST NEWCASTLE ON TYNE Westgate Newcastle upon Tyne > Northumberland > > If you are entering Street it will not find it, entering just Buckingham in > the residential area of Newcastle finds the above > > Less is more and all that :-) > > Best wishes Nivard Ovington, in Cornwall (UK) _________________________________________________________________ Beyond Hotmail — see what else you can do with Windows Live. http://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/134665375/direct/01/

From: "Barb Reid" <[email protected]> > Marriage SWAN, Mary E., to a BURNS, at Easington in Jan. Feb. Mar. > Quarter 1915 - 10a 701 > > Can anyone tell me if the marriage record would show if this Mary E. > Swan was a widow on the marriage certificate? > > I am assuming these records can only be viewed if purchased - but > should I be wrong in my assumption would anyone have access to this > record? > Yes, it should say on the certificate if she was a widow at the time of the marriage - always assuming she wasn't committing bigamy, and I have come across several instances of women claiming to be widows when other evidence showed their previous husband to be still alive! And, yes, you will have to buy it unless someone else happens to be working on the same line and has acquired the certificate. But that is a real long shot. -- 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

In a message dated 14/04/2009 02:24:26 GMT Daylight Time, [email protected] writes: Can anyone tell me if the marriage record would show if this Mary E. Swan was a widow on the marriage certificate? __________________________________________________________________ This site lists the Information recorded on marriage certificates http://preview.tinyurl.com/45fkyo Stan Mapstone

>From Durham Records online Marriages, Easington District - Record Number: 23365.1 Location: Murton Church: St. Joseph Roman Catholic Religion: Roman Catholic 16 Jan 1915 John Burns, of Sunderland, son of Patrick Burns married Mary Ellen Swan, daughter of John Swan Ellen was the daughter of John Swan so I would say no she wasn't a widow. Margaret Hall Wallsend ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Subject: [DUR-NBL] Swan, Mary E. Marriage SWAN, Mary E., to a BURNS, at Easington in Jan. Feb. Mar. Quarter 1915 - 10a 701 Can anyone tell me if the marriage record would show if this Mary E. Swan was a widow on the marriage certificate? I am assuming these records can only be viewed if purchased - but should I be wrong in my assumption would anyone have access to this record? Thanks Barb

For anyone interested, here is the response from the Familysearch site about the two "I" batches Harold came across: > > "The batch number I045075 is on film number 2107175. These records > were micofilmed from original records stored in the Durham county > office. One source of these records is the Primitive Methodist > Church. There are other sources listed on the film in the Library > catalog. > > The batch number I024951 is on film number 2107289. The first source > for these records is Wesleyan Methodist Church. Other sources are > listed in the film description. Use the Library catalog for more > information of sources for the batch records. > > We hope this information is helpful and wish you success in your > research. Please contact us if you have more questions. > > Sincerely, > Family History Research Support > [email protected] > FHD/jer > We invite you to visit http://forums.familysearchsupport.org/ to > post your research question.

Marriage SWAN, Mary E., to a BURNS, at Easington in Jan. Feb. Mar. Quarter 1915 - 10a 701 Can anyone tell me if the marriage record would show if this Mary E. Swan was a widow on the marriage certificate? I am assuming these records can only be viewed if purchased - but should I be wrong in my assumption would anyone have access to this record? Thanks Barb

Hi Vivian You are perhaps entering to much data 57 BUCKINGHAM ST NEWCASTLE ON TYNE Westgate Newcastle upon Tyne Northumberland If you are entering Street it will not find it, entering just Buckingham in the residential area of Newcastle finds the above Less is more and all that :-) Best wishes Nivard Ovington, in Cornwall (UK) Hi Listers I have relatives living at 57 Buckingham Street in the 1901 census. In the 1911 census no. 57 does not appear - neither do many other houses in the street. Can anyone give an explanation please. Best wishes. Vivian

Hi Listers I have relatives living at 57 Buckingham Street in the 1901 census. In the 1911 census no. 57 does not appear - neither do many other houses in the street. Can anyone give an explanation please. Best wishes. Vivian _________________________________________________________________ Share your photos with Windows Live Photos – Free. http://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/134665338/direct/01/

From: <[email protected]> > Please can you save me and my sister's sanity? We're looking for the > death of our 2nd Ggrandmother last known at Reservoir Street Wardley > Felling Jarrow in 1901 census living with sons Michael and Patrick and > daughter Elizabeth Ann. She has been called various first names - > Ellen Ann, Nancy and Ann and various spellings of surnames. Rourke, > Orourke, Orooke and possibly any other variation you can think of. She > was born in Ireland about 1835 and married an Andrew Rourke in > Wigan in 1859. They moved to Quarrington Hill, Cassop and Wheatley > Hill. > We've searched the BMDs for all variations we can think of from Jan > 1901 to June 1911 as we can't find her in 1911 but we have found her > children still living in the Wardley area. > Anyone with access to Catholic parish records for that area or > possible pointers as to where to go next??? I live in London but my > sis lives in Durham County. Cathy The fact you can't find her in 1911 does not necessarily mean she had died by then. It is possible she'd moved to another part of the UK or perhaps gone back to Ireland to spend her final years. Might it be possible she'd ended up in an institution, such as the workhouse or a hospital/asylum? If so, sometimes inmates were only identified by initials. BTW, forgive me mentioning it, and it's a tiny point of semantics, but the correct description is County Durham, not Durham County. Durham is the only English county that takes the appendage "County" but as a prefix and not a suffix. The other counties that are also described in this way are the counties of Ireland, i.e. County Down, not Down County. To put "county" after the name is an Americanism not used here because in the US a county is a sub-division of a state, whereas in Britain and Ireland the county is in effect the state. -- 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