I am in Ontario, Canada researching my family history. My 3rd great grandfather is Samuel Burrell who was born at "Broom Hill Farm, Medomsly, RSO in Durham" approximately 1830. My 2nd great grandfather, his son, Thomas Anderson Burrell, was born 13 May 1854 "High Spen County, Durham, England" This is my first "international" information search and I was wondering if you could help me search out more information… Thanks, Shannon No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.484 / Virus Database: 269.12.0/959 - Release Date: 8/17/2007 5:43 PM

Depending on the date of this registration, there could be evidence of paternity in the Poor Law, or rather Board of Guardians, records for the parish, if extant. You'd almost certainly need to visit a record office, or use their research service or a private researcher. Not many ROs have yet been able to afford to digitise these records, valuable though they are for family and local history information. JK On 8/19/07, [email protected] <[email protected]> wrote: > > In a message dated 18/08/2007 20:13:05 GMT Daylight Time, [email protected] > writes: > > Hi, Regarding a birth certificate, in the "name and > surname of father" box the registrar started writing > the mother's name "Jan", (mother's name was Jane), and > put a line through it and the number 23. On the right > of the last box on the right he wrote "Twenty three > J.E." JE being his initials. Was this simply to > confirm that he, the Registrar, had made the mistake > or that there is another list somewhere giving an > explanation for no father's name being listed, or some > other reason entirely? Any help will be greatly > appreciated, thank you, Lynne. > > > > > Lynne: > > It was just the registrar explaining the crossing-out, admitting his > mistake and quoting regulation no 23, which allowed him to make the > alteration. > > The usual reason for no father's name being listed is that the father > was either unknown or else the man thought to be responsible had not admitted > paternity. In other words the child was illegitimate. > > Unless there was a court case over the paternity (unlikely unless large > amounts of money were at stake) you will not find the putative father's name > anywhere else. It could well be that not even the mother ever knew his name! > > Geoff Nicholson >

In a message dated 18/08/2007 20:13:05 GMT Daylight Time, [email protected] writes: Hi, Regarding a birth certificate, in the "name and surname of father" box the registrar started writing the mother's name "Jan", (mother's name was Jane), and put a line through it and the number 23. On the right of the last box on the right he wrote "Twenty three J.E." JE being his initials. Was this simply to confirm that he, the Registrar, had made the mistake or that there is another list somewhere giving an explanation for no father's name being listed, or some other reason entirely? Any help will be greatly appreciated, thank you, Lynne. Lynne: It was just the registrar explaining the crossing-out, admitting his mistake and quoting regulation no 23, which allowed him to make the alteration. The usual reason for no father's name being listed is that the father was either unknown or else the man thought to be responsible had not admitted paternity. In other words the child was illegitimate. Unless there was a court case over the paternity (unlikely unless large amounts of money were at stake) you will not find the putative father's name anywhere else. It could well be that not even the mother ever knew his name! Geoff Nicholson

Hi, Regarding a birth certificate, in the "name and surname of father" box the registrar started writing the mother's name "Jan", (mother's name was Jane), and put a line through it and the number 23. On the right of the last box on the right he wrote "Twenty three J.E." JE being his initials. Was this simply to confirm that he, the Registrar, had made the mistake or that there is another list somewhere giving an explanation for no father's name being listed, or some other reason entirely? Any help will be greatly appreciated, thank you, Lynne.

Hi Nivard Thank you once again for the information you sent me. It is much appreciated. Jan ----- Original Message ----- From: <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, August 16, 2007 8:04 AM Subject: ENG-DURHAM Digest, Vol 2, Issue 161 > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Re: Help wanted ([email protected]) > 2. Re: Help wanted (Nivard Ovington) > 3. thank you (Janet Hasler) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2007 04:15:57 EDT > From: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [ENG-DURHAM] Help wanted > To: [email protected] > Message-ID: <[email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" > > > In a message dated 14/08/2007 22:00:31 GMT Daylight Time, > [email protected] > writes: > > Hi Geoff > > I was just about to post on this but note your mention of the PRs > starting > in 1609 > >>From Genuki on Stanhope is :- > > Church Records > "The register dates from 1595." [From History, Topography and Directory > of > Durham, Whellan, London, 1894] > > The Parish Registers for the period 1609-1974 are deposited at Durham > County > Record Office, County Hall, Durham, DH1 5UL (EP/St). > > And from Phillimores :- Under copies of regs not at Soc Gen 1595 - 1812 > (which somewhat contradicts the item under Copies of Registers at the Soc > Gen 1607 - 1837) > > > > > Nivard: > > My information was taken from the 2nd edition of the National > Index > of Parish Registers, Vol XI Pt 1 (1984), Durham and Northumberland, > published > by the Society of Genealogists (ISBN 0 901878 66 9). The first edition > (1979) had been compiled by Charles Neat but he died before the second > edition > was called for, so that was compiled by the late Don Mason - with a > little help > from yours truly. Under Stanhope it indicates that the original records > from 1609 are in Durham County Record Office. To summarise the other > details, > the marriages 1613-1812 were published by the Durham and Northumberland > Parish > Register Society. Indexes (ie indexed transcripts) are in Newcastle > Central > Library (the H M Wood transcripts) and microfilm copies of those are in > Salt > Lake City. The marriages are in Boyd's Marriage Index and the Banns are > in > Boyd's "Miscellaneous" Volume. Baptisms from 1609 are on the IGI. Some > extracts are in Gateshead Public Library. The BTs run from 1762-1833, > with > gaps. Notes to the Stanhope entry refer to "Weardle St John" (ie St > John's > Chapel), some of the entries from which are included as separate lists in > some of > the Stanhope volumes, and to Heathery Cleugh which, like St John's > Chapel, > became a parish of its own, formed out of Stanhope parish. A more > telling note > is probably "Many gaps in CMB"! > > That is a summary! The full entry, which contains too many > abbreviations for it to be given here verbatim, also includes the outside > dates in each > case - but the earliest date mentioned is 1609. > > As perhaps you know if you have looked at the earliest entries in many > registers, it is sometimes obvious that a register began to be kept on a > regular basis in, say, 1609, but a few earlier entries may have been > added > retrospectively, perhaps on the fly-leaf, at a later date. In such cases > the "few" > might be several dozen or it may be only one. If Stanhope registers > include > one such entry, dating from 1595, and then no more until 1609, it would > hardly be fair to say they began in 1595 when, as a regularly kept, > continuous and > chronological register, it began in 1609. That is only an example of the > sort of thing that might have happened - I am not saying that was the > case in > Stanhope, though I suspect it might have been something very similar. > > Geoff Nicholson > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2007 11:33:45 +0100 > From: "Nivard Ovington" <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [ENG-DURHAM] Help wanted > To: <[email protected]>, <[email protected]> > Message-ID: <[email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; > reply-type=original > > Many thanks Geoff > > Appreciate your time > > You have confirmed what I thought to be the case but wanted to be sure > > Best wishes Nivard Ovington, in Cornwall (UK) > > > >> Nivard: >> >> My information was taken from the 2nd edition of the National >> Index >> of Parish Registers, Vol XI Pt 1 (1984), Durham and Northumberland, >> published >> by the Society of Genealogists (ISBN 0 901878 66 9). The first edition >> (1979) had been compiled by Charles Neat but he died before the second >> edition >> was called for, so that was compiled by the late Don Mason - with a >> little help >> from yours truly. Under Stanhope it indicates that the original records > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 3 > Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2007 17:29:11 +0100 > From: "Janet Hasler" <[email protected]> > Subject: [ENG-DURHAM] thank you > To: <[email protected]> > Message-ID: <[email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > > Hi Geoff > Thank you for your reply and the information you sent me. > The information came from Genes reunited site where other people are also > doing family trees on the Westgarth family. > Also from the IGI site.I live in Dorset so I am a long way from the Durham > record office but I will still keep searching. > Thank you once again. > Jan. > > ------------------------------ > > To contact the ENG-DURHAM list administrator, send an email to > [email protected] > > To post a message to the ENG-DURHAM 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 ENG-DURHAM Digest, Vol 2, Issue 161 > ****************************************** >

Hi Geoff Thank you for your reply and the information you sent me. The information came from Genes reunited site where other people are also doing family trees on the Westgarth family. Also from the IGI site.I live in Dorset so I am a long way from the Durham record office but I will still keep searching. Thank you once again. Jan.

Many thanks Geoff Appreciate your time You have confirmed what I thought to be the case but wanted to be sure Best wishes Nivard Ovington, in Cornwall (UK) > Nivard: > > My information was taken from the 2nd edition of the National > Index > of Parish Registers, Vol XI Pt 1 (1984), Durham and Northumberland, > published > by the Society of Genealogists (ISBN 0 901878 66 9). The first edition > (1979) had been compiled by Charles Neat but he died before the second > edition > was called for, so that was compiled by the late Don Mason - with a > little help > from yours truly. Under Stanhope it indicates that the original records

In a message dated 14/08/2007 22:00:31 GMT Daylight Time, [email protected] writes: Hi Geoff I was just about to post on this but note your mention of the PRs starting in 1609 >From Genuki on Stanhope is :- Church Records "The register dates from 1595." [From History, Topography and Directory of Durham, Whellan, London, 1894] The Parish Registers for the period 1609-1974 are deposited at Durham County Record Office, County Hall, Durham, DH1 5UL (EP/St). And from Phillimores :- Under copies of regs not at Soc Gen 1595 - 1812 (which somewhat contradicts the item under Copies of Registers at the Soc Gen 1607 - 1837) Nivard: My information was taken from the 2nd edition of the National Index of Parish Registers, Vol XI Pt 1 (1984), Durham and Northumberland, published by the Society of Genealogists (ISBN 0 901878 66 9). The first edition (1979) had been compiled by Charles Neat but he died before the second edition was called for, so that was compiled by the late Don Mason - with a little help from yours truly. Under Stanhope it indicates that the original records from 1609 are in Durham County Record Office. To summarise the other details, the marriages 1613-1812 were published by the Durham and Northumberland Parish Register Society. Indexes (ie indexed transcripts) are in Newcastle Central Library (the H M Wood transcripts) and microfilm copies of those are in Salt Lake City. The marriages are in Boyd's Marriage Index and the Banns are in Boyd's "Miscellaneous" Volume. Baptisms from 1609 are on the IGI. Some extracts are in Gateshead Public Library. The BTs run from 1762-1833, with gaps. Notes to the Stanhope entry refer to "Weardle St John" (ie St John's Chapel), some of the entries from which are included as separate lists in some of the Stanhope volumes, and to Heathery Cleugh which, like St John's Chapel, became a parish of its own, formed out of Stanhope parish. A more telling note is probably "Many gaps in CMB"! That is a summary! The full entry, which contains too many abbreviations for it to be given here verbatim, also includes the outside dates in each case - but the earliest date mentioned is 1609. As perhaps you know if you have looked at the earliest entries in many registers, it is sometimes obvious that a register began to be kept on a regular basis in, say, 1609, but a few earlier entries may have been added retrospectively, perhaps on the fly-leaf, at a later date. In such cases the "few" might be several dozen or it may be only one. If Stanhope registers include one such entry, dating from 1595, and then no more until 1609, it would hardly be fair to say they began in 1595 when, as a regularly kept, continuous and chronological register, it began in 1609. That is only an example of the sort of thing that might have happened - I am not saying that was the case in Stanhope, though I suspect it might have been something very similar. Geoff Nicholson

Hi Geoff I was just about to post on this but note your mention of the PRs starting in 1609 >From Genuki on Stanhope is :- Church Records "The register dates from 1595." [From History, Topography and Directory of Durham, Whellan, London, 1894] The Parish Registers for the period 1609-1974 are deposited at Durham County Record Office, County Hall, Durham, DH1 5UL (EP/St). And from Phillimores :- Under copies of regs not at Soc Gen 1595 - 1812 (which somewhat contradicts the item under Copies of Registers at the Soc Gen 1607 - 1837) >From the above, what happened (if anything) to the 1595 to 1609 PRs ? Am I reading Phillimores correctly? Best wishes Nivard Ovington, in Cornwall (UK) > I've just checked on the starting date of Stanhope (St Thomas) parish > registers. It was 1609! That means that the baptisms of the people you > seek > will NOT be recorded in the registers at all. Unless they were of > sufficient > standing to be mentioned in other documents (Wills, Halmote Court > Records, > other Court Records, etc), then you are unlikely to be able to go further > back > with them. Perhaps you should be checking the registers of neighbouring > parishes, in the hope that they had really originated elsewhere. > > I would be interested in knowing the evidence you have about the birth > dates of all those people. Were they just a likely guess? The only way > to > conduct proper research is never to assume anything at all that you have > not > been able to find evidence for. > > Geoff Nicholson

Hi I wonder if anyone could help me I have been in contact with other people who are researching the WESTGARTH family a couple of them have told me that LANCELOT WESTGARTH D.O.B. 1599 in STANHOPE married to ANN STOBBS on 23 NOV 1624 in STANHOPE had some brothers and sisters and they are MARGARET D.O.B. ABT 1586 STANHOPE ANTHONY D.O.B. ABT 1589 STANHOPE JOHN D.O.B. ABT 1590 STANHOPE ANN D.O.B. ABT 1596 STANHOPE WILLIAM D.O.B ABT 1616 STANHOPE I have managed to find them all on I.G.I. but none of them have any information about parents.Is there any way to find out who the parents were or have I now hit the brick wall. Thank you for any help you may be able to give me. Jan

In a message dated 14/08/2007 17:38:12 GMT Daylight Time, [email protected] writes: Is there any way to find out who the parents were or have I now hit the brick wall. Thank you for any help you may be able to give me. Jan: If your research is to be reliable and meaningful, then you should ALWAYS use the original registers, rather than ANY transcript of them or ANY sort of, usually partial, index to them. Those for Durham Diocese, which includes Stanhope, are kept in Durham County Record Office and you can either (a) make an appointment to go and read them on microfilm or (b) arrange for someone else to do that for you or (c) use their research service. Having said that, the H M Wood transcripts are a full and reliable transcript. They are kept in Newcastle Central Library (which still functions although currently in temporary premises) but microfilm copies are available from Northfiche (use Google for their price list etc). In the case of any register from the 16th century you do have a good excuse for using a good transcript such as Wood's. That is that you may be put off by the palaeographic task of actually reading the writing, which is probably in an obsolete hand. When the letter shapes are unfamiliar, many people just give up, although I find the most difficult hand usually can be read if one persists with it! However, your question was about what extra information you can expect. Without looking at the actual registers I cannot say, but in general the only information you can reasonably expect is the name of the father and just possible the address within the parish. The mother's name is a possibility but in the 16th century, and once she had given birth, she was usually relegated to a back seat! Ten minutes later: I've just checked on the starting date of Stanhope (St Thomas) parish registers. It was 1609! That means that the baptisms of the people you seek will NOT be recorded in the registers at all. Unless they were of sufficient standing to be mentioned in other documents (Wills, Halmote Court Records, other Court Records, etc), then you are unlikely to be able to go further back with them. Perhaps you should be checking the registers of neighbouring parishes, in the hope that they had really originated elsewhere. I would be interested in knowing the evidence you have about the birth dates of all those people. Were they just a likely guess? The only way to conduct proper research is never to assume anything at all that you have not been able to find evidence for. Geoff Nicholson

In a message dated 13/08/2007 16:32:05 GMT Daylight Time, [email protected] writes: The "English Naming Pattern" (ENP) encouraged parents to follow a set convention in choosing names for their children. Marie: While there is a lot of value in remembering the well-known naming pattern you describe, I think I would take issue with calling it the "English" naming pattern. In my experience in the NE of England it is more likely to be found in families which have originated in Scotland than anywhere else. Following from that, it is also common in north Northumberland, but becomes less common as one leaves either the Scottish Border or the coastal ports where many Scottish families settled. Also, the prevalence of certain common Christian names in many families means that it could not be kept to precisely if there was to be no repetition of names. It could also be disrupted by the death of a child who had a Christian name which the parents were keen to have in their family - the next child of the right sex would usually be given that name again, regardless of the naming pattern. There again, great friends who were not relatives might be honoured by their name being used, as might even respected public figures. The other side of that coin is the ne-er do well relative, whose name would be dropped from the family, naming pattern or no naming pattern! Sometimes it seems that a couple went to church for a baptism but had no idea what name they were going to give the child. In those case, the Vicar's advice might well be sought, given and acted upon. It cannot be a coincidence that in many parishes, especially those created in towns during the 19th century the name of the Saint to whom the church was dedicated (assuming it was a person) is very common among the children of the appropriate sex, baptised there. Look, for instance, at the number of Hildas baptised at Darlington St Hilda during its first year of operation. I suspect there will also be a tendency to use the name of the Saint whose Day it was at the time (though, of course, the timing of the baptism migiht have been arranged for that purpose!). Yes, the naming pattern, which I prefer to call the Scottish naming pattern, can be a help, but whether it has been used or not can usually only be determined by hindsight, which limits its use in research! Geoff Nicholson

Listers might find this useful piece of information, which I found on one of the Message Boards, helpful in their research. The "English Naming Pattern" (ENP) encouraged parents to follow a set convention in choosing names for their children. No1. First son to be named after child's father's father. No2 Second son to be named after child's mother's father No3 Third son named after his father. No6 First daughter to be named after her mother's mother. No7 Second daughter to be named after her father's mother. Therefore, a list of the sequence of how a couple named their children, afforded clues as to the names of the couple's own parents. Deaths of children sometimes messed up our sight of the naming sequence. ENP lasted until about end on C19th" Marie

The above were daughters of Enoch Percy and Arnold FOX. Miriam FOX b 1924 in Houghton-le-Spring married George Taylor in 1942. Constance b1926 in Houghton-le-Spring married John WATTS in 1945 Elsie FOX b 1929 in Houghton-le-Spring Winifred b 1924 in Houghton-le-Spring I am interested in finding out any information about these sisters/cousin or their relatives. Rodney Fox

Hello Geoff Is it possible my John Robson's baptism is in a Chapely at Hetton? Regards Allan Robson Allan: Yes, St Nicholas' Church began life, as many 19th-century churches did, as the church building serving a Parochial Chapelry. After a few years in which to become well-established, a Parochial Chapelry usually became a parish of its own, no longer dependent on the "mother parish", which in this case was that of Houghton le Spring. Parochial Chapelries usually had their own baptism registers and, if they had an attached churchyard, which some town churches might not have had, then there would have been a burial register as well. Following Lord Hardwicke's Marriage Act, which came into force on 1 January 1754, and up to 1837, marriages in England and Wales had to be in a C of E Parish Church, but this seems to have been interpreted as including Parochial Chapelries, only ruling out Non-Parochial Chapels such as Private Chapels, Chapels in Institutions etc. Geoff Nicholson

I have just subscribed to this list so thought I would post the families I am presently researching in the Durham area. Henry HANNANT, originally from Gt. Yarmouth, Norfolk moved to Jarrow, Durham with his wife and 4 children about 1878 and then had 6 more known children. Henry HANNANT born about 1844 in Gt. Yarmouth, Norfolk and died Durham,December 12, 1917 Married Ellen (UNKNOWN) born abt. 1846 Gt. Yarmouth, Norfolk, died August 15, 1909, Durham Children: Harriet HANNANT born abt. 1865 Gt. Yarmouth, Norfolk Amelia HANNANT born abt. 1870 Gt. Yarmouth, Norfolk Edith HANNANT born abt. 1873 Gt. Yarmouth, Norfolk died November 15, 1938 Haverton Hill, married - (unknown) DRAKE Henry HANNANT born abt. 1875 Gt. Yarmouth,Norfolk died March 6 ? Charles J. HANNANT born abt. 1879 Jarrow, Durham died June 10, 1932 Lillian HANNANT born December 28, 1882 Jarrow, Durham Herbert HANNANT born abt. 1885 Jarrow, Durham, died July 31, 1945 (Herbert is shown as Grandson - on 1891 Census and Son on 1901 Census) Ernest HANNANT born abt. 1886 Jarrow, Durham Frederick HANNANT born abt. 1890 Jarrow, Durham – died January 1, 1912 Lillian HANNANT married in Jarrow,June 27, 1906 to John Foster BELL born abt.March 31, 1880, died February 25, 1949.Jarrow, Durham Mary THOMSON May 27, 1909 Jarrow, Durham, died September 17, 1998, Purley, Surrey Married April 24, 1935, Parish Church of St. Oswald, Hebburn, Durham, to Harry Foster BELL, born - April 28, 1910, Hebburn, Tyne and Wear, died March 21,1983 Croydon, Surrey Mary Thomson was the daughter of Robert THOMSON and Ethel IRVING and grandaughter of Thomas THOMSON and Ann WHITELAW, married in East Lothian, Scotland. I have some information on the BELL line - believe John Foster BELL was the son of John BELL and Isabella MARCHBANKS from Northumberland. I have more information on these families to share with anyone who has the same interests. Heather Stacey British Columbia Canada ____________________________________________________________________________________Ready for the edge of your seat? Check out tonight's top picks on Yahoo! TV. http://tv.yahoo.com/

In a message dated 05/08/2007 22:13:01 GMT Daylight Time, [email protected] writes: Is there any chance your John Robson's parents may have been hard up at the time of hs birth and simply couldn't afford to register him? I know it took my dad's family 6 weeks to come up with the money to register him as they were out on strike at Dawdon Pit at the time of his birth. Your family may never have found the money and either never registered him or registered him at a completely different time. Skye: This sounds like a "family story" that has been embellished with time. There is no fee for registration. I agree that the father would not want to have to take time off from work to do it, but that could well be why most registrations were made by the mother anyway. Travelling into the town to make the registration might cost a fare as well as time, but for Hetton le Hole c1840 the local registrar would be in Houghton le Spring - not much more than a short walk by the standards of the day (or even of today for a reasonably fit person). From Dawdon they would probably have had to go to Easington (a few miles) or possibly (I'm not sure) only to Seaham, which is more or less "next door". On thinking further about the original query, I suspect that what might have happened was that the parents were confused about this new registration business. They were probably not very religious people, and had had their earlier children baptised just because they saw it as a form of registration, which effectively it had been under the Old Poor Law until the mid-1830s. They had probably been told that this new civil registration made baptism unnecessary for civil purposes, so they didn't bother with a baptism. However, they could have been told, after that, that even civil registration was not compulsory, and so they decided that, regardless of whether or not it saved them money, they just wouldn't bother with the hassle and time involved in doing that either! It is a fact that there was considerable under-registration in the first few years of civil registration (everywhere except South Shields, that is, whose registrar was prosecuted for inventing the registrations of non-existing children, to maximise his commission which depended on how many he registered!). Geoff Nicholson

Hi Allan Is there any chance your John Robson's parents may have been hard up at the time of hs birth and simply couldn't afford to register him? I know it took my dad's family 6 weeks to come up with the money to register him as they were out on strike at Dawdon Pit at the time of his birth. Your family may never have found the money and either never registered him or registered him at a completely different time. Skye ----- Original Message ----- From: "ALLAN ROBSON" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Sunday, August 05, 2007 12:05 PM Subject: [ENG-DURHAM] John Robson > Hello All > I have put a lot of postings on the site looking for the birth reg and > Baptism of John Robson born 1840 as yet no luck, what I am wondering is > how rare is it for a child to be neither Registered at Birth and also not > baptised, when all his other siblings are baptised being born before 1837 > and Regsitered being born after 1837, what am I missing? > Completely baffled. > > Thanks > Allan Robson > > ------------------------------- > 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 > > > -- > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database: 269.11.4/936 - Release Date: 04/08/2007 > 14:42 > >

Thank you to Geoff & Sally for pointing me in the right direction. Regards Linda ___________________________________________________________ Yahoo! Mail is the world's favourite email. Don't settle for less, sign up for your free account today http://uk.rd.yahoo.com/evt=44106/*http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/mail/winter07.html

Hi Allan it must be very frustrating for you not to have found your John Robson after so much searching. I personally would agree with the suggestion made by Geoff Nicholson and Skye that your John may have been registered and baptised under another name. >From: "ALLAN ROBSON" <[email protected]> >To: <[email protected]> >Subject: [ENG-DURHAM] John Robson >Date: Sun, 5 Aug 2007 12:05:32 +0100 > >Hello All >I have put a lot of postings on the site looking for the birth reg and >Baptism of John Robson born 1840 as yet no luck, what I am wondering is how >rare is it for a child to be neither Registered at Birth and also not >baptised, when all his other siblings are baptised being born before 1837 >and Regsitered being born after 1837, what am I missing? >Completely baffled. > >Thanks >Allan Robson > >------------------------------- >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 _________________________________________________________________ The next generation of Hotmail is here! http://www.newhotmail.co.uk