Lee Henderson wrote: > Does anyone know where to Locate Geneaology Desktop Icons to use on your > Computer? > > > > Thanks > > Lee > Lee Some @ http://www.discoverrods.com/icons.html George

Hi Anne This is all very interesting, but the 1911 census is already being released early, in 2009. It will take that long to transcribe and digitize the records. The only information being withheld until 2012 is medical information. See TNA for more info http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/default.htm So what's the point of the petition? If the 70 years period is achieved (which I doubt) the only other one we'll get access to is 1921. If my memory serves me correctly, the 1931 census was destroyed and 1941 wasn't taken (though I may be wrong). Kind regards Mike > > I have just recieved this message from the ENG-HEREFORDSHIRE Roots list, > thought you might be interested. > > Not sure if this is already known to everyone? > Has just come to my notice that Downing Street are holding an online > petition for the early release of the 1911 census. In fact, the petition > if > successful, > will reduce the waiting time for release of census material from 100 years > to 70 years. > Less than 7000 have voted so far. Time runs out early March. Please inform > your contacts as this is not > common knowledge. Web site is > > http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/censusinfofreed > > > Anne Walter > > > ==== DUR-NBL Mailing List ==== > To Post a message to this list send it to, > DUR-NBL-L@rootsweb.com > > ==== 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 DUR-NBL- > request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the > subject and the body of the message

For some of my relatives I have not only found DOB but "2nd son", "1st daughter" etc. And as for dates, I have seen baptisms on the day after birth - and up to 12 years later (3 on the same day, with an span of 3 years between them) But when the handwriting changed, so did the information Cheers Steve Ian Robinson wrote: > George, > In the majority of cases I have found that only the record of the baptism > date is shown. However this very much depends upon the parish and minister > who was doing the recording. If you are lucky then you will find two columns > in the records showing both the date of birth and the baptism . > In most cases when both are shown the dates are usually between 2-30 days > apart but there appears to be no fixed rule this. > Cheers > > Ian in Hong Kong > ----- Original Message ----- > From: <Georger14738@aol.com> > To: <DUR-NBL@rootsweb.com> > Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2007 5:00 PMo this. > > > Subject: [DUR-NBL] Parish Records > > >> Could anyone please explain to me if the parish records before 1837 only >> give the Babtisms or can you find out the date of the birth. Thanks in >> advance. >> Still have a lot to learn. >> George >> > > ==== DUR-NBL Mailing List ==== > To Post a message to this list send it to, > DUR-NBL-L@rootsweb.com > > ==== 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 DUR-NBL-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message >

In a message dated 21/01/2007 23:01:01 GMT Standard Time, wrigm@tiscali.co.uk writes: This is all very interesting, but the 1911 census is already being released early, in 2009. It will take that long to transcribe and digitize the records. If my memory serves me correctly, the 1931 census was destroyed and 1941 wasn't taken ________________________________________________________________________ The 1911 Census itself contains some 35,000 volumes of schedules. There were 8,000,290 families or separate occupiers, equivalent to the number of schedules collected. The 1931 census was accidentally destroyed by fire, and there was no 1941 census. However a Registration 'census' was carried out Friday the 29th. September 1939, and all returns had to include all persons in the United Kingdom who spent the night in the house at the appointed time' and `all persons entering or born in the United Kingdom after that time'. A Schedule to the Act listed `matters with respect to which particulars are to be entered in Register'. These were: 1. Names, 2. Sex, 3. Age, 4. Occupation, profession, trade or employment, 5. Residence, 6. Condition as to marriage, 7. Membership of Naval, Military or Air Force Reserves or Auxiliary Forces or of Civil Defence Services or Reserves. Regards Stan Mapstone

Hi, I'd really appreciate it if someone could help. I'm trying to find the death of Thomas Scott born 1856 in Greatham. He married Margaret Hannah Suffield on the 31/12/1879 and their daughter Amelia was born Oct/Nov 1880. Thomas died before the 1881 census as this shows Margaret as a widow. The story in the family is that Thomas died onboard a ship that was involved in some kind of military action but I don't know if it was a merchant vessel or a royal navy ship or even how true the story is. Can anyone tell me how I can find his death and/or the name of ship? Many thanks Patricia

Does anyone know where to Locate Geneaology Desktop Icons to use on your Computer? Thanks Lee

Stan, Thank you. Yes, I have seen that entry. I have also seen a Jane KIRKUP married a Samuel AMESS @ Newcastle in 1849 as well as a Jane KIRKUP married a Matthew SLEE, March 1851 @ Newcastle. There is some glitch with all of these entries; for the most part too much to go into here. Because Jane KIRKUP and/or STRAUGHAN is unaccounted for in the C1851, while her KIRKUP sister & STRAUGHAN step-siblings have been found, I believe that Jane may have married by C1851. Of course, Jane may have died by C1851. The STRAUGHAN surname, the name of Jane's step-father, has only served to muddy the waters. That said, a compelling entry would seem to be the one for the 1849 "KIRKUP/AMESS" marriage but tracing the surname AMESS, in census years post 1849, has proven difficult due to the surname's total disappearance after the 1849 marriage date. I have found an ARNESS, AMES, EAMES, ARMES... the usual mishmash that has proven to be inconclusive when census entries are compared with the givens. Trying not to belabor the problems with the search but a strong point of consideration is the C1841 which states that Jane KIRKUP, age 8 years, was NOT born in the county; the county being Northumberland. The C1851 for Jane ARNESS (wife of Samuel) states that she (Jane) was born in Alnwick, NBL. I think I will let this search rest, at least for the time being, and take a fresh look sometime down the road. Thanks to all who have taken the time to suggest possibilities. Bette > There is a marriage for a Jane Kirkup to George Oswald in 1857. > http://www.durham.gov.uk/gro/newgro.nsf/search?open&C0079804010401042005$ > Regards Stan Mapstone

I have just recieved this message from the ENG-HEREFORDSHIRE Roots list, thought you might be interested. Not sure if this is already known to everyone? Has just come to my notice that Downing Street are holding an online petition for the early release of the 1911 census. In fact, the petition if successful, will reduce the waiting time for release of census material from 100 years to 70 years. Less than 7000 have voted so far. Time runs out early March. Please inform your contacts as this is not common knowledge. Web site is http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/censusinfofreed Anne Walter

I am looking for any information on John Smith born in Stockton, County Durham abt. 1871 and living in Coxhoe, County Durham in 1891. His fathers name was George Smith. John married Ann Horn in 1890 in Coxhoe. Ann was from Castle Bolton, County Yorkshire. They had a daughter Margaret born in 1892, South Otterington, sub district of Pickhill. If anyone can help me on this I would appreciate it. Thank you, Sharon

Hello All There is a book about Radcliffe. I believe it is called The Three Villages and is published by locals. The Tourist Information Office in Amble would be able to tell you more. Rosemary Moffatt (I did my teaching practice in Radcliffe in the 60's)

I'm hoping to find family members related to this HARRISON family Isabella Musgrove / Musgrave b 1824 Durham married John William Harrison 1843 Newcastle, Northumberland, England kids: Benjamin George Harrison b 1844 Mary Ann Harrison b 1847 Margaret / Sarah Harrison b 1851 Richard Musgrove Harrison b 1854 ** Isabella then married Thomas Perry 1854 Durham kids; Frances, John David, Thomas, Robert Sherry

In a message dated 21/01/2007 13:54:36 GMT Standard Time, bradman5@ntlworld.com writes: Does anyone know where to Locate Geneaology Desktop Icons to use on your Computer? ____________________________________________________________________________ Not sure what you mean by "Geneaology" icons? There are many different Windows icons available for the desktop, are none of those suitable? Regards Stan Mapstone

In a message dated 21/01/2007 12:14:46 GMT Standard Time, annie.walter@ntlworld.com writes: Has just come to my notice that Downing Street are holding an online petition for the early release of the 1911 census. In fact, the petition if successful, _____________________________________________________________________ It is not really Downing Street that is holding the petition. It was submitted by a Jen Tibbetts "An e-petition is a form of petition posted on a website. Individuals or groups can create a petition on the site and visitors can add their details to the petition to "sign" it. The format makes it easy to collect signatures, and it also makes it easier for us to respond directly using email." A press release dated 17th January on the TNA website states that a digital version of the 1911 census searchable by name and address is now planned to be available from 2009, the full version will still be withheld until 2012. http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/documents/17jan2007.pdf Regards Stan Mapstone

There is a marriage for a Jane Kirkup to George Oswald in 1857. http://www.durham.gov.uk/gro/newgro.nsf/search?open&C0079804010401042005$ Regards Stan Mapstone

Further to my recent posting on the above subject and looking under Co. Durham for Vessels. Someone else has pointed out to me that if you search the 1881 you can just put the word Vessels into the box for Parish and you will get even more ships come up than just those under County Durham, including those for the Royal Navy. I have not tried this out yet but thought it worth passing on the tip. I know that is you put in the name of the mariner and use the Keyword Vessels it works, and includes RN vessels, but didn't know that parish - vessels would also work. Regards Jenny DeAngelis Spain.

Bette wrote:- <<> To comment on your suggestion I wish I had the name of the marriage partner; > the person whose name is missing from the Freebmd website & the > GRO/Ancestry.com database. I do not know the name nor the names of any > children that may have been born to the couple. I'm afraid that my > information is scant, at best..... >> Hi Bette, In that case, What is the name of the person that you have found for a marriage on FreeBMD, perhaps one of us knows more. Is it worth posting the name of that one partner to the marriage? regards Jenny DeAngelis. Spain.

thanks for this Nivard. Up to now I have been puzzled as to where all the ships at sea had gone in the 1881, apart from having those on the LDS CDs that I mentione on the norther boders disc. I know that if you put in a mariners name, and maybe his birth place and year, and then use the keyword box to add Vessels you can often get up the man on board a ship at sea or in some port or another. But didn't know about putting in the word Vessels under parish, so useful to know, thanks. Regards Jenny DeAngelis Spain. > Hi Jenny > > Not quite so > > In the 1881 census, just enter Vessels under Parish, no County, result > 97,920 in various Counties, of which nearly 30,000 are Royal Navy (a > "County" itself) > > Under Durham you get only 3,715 > > And yes, Ancestry used the LDS 1881 as did all > > Best wishes Nivard Ovington, in Cornwall (UK) > Admin for OVINGTON - HAYLOCK - SEYMOUR Lists

I have just made a discovery that I thought might be worth bringing to the attention of the list in case anyone is trying to find a mariner or ship that was at sea in the 1881 census. The ancestry site has all vessels listed under County Durham, ships from all over the country are listed here alphabetically. Go to the main search page for the 1881 census and scroll down past the search pane to where the counties of England are all listed, in amongst those under D you will find Durham, click there and you will see the alphabetical listing of place names within Co. Durham, amongst which you will see under V, Vessels which gives a great long list of ships names shown alphabetically. I can only assume that all vessels have been lumped under Co. Durham because Ancestry have used the LDS transcription of the 1881, the same transcription as the LDS sold on a set of CDs. In that set of CDs the CD for the Northern Borders the LDS also put the Miscellaneous and Vessels, Ancestry seem to have copied this exactly as it was and have not separated the misc. and vessels from the listing of County Durham. Hope this helps someone who has been floundering around looking for a ship at sea in this census. Regards Jenny DeAngelis. Spain.

Hi Jenny Not quite so In the 1881 census, just enter Vessels under Parish, no County, result 97,920 in various Counties, of which nearly 30,000 are Royal Navy (a "County" itself) Under Durham you get only 3,715 And yes, Ancestry used the LDS 1881 as did all Best wishes Nivard Ovington, in Cornwall (UK) Admin for OVINGTON - HAYLOCK - SEYMOUR Lists >I have just made a discovery that I thought might be worth bringing to the > attention of the list in case anyone is trying to find a mariner or ship > that was at sea in the 1881 census. > > The ancestry site has all vessels listed under County Durham, ships from > all > over the country are listed here alphabetically.

Jenny, Certainly, it's a long shot but your point is well taken. I am looking for a marriage of a Jane KIRKUP, born ca. 1832. I believe that Jane married sometime after 1849, when she would have been about 16 years of age, but before 1851 since I have NOT found her in the 1851 Census. Jane's step-father was John STRAUGHAN (or STRACHAN) who died in October 1849; buried @ Longbenton, NBL. I have checked the various census years for a Jane STRAUGHAN as well as KIRKUP and all things considered the latter surname seems the most promising. Best wishes, Bette > Hi Bette, > > In that case, What is the name of the person that you have found for a > marriage on FreeBMD, perhaps one of us knows more. Is it worth posting > the name of that one partner to the marriage? > > regards > Jenny DeAngelis. > Spain. >