Hello, On another list they are transcribing "Magna Britannia-Parochial History". I would appreciate if someone would clarify an entry for this very confused American. I know I should have read up on jurisdictional levels but I thought that as long as I knew parish I was all right. Until I read this stunner - "The inhabitants [of Flimby], till of late years, buried their dead at the mother-church of Camerton." Would someone explain the relationships of the following example? The book lists these levels - Ward of Allerdale below Derwent .....Camerton ..........Township of Camerton ..........Township of Seaton Diocese of Carlisle .....Deanery of Wigton .........."Church of Camerton" ..............."Chapelry of Flimby (has been sometimes esteemed extra-parochial...)" .........."Chapelry of Flimby (...and sometimes a separate parish)". Is "Camerton" a name for both a political jurisdiction and a religious one? When they say "Church of Camerton" is that the same as parish? I know CofE is Established so there will be overlap. But what is the relationship between "Ward of Allerdale below Derwent" and "Deanery of Wigton" ; both of which appear next up from Camerton? And most important, does anyone know how frequent this ("buried their dead at the mother-church") was? Regards, David Knowles

Hello to all listers, I am new to your list, having only recently traced my Gt Grandparents to Carlisle, Is there SKS with access to the 1861 and 1871 census for Carlisle, able to do a look up for me. John Devlin married to Jane (nee Corrigan) Mary Ann Devlin, Daughter born 31/3/1858 33 Annetwell Street, Carlisle. I have no Idea where they originated from, or there age. John Devlin's occupation is given as a labourer. I would appreciate any information about them, the place where they were living and other possible sources where I might find more details. Thanking you in advance Harry Birchall (in Robin Hood County) I was wondering whether anyone with access to the 1861 and 1871 census returns, would be kind enough to carry out a lookup for me. John Devlin was married to Jane (nee Corrigan) and along with a daughter Mary Ann, born 31/3 1858, were living at 33 Annetwell Street Carlisle. I have no idea where thy came from or there age. Johns occupation is given as labourer. Any information on this family would be most appreciated. Many thanks Harry In Robin Hood County

Hmm, I'm not sure that I have a great deal of sympathy for the sheep rustlers and worse of the Debateable Lands; but then, I have no Armstrongs or Grahams in my ancestry. All my Cumbrian lot were down south round the Cockermouth area, and probably found that sort of raucous entertainment very disconcerting! I have, anyway, just discovered another reason for voting for Manchester - go to the website image of the bahs and press your mouse and you can twirl them round and round (Brackenhill is just still shots)! http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/programmes/restoration/gallery/brackenhill_gallery.shtml http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/programmes/restoration/gallery/victoria_gallery.shtml Chris (I've just noticed the bahs, but thought it too good to correct. Guess that's what happens when Armstrongs swirl sheep round and round)

It is quiet .... but every message that gets sent, I get half-a-dozen returns from ISPs for people who've gone on holiday and let their email boxes overflow! The joys of August. However, there is a BBC2 joy that has just started. A programme about buildings that need to be restored: http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/programmes/restoration/ This has a Carlisle appeal - as one of the candidates is Brackenhill Tower. Have a look. If any of you feel strongly that it should be restored, I see no reason why you shouldn't campaign on behalf of Brackenhill here. (must confess I'm much more taken by Manchester's Victoria Baths). Chris

Fred says it quiet - must be the heat. Anyone look for seagoing ancestors - I am indexing seaman sailing on Swansea registered ships 1840 to 1920. Concentrating on 1890-1895, some 1870's There are about 2500 entries in my database. Some crew members are from Cumbria. www.family-richards.org.uk. click on the icon for Swansea Mariners Bryan Richards

Hi Sorry but this is a test, I have received no mails for such a long time I just had to check if I'm still alive. Regards Fred This e-mail has been scanned for viruses by Norton Anti Virus last updated 04 Aug 03

Hi Chris...... What lovely old buildings. They were built about the time Canada was being discovered, grin. My vote would be for Brackenhill.......the baths are too new. It always boggles me in Europe to see something older than the 1700's. Just amazing. Such as the Alhambra in Granada........and another one was the Roman ruins in Taragona, south of Barcelona. Allegedly that was where Pontius Pilate grew up. These are things that we just read about......so to see them in person is just awe-inspiring!! Same as the time we went to Chichenitza in the Yucatan......I scared myself climbing on the pyramids. (G) Cheers.......Heather > However, there is a BBC2 joy that has just started. A programme about > buildings that need to be restored: > > http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/programmes/restoration/ > > > This has a Carlisle appeal - as one of the candidates is Brackenhill Tower. > Have a look. > > > If any of you feel strongly that it should be restored, I see no reason why > you shouldn't campaign on behalf of Brackenhill here. > > (must confess I'm much more taken by Manchester's Victoria Baths). > > > Chris > > > > > ============================== > To join Ancestry.com and access our 1.2 billion online genealogy records, go to: > http://www.ancestry.com/rd/redir.asp?targetid=571&sourceid=1237 >

I found this site and thought it may be of interest to others onlist. There are old pics of Carlisle, Maryport, Whitehaven, Ullswater, Derwentwater, amongst others. There is hours-worth of images here... (I know - I've spent most of today there!) http://www.motco.com/ -- Cheers, Anne Docwra Family Research Project http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~docwra/

I posted the following reply to a question on another list and thought you might like to see what I found. She had been worried her question was "stupid." Liz, "...we took each other's word for it." Wow. Absolutely NOT a stupid question. And it can be tied into some other marital questions that come up frequently, such as age at marriage and illegitimacy. The book has some fascinating quotes which I may try to extract and post more fully. Essentially - Marriage, for the ordinary people, was only recently (say 1500 on) a religious rite. Before it was an "agreement" or arrangement between people and families. That custom lingered into the 1700s and 1800s. There was also the sentiment that the church rite of marriage was simply a way to get money. He also cites cases where it sounds as though we today aren't, at core, different from our ancestors - "keep your nose out of my business." [my phrasing] "Church and state are relatively recent additions, which have been grafted onto older popular rites..." In Wales (c.1790) there was a thing called" 'besom weddings,' a form of public, secular rite..." "In Yorkshire, Lancaster and Cheshire those who had gone through some kind of common-law rite were said to be '...married on the carpet and the banns up the chimney' or 'married but not churched'..." Another term was "living tally." And "jumped the besom." "Many simply pleaded...' it wasn't convenient to get a bit of money together, and so we took each other's word for it.' " " ' We don't see any need of such a thing: we have agreed between ourselves and that is enough.' " "If and when urban couples married, they normally did so by the cheapest and quickest means they could find." "Manchester Cathedral's low fees attracted hundreds, especially on Christmas and Whitsun, when the applicants had to be married in batches." Where it is really fascinating is when he ties together in a "forest" look all of the "trees" that we so often see in our research. He has figures for age at marriage, prenuptial pregnancy and illegitimacy, and has made an estimate for common-law marriages, and then links them all together. All of these are actually only indices of the "rite of marriage", and have varied greatly. But, and I think he makes a strong case, [again my phrasing] if figures could be derived for cohabitation (and as a "family unit") it would be a flat line. His estimate of common-law marriages he admits is difficult to ascertain and defend. It is on a graph so is a little hard to be exact ; but he says common-law as a percentage of all marriages was : 1650-1725.....4% 1725-1800.....raises steadily from 5% to 10% 1800-1900.....appears to be a bell curve going from 10% up to 13% back to 10%. He gives numerous examples from contemporary sources and current registry research. One is : In the "...Kent parish of Ash-next-Sandwich, where an estimated fifteen percent of the couples living together between 1740 and 1834 leave no evidence that they were married..." Good question, Liz. Thanks for the prod to look it up. Regards, David PS The book is : "For Better, For Worse British Marriages 1600 to the Present" John R. Gillis Oxford University Press 1985 In a message dated 7/29/03 2:45:35 PM Central Daylight Time, liz.brown57@ntlworld.com writes: > how many couples married in the 19th century as opposed to just living > together

In a message dated 7/28/2003 8:20:33 PM Pacific Daylight Time, murcon@attcanada.ca writes: > Rickersgate film # 1342245 RG11 Piece 5158 Folio 22 Page 38 > James Johnston age 62 Hosier born Scotland > Margaret 59 born Carlisle St. Marys > James son age 28 Hosier b Rickersgate > Emma dau age 18 help at home b Rickersgate > Now if I on;y knew who the daughter Margaret married? was it Francis O'Neil? <big sigh> maybe I should just go with that? getting tired of this family...everytime i think I have it, I get a double load of bricks in front of me. The licence I have is for Francis O'Neile & Margaret Johnston....the birth of Mgt Johnston is wrong because her father, James was a blacksmith....so back to the drawing board Thanks for your help Jan

On 28 Jul, <Carou1@aol.com> wrote: > Hello list > I just receved a copy of the birth of Margaret Johnston. > Hoping, of course to get mother's maiden name. Unfortuately, I can > not read it. So I am asking fo a census look-up for 1851, etc. Maybe > a sibling will have this name as a first or middle name. > Here are the particulars: Margaret, girl, born 31 Mar 1847 father - > James Johnston, Hoiser (does that mean he made socks?) address No. 5 > King Street, Botchergate Does that address still exist? mother - > Margaret...formerly, Bev??? or Ber??? (could be 3 or 4 letters more) > Thanks for any help... > Jan :) > in warm & sunny California Hello Jan IGI FamilySearch ( HTTP://www.familysearch.org ) lists a marriage of James JOHNSTON and Margaret BURNS on 16 June 1846 at Saint Cuthbert, Carlisle. Could Bev??? or Ber??? be BURNS ? Good luck with your research Robin -- Robin Illingworth, Leeds (illingworthr@argonet.co.uk) -----------------------------------------------------

They are on the 1881 for Carlisle 1 Currie St Rickersgate film # 1342245 RG11 Piece 5158 Folio 22 Page 38 James Johnston age 62 Hosier born Scotland Margaret 59 born Carlisle St. Marys James son age 28 Hosier b Rickersgate Emma dau age 18 help at home b Rickersgate Mary ----- Original Message ----- From: <AudreyMont1@aol.com> To: <ENG-CUL-CARLISLE-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Monday, July 28, 2003 9:08 PM Subject: Re: [CUL-CAR] surname Johnston > Hello Jan, > 1851 Census > > > 5 King Street Carlisle > > James Johnston Head Mar 32 Hosier > Sulport(Parish) Cul > Margaret " Wife Mar > 29 Carlisle " > Margaret " Dau 4 > Scholar Carlisle " > Mary " Dau > 2 Carlisle " > Thomas " Son 5 mths > Carlisle " > John " Lodger Un 21 Grocer > Carlisle " > > > > Sadly these houses no longer exist having been demolished a good number of > years ago > and the area now consists in the main of small industrial units. > > The houses in King Street and neighbouring streets were terraces houses - > alot of them being built back to back with a shared yard which would have shared > facilities. > IE - Wash houses where clothes were washed and outside toilets often shared > > You may wonder why I say sadly - truth is these houses were on the edge of > Botchergate with all manner of shops and easy access right into the heart of the > city and instead of a programme of renewal and modernisation it was decided > to rehouse the occupants on a brand new council estate out of town. But > that's another story. > > My Parents and Grandmother had friends who lived in this area and we used to > go visiting. > . > Hope this is a little bit of background information for you - but as you can > see no clue as to mother's maiden name. > > Regards > AudreyM > > > > > > > ============================== > To join Ancestry.com and access our 1.2 billion online genealogy records, go to: > http://www.ancestry.com/rd/redir.asp?targetid=571&sourceid=1237 > >

Jan Sorry spacing gone completely out of position for Census I will send it again. Regards AudreyM

Hello Jan,                                              1851 Census 5 King Street Carlisle James          Johnston    Head    Mar      32            Hosier       Sulport(Parish)   Cul Margaret             "          Wife     Mar      29                            Carlisle                " Margaret             "          Dau                   4           Scholar      Carlisle                " Mary                   "         Dau                   2                            Carlisle                " Thomas               "         Son                   5 mths                   Carlisle                " John                    "         Lodger    Un      21           Grocer      Carlisle                "                                          Sadly these houses no longer exist having been demolished a good number of years ago and the area  now consists in the main of small industrial units. The houses in King Street and neighbouring streets were terraces houses - alot of them being built back to back with a  shared yard which would have shared facilities. IE - Wash houses where clothes were washed and outside toilets often shared You may wonder why I say sadly - truth is these houses were on the edge of Botchergate with all manner of shops and easy access right into the heart of the city and instead of a programme of renewal and modernisation it was decided to rehouse the occupants on a brand new council estate out of town. But that's another story. My Parents and Grandmother had friends who lived in this area and we used to go visiting. . Hope this is a little bit of background information for you - but as you can see no clue as to mother's maiden name. Regards AudreyM

Hello list I just receved a copy of the birth of Margaret Johnston. Hoping, of course to get mother's maiden name. Unfortuately, I can not read it. So I am asking fo a census look-up for 1851, etc. Maybe a sibling will have this name as a first or middle name. Here are the particulars: Margaret, girl, born 31 Mar 1847 father - James Johnston, Hoiser (does that mean he made socks?) address No. 5 King Street, Botchergate Does that address still exist? mother - Margaret...formerly, Bev??? or Ber??? (could be 3 or 4 letters more) Thanks for any help... Jan :) in warm & sunny California

Hi Everybody, I have borrowed a few volumes of the Thoresby Society of Leeds publications from a member of the Mormon church here in Workington. There are four volumes which contain the Parish Registers for Leeds for the years 1572 to 1612, 1612 to 1639, 1639 to 1667 and 1667 to 1695. If anyone thinks they may have an interest in Leeds during these periods, please contact me off list. CONTACT ME THROUGH THE LIST AND YOU WILL NOT GET A REPLY. These books are over a hundred years old and in very good condition, but obviously I have to be very careful with them. In each volume there is a surname index, making it easier to find the entry/entries in the book. Kind Regards, Bryan

Hello all, I just made a reply on another board about the scanned images of directories (eg Pigot's) at the University of Leicester and noticed they have added more. One in particular I don't remember seeing is "Post Office Directory of Cumberland, 1858". Regards David Knowles

Unsubscibe >From: ENG-CUL-CARLISLE-D-request@rootsweb.com >Reply-To: ENG-CUL-CARLISLE-L@rootsweb.com >To: ENG-CUL-CARLISLE-D@rootsweb.com >Subject: ENG-CUL-CARLISLE-D Digest V03 #103 >Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2003 23:00:45 -0600 > ><< message2.txt >> ><< message4.txt >> ><< message6.txt >> ><< message8.txt >> ><< message10.txt >> ><< message12.txt >> _________________________________________________________________ On the move? Get Hotmail on your mobile phone http://www.msn.co.uk/msnmobile

> That's great news Barry. I'm going to Carlisle in August to do some research > and had hoped to have 1841 sorted by then but it will have to wait. The last > 1841 census I looked at was only small - I thought this wasn't going to be > that much larger, how wrong I was! > > Many thanks, > > Christine > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Barry Lawman" <cgrs@lineone.net> > To: <ENG-CUL-CARLISLE-L@rootsweb.com> > Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2003 4:51 PM > Subject: Re: [CUL-CAR] 1841 Census Index - BENSON > > > > Carlisle Library have a name index for Carlisle (only) for 1841, 61, 71 & > 91 > > censuses > > > > Regards, > > Barry Lawman > > cgrs@lineone.net or Barry@cumberlandroots.co.uk > > www.cumberlandroots.co.uk > > Researching HOLLIDAY & LAWMAN > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Christine Benson" <christine.benson3@ntlworld.com> > > To: <ENG-CUL-CARLISLE-L@rootsweb.com> > > Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2003 4:15 PM > > Subject: Re: [CUL-CAR] 1841 Census Index - BENSON > > > > > > > > Christine Benson writes: > > > > > > > > > > > > >I have the 1841 census of Cumberland but I don't have a surname > index. > > I > > > am > > > > >looking fo BENSON, primarily Carlisle, but possibly elsewhere in > > > > >Cumberland. I have already looked in the area they were in in 1845 > > > > >but they are not there. > > > > > > > > >Could SKS look up BENSON on a surname index please? > > > > > > > > > > > > A surname list for the 1841 Census? I don't think such a thing > exists, > > or > > > > does anyone know different??? > > > > > > > > > > > > Chris > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for the info Chris. I was being an optimist. > > > > > > Christine > > > > > > > > > > > > ============================== > > > To join Ancestry.com and access our 1.2 billion online genealogy > records, > > go to: > > > http://www.ancestry.com/rd/redir.asp?targetid=571&sourceid=1237 > > > > > > > > > > > > ============================== > > To join Ancestry.com and access our 1.2 billion online genealogy records, > go to: > > http://www.ancestry.com/rd/redir.asp?targetid=571&sourceid=1237 > > >

Carlisle Library have a name index for Carlisle (only) for 1841, 61, 71 & 91 censuses Regards, Barry Lawman cgrs@lineone.net or Barry@cumberlandroots.co.uk www.cumberlandroots.co.uk Researching HOLLIDAY & LAWMAN ----- Original Message ----- From: "Christine Benson" <christine.benson3@ntlworld.com> To: <ENG-CUL-CARLISLE-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2003 4:15 PM Subject: Re: [CUL-CAR] 1841 Census Index - BENSON > > Christine Benson writes: > > > > > > >I have the 1841 census of Cumberland but I don't have a surname index. I > am > > >looking fo BENSON, primarily Carlisle, but possibly elsewhere in > > >Cumberland. I have already looked in the area they were in in 1845 > > >but they are not there. > > > > >Could SKS look up BENSON on a surname index please? > > > > > > A surname list for the 1841 Census? I don't think such a thing exists, or > > does anyone know different??? > > > > > > Chris > > > > > Thanks for the info Chris. I was being an optimist. > > Christine > > > > ============================== > To join Ancestry.com and access our 1.2 billion online genealogy records, go to: > http://www.ancestry.com/rd/redir.asp?targetid=571&sourceid=1237 > >