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

In a message dated 05/08/2007 12:12:31 GMT Daylight Time, [email protected] writes: 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. As far as John Robson is concerned you don't seem to be missing anything - as long as he was baptised/registered as John Robson. I think it has alreay been mentioned that he may have been registered or baptised as, say, John William Robson or even as William John Robson (for "William" substitute any other first name!). However, in a case such as this we should also consider the possibility that the surname may not have been what you think. Perhaps he was born before his parents managed to marry. In that case he may have been registered and baptised with his mother's maiden surname, or a variant of it. Another possibility is that the registrar and/or the parish clerk either mis-heard "Robson" or else were given a variant of it anyway, and he could have been registered/baptised as Robinson or Robertson or Robeson. I suppose that what I am saying is that you should consider any possible variant of any of the individual pieces of information concerned with his baptism and/or registration. For baptisms, have you considered every possible nonconformist denomination, as well as the C of E? Some of them had chapels in Sunderland, rather than in a relatively out of the way place such as Hetton le Hole! For others you may find it more productive to look at Durham City. Geoff Nicholson

Hi, I am searching for more information about Mary Hackward. She is a daughter of Thomas Hackward (b:1840) and Mary Ann Milburn (b:1842). In the 1881 British Census she is listed as Mary H. Hackward, and was born in Stanhope, Durham, England, she is 16 in the census, so she was born about 1865 or so. On the FreeBMD I found a listing for Mary Ann Hackward born September 1864 in the Weardale district. On a gedcom file I found on line they list her death year as 1893, with proof being a letter sent out by the family. I can not find a death for her on the FreeBMD. I would like to find more a more accurate recording of her death. I did find a Mary Hackworth who married a John Coxon in the Easington District in 1884, and further found her as Mary Coxon in 1891 and 1901 Census that showed her birth year as 1864. I don't think this is the Mary I am looking for, but it is a possible clue. Thank you to anybody who can look further into this for me. Diann ____________________________________________________________________________________ Yahoo! oneSearch: Finally, mobile search that gives answers, not web links. http://mobile.yahoo.com/mobileweb/onesearch?refer=1ONXIC

Hi everyone. Trying to find the parents of Jane Ann Fish, born 1863 in Stockton, father Thomas a weaver. There is no record of her in the 1871 census. Although there is a Thomas Fish wife Ann in Stockton but can't find any record of Jane belonging to this family. In 1881 she is working as a servant in Norton Road. She married John Harland in 1885. Regards Linda Shaw Surname interests: Harland/Fish/Evans/ShawWillis/MacLeod/Ives/Kirton ___________________________________________________________ Yahoo! Answers - Got a question? Someone out there knows the answer. Try it now. http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/

In a message dated 05/08/2007 09:25:27 GMT Daylight Time, [email protected] writes: Trying to find the parents of Jane Ann Fish, born 1863 in Stockton, father Thomas a weaver. There is no record of her in the 1871 census. Although there is a Thomas Fish wife Ann in Stockton but can't find any record of Jane belonging to this family. In 1881 she is working as a servant in Norton Road. She married John Harland in 1885. The obvious/standard/"official", way to discover about the birth, parentage etc of anyone born after 1 July 1837 is to seek their birth certificate, first by identifying it via the GRO indexes (on line via Ancestry.co.uk or, effectively so, via FreeBMD: in each case "free to view") and then by purchasing a copy from either the FRC or else, cheaper, via the local registrar. I notice you don't mention having tried this yet. If you have not then I strongly recommend you to do so. Having been compiled for "population" purposes, it is a little closer to family history research than is the census, wihch was compiled for other reasons. Geoff Nicholson

Hi Everyone. How are you. I was wondering if anyone can help me please. I have a Edward Seymour-Seamer that was born in 1660 at Whickham, Durham, England. I can not find his parents. >From Annette.

Thank you to everyone who replied to me regarding ROBERT WESTGARTH marriage information Jan ----- Original Message ----- From: <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, August 01, 2007 8:04 AM Subject: ENG-DURHAM Digest, Vol 2, Issue 148 > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Re: MARRIAGE CONFIRMATION ([email protected]) > 2. Re: MARRIAGE CONFIRMATION - 2 ([email protected]) > 3. Re: MARRIAGE CONFIRMATION (Nivard Ovington) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2007 06:04:47 EDT > From: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [ENG-DURHAM] MARRIAGE CONFIRMATION > To: [email protected] > Message-ID: <[email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" > > > In a message dated 30/07/2007 22:17:13 GMT Daylight Time, > [email protected] > writes: > > As the marriage is from an extraction it is likely to be correct > > > Sorry, Nivard, but I have to disagree. I would have said "as the > marriage is from an extraction is can be no more than a transcript, > subject to the > human error of the transcriber, and is therefore possibly incorrect". > Add to > this the terrible reputation for inaccuracy of the IGI and I would > probably > have gone further and said "any IGI information must be regarded as > dubious > until such time as it has been checked against the original record or a > good > facsimile of it". > > The original questioner didn't mention the parish (!) but from my 1992 > microfiche edition of the IGI I see that it was Newcastle St Andrew. It > appears in the index to St Andrew's marriages compiled by the late Alan > Angus for > the NDFHS, and available from them (see ndfhs.org.uk) as microfiche or > CD. > It will also appear on the Original Indexes fiche/CD, now available via > the > NFDHS's Ancestral Indexes service. It was included in Herbert Maxwell > Wood's > transcript of St Andrew's parish registers, made for the DNPRS and now in > Newcastle Central Library (temporary premises in Newcastle Civic Centre) > and that > is also available on microfiche from Northfiche. My own database, > mainly, > in this case, taken from Alan Angus' material, simply lists the parties, > suggesting that the wedding was after the calling of Banns, as was usual, > and not > by Licence. However, you could always check on the existence of a > Marriage > Bond, just to be sure. > > If the wedding was after Banns then there is not likely to be much you > can do to tell which of several possible Robert Westgarths it was, so you > could do worse than to try to identify the various Westgarth families in > the > 1660s and 1670s, using the Hearth Tax Returns - a set of records that > should task > most people's ability at palaeography! Apart from that, if the family > were > in a position to leave Wills then they also could be a worthwhile source. > > One final point - if the dates of their children's baptisms do not > "fit", then (a) be certain you have made due allowance for the Julian > Calendar > still being in use and (b) do try to look at a facsimile of the original > (ie a > microfilm, not a typed or hand-written transcript), as often an entry of > baptism can itself be read reasonably easily but the dates have been > pushed into > the binding, through later re-binding of the book, and can be very > difficult > to make out. Add to that the sometimes rather haphazard order of entries > and > their distribution across several pages, and I can quite understand how > dates > can be doubtful. Sometimes a neatly typed transcript can give the > misleading impression that all was easy to read and only a facsimile can > bring home > how much doubt there has to be about eg the dates. > > Geoff Nicholson > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2007 06:19:28 EDT > From: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [ENG-DURHAM] MARRIAGE CONFIRMATION - 2 > To: [email protected] > Message-ID: <[email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" > > In a message dated 30/07/2007 19:45:26 GMT Daylight Time, > [email protected] writes: > > Could anyone confirm a marriage date for me I have a > ROBERT WESTGARTH D.O.B. 12 SEP 1675 born in NEWCASTLE son of JOHN & MARY > STEWART > I believe he married a ANN KAY the date according to I.G.I. is 04 APR > 1697 > I would like confirmation because it makes their children incorrect > > > > > Further to my earlier reply, if this marriage causes problems for you, > have > you seen the marriage of Robert Westgarth and Margaret Potts, also at > Newcastle St Andrews, on 10 May 1701? Might that be more suitable? > > Geoff Nicholson > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 3 > Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2007 11:39:13 +0100 > From: "Nivard Ovington" <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [ENG-DURHAM] MARRIAGE CONFIRMATION > To: <[email protected]>, <[email protected]> > Message-ID: <[email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; > reply-type=original > > Hi Geoff > > Points taken and understood, however I still stand by my statement that as > an extraction it is likely to be correct however I should have made it > more > obvious that you need to make absolutely sure that the original has been > transcribed correctly (which I alluded to but did not make as obvious as I > should) > > Of the entries on the IGI from extractions I have checked, I have found > them > to be correct (that is of course a small sample and does not mean they are > all correct) > > Where the entry is a patron submission it is often very far from correct, > many assumptions being made as to the age at which marriage occurred, the > place of marriage, birth etc > > It is fair to say that whatever the source, the original document should > always be checked to ensure the transcription is accurate > > Thanks for yours though, wise words as usual > > Best wishes Nivard Ovington, in Cornwall (UK) > > >> As the marriage is from an extraction it is likely to be correct >> >> >> Sorry, Nivard, but I have to disagree. I would have said "as the >> marriage is from an extraction is can be no more than a transcript, >> subject to the >> human error of the transcriber, and is therefore possibly incorrect". >> Add to >> this the terrible reputation for inaccuracy of the IGI and I would >> probably >> have gone further and said "any IGI information must be regarded as >> dubious >> until such time as it has been checked against the original record or a >> good >> facsimile of it". > > > > ------------------------------ > > 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 148 > ****************************************** >

In a message dated 04/08/2007 06:44:28 GMT Daylight Time, [email protected] writes: Hi Everyone. How are you. I was wondering if anyone can help me please. I have a Edward Seymour-Seamer that was born in 1660 at Whickham, Durham, England. I can not find his parents. >From Annette. Annette: Your first line of attack should, of course, be via the parish registers. In the case of Whickham they go back to 1576, some three generations further back then you have got. The baptisms and marriages are on the IGI which, for all its faults, should be your first place to look, before you then try to confirm the entries against the original records or good facsimiles of them. If that fails it may be because you have forgotten - or not realised - that Whickham is in Co Durham but on the Tyne, and just over that river there was the City and County of Newcastle upon Tyne which, for most genealogical purposes can be taken as effectively part of the County of Northumberland. Perhaps the Northumberland IGI would help you. Failing the parish registers you could look at other records that might help with a 17th-century family. These include: Hearth Tax Returns (TNA but microfilm copies in DRO), Records of the Committee for Compounding with Delinquent Royalists (TNA but published for Co Durham and Northumberland by the Surtees Society), The Protestation Returns of c1641 (also published by the Surtees Society) and the Parliamentary Survey of the Diocese of Durham, taken in 1647 (it included all Manors of which the Bishop of Durham was Lord of the Manor, and that included Whickham, and has been published in two volumes by the Surtees Society). Of course, a lot depends on where your ancestors came in society. If they were coal miners or keelmen then there will be less to find about them than if they were businessmen or farmers. Given their Scottish-sounding surname of Seymour, it is quite possible that they were keelmen, since the early keelmen are supposed to have come from Edinburgh. Many keelmen lived at Swalwell, in Whickham parish (also at Stella in Ryton parish, Lemington in Newburn parish and Sandgate in Newcastle All Saints parish). Up to the 17th century the mines often worked seasonally, closing during the harsh winter weather, and the keelmen then all went back to Edinburgh for the winter. They were so Scottish that when the collectors of the first Hearth Tax in the early 1660s went into Sandgate they were met with a flat refusal and a riot. The keelmen said that, being Scottish, they should not be expected to pay English taxes (nice try!). If your family were at a level where they might have something worth leaving when they dies, then you could always look for a Will. I regard Wills as one of the best sources for family history - you can see precisely who were the testator's relatives, what he was worth and, if you are lucky, go on a conducted tour of his house, room by room following the inventory takers. Geoff Nicholson

Hi Janis The person is Joseph Wright. He was married in 1825 so must have been 'of age' at that time. He would probably have died some time between 1834 - his third son is christened in Dec 1834 so assuming he was there at the conception(!), and they tended to christen their children fairly soon after birth, then he must have been alive at the end of 1833/beginning of 1834. His widow remarries in March 1838 and she is already pregnant with twins whose births are also registered in the March quarter of 1838! Assuming a 7-9 month pregnancy and that she wasn't playing around before Joseph died then that would suggest Joseph was dead by the June of 1837 at the latest. So we're looking for a death sometime between the end of 1833 and June of 1837. Joseph was a miner and I checked for deaths in the mines during that period but none of them give his name. So far as his age goes, at the moment I don't have a clue. It's quite a common name, though there is a possible Joseph born in 1805 in Newcastle, parents Joseph Wright and Elizabeth Gill. That would make him about 28-32 when he died. A final note. I know of two burials of Joseph Wrights at Hillside Cemetery in Houghton, but haven't got the relevant dates to check if it is my man. Thanks for taking an interest Susan ----- Original Message ----- From: "Janis Noonan" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, August 01, 2007 11:05 PM Subject: Re: [ENG-DURHAM] Hetton-Le Hole Parish Records Skye, What is the name of the person, age at death etc. Janis

In a message dated 01/08/2007 20:32:12 GMT Daylight Time, [email protected] writes: Hello All Would anybody know how I can get hold of the Hetton Parish Records 1837-1841 that show show baptisms, deaths, marriages and also parish info for that time. Thanks Allan Robson Allan: Hetton le Hole parish records begin in 1832. For the periods in question they are now held at Durham County Record Office, where they may be viewed on microfilm. If all you want is a look-up then the Record Office's research service may be able to do that for you for a reasonable fee. However, I note that Hetton le Hole was primarily a coal mining district and, on the assumption that your family were possibly coal miners, we should bear in mind that mining families did move around a great deal, so the presence of one generation in Hetton does not mean that they are likely to have been there for many generations (though they could have been!). If you therefore need research, rather than a look-up, I could put you in touch with a reliable professional genealogist who could do that for you, for a realistic fee. Parish registers of the period you mention are in three separate sets of books: baptisms, marriages and burials (burials, not "deaths"!) but, unlike earlier (1812 and before) ones, they tend not to have any other parish information in them. You or your researcher would need to look for any other Hetton le Hole parish documents which have been deposited in the Record Office. As we are dealing with the period after the Poor Law of the 1830s, there is not likely to be much of that type, though there may be some about other aspects of church administration. Geoff Nicholson

Hi If anyone does know, could they also see if they have death records for the period 1834-7 as I have a death during that period but can't find any trace of it. Susan ----- Original Message ----- From: "ALLAN ROBSON" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, August 01, 2007 7:31 PM Subject: [ENG-DURHAM] Hetton-Le Hole Parish Records > Hello All > Would anybody know how I can get hold of the Hetton Parish Records > 1837-1841 that show show baptisms, deaths, marriages and also parish info > for that time. > > Thanks > Allan Robson

Hello All Would anybody know how I can get hold of the Hetton Parish Records 1837-1841 that show show baptisms, deaths, marriages and also parish info for that time. Thanks Allan Robson

Skye, What is the name of the person, age at death etc. Janis

Hi Geoff Points taken and understood, however I still stand by my statement that as an extraction it is likely to be correct however I should have made it more obvious that you need to make absolutely sure that the original has been transcribed correctly (which I alluded to but did not make as obvious as I should) Of the entries on the IGI from extractions I have checked, I have found them to be correct (that is of course a small sample and does not mean they are all correct) Where the entry is a patron submission it is often very far from correct, many assumptions being made as to the age at which marriage occurred, the place of marriage, birth etc It is fair to say that whatever the source, the original document should always be checked to ensure the transcription is accurate Thanks for yours though, wise words as usual Best wishes Nivard Ovington, in Cornwall (UK) > As the marriage is from an extraction it is likely to be correct > > > Sorry, Nivard, but I have to disagree. I would have said "as the > marriage is from an extraction is can be no more than a transcript, > subject to the > human error of the transcriber, and is therefore possibly incorrect". > Add to > this the terrible reputation for inaccuracy of the IGI and I would > probably > have gone further and said "any IGI information must be regarded as > dubious > until such time as it has been checked against the original record or a > good > facsimile of it".

In a message dated 30/07/2007 19:45:26 GMT Daylight Time, [email protected] writes: Could anyone confirm a marriage date for me I have a ROBERT WESTGARTH D.O.B. 12 SEP 1675 born in NEWCASTLE son of JOHN & MARY STEWART I believe he married a ANN KAY the date according to I.G.I. is 04 APR 1697 I would like confirmation because it makes their children incorrect Further to my earlier reply, if this marriage causes problems for you, have you seen the marriage of Robert Westgarth and Margaret Potts, also at Newcastle St Andrews, on 10 May 1701? Might that be more suitable? Geoff Nicholson

In a message dated 30/07/2007 22:17:13 GMT Daylight Time, [email protected] writes: As the marriage is from an extraction it is likely to be correct Sorry, Nivard, but I have to disagree. I would have said "as the marriage is from an extraction is can be no more than a transcript, subject to the human error of the transcriber, and is therefore possibly incorrect". Add to this the terrible reputation for inaccuracy of the IGI and I would probably have gone further and said "any IGI information must be regarded as dubious until such time as it has been checked against the original record or a good facsimile of it". The original questioner didn't mention the parish (!) but from my 1992 microfiche edition of the IGI I see that it was Newcastle St Andrew. It appears in the index to St Andrew's marriages compiled by the late Alan Angus for the NDFHS, and available from them (see ndfhs.org.uk) as microfiche or CD. It will also appear on the Original Indexes fiche/CD, now available via the NFDHS's Ancestral Indexes service. It was included in Herbert Maxwell Wood's transcript of St Andrew's parish registers, made for the DNPRS and now in Newcastle Central Library (temporary premises in Newcastle Civic Centre) and that is also available on microfiche from Northfiche. My own database, mainly, in this case, taken from Alan Angus' material, simply lists the parties, suggesting that the wedding was after the calling of Banns, as was usual, and not by Licence. However, you could always check on the existence of a Marriage Bond, just to be sure. If the wedding was after Banns then there is not likely to be much you can do to tell which of several possible Robert Westgarths it was, so you could do worse than to try to identify the various Westgarth families in the 1660s and 1670s, using the Hearth Tax Returns - a set of records that should task most people's ability at palaeography! Apart from that, if the family were in a position to leave Wills then they also could be a worthwhile source. One final point - if the dates of their children's baptisms do not "fit", then (a) be certain you have made due allowance for the Julian Calendar still being in use and (b) do try to look at a facsimile of the original (ie a microfilm, not a typed or hand-written transcript), as often an entry of baptism can itself be read reasonably easily but the dates have been pushed into the binding, through later re-binding of the book, and can be very difficult to make out. Add to that the sometimes rather haphazard order of entries and their distribution across several pages, and I can quite understand how dates can be doubtful. Sometimes a neatly typed transcript can give the misleading impression that all was easy to read and only a facsimile can bring home how much doubt there has to be about eg the dates. Geoff Nicholson

Hi Jan As the marriage is from an extraction it is likely to be correct, you can order a copy from the LDS if you cannot get to one of their family history centres to check the film Best wishes Nivard Ovington, in Cornwall (UK) > Hi > Could anyone confirm a marriage date for me I have a > ROBERT WESTGARTH > D.O.B. 12 SEP 1675 born in NEWCASTLE > son of JOHN & MARY STEWART > I believe he married a > ANN KAY the date according to I.G.I. is 04 APR 1697 > I would like confirmation because it makes their children > incorrect > Thank you for any help you can give me > Jan

Hi Could anyone confirm a marriage date for me I have a ROBERT WESTGARTH D.O.B. 12 SEP 1675 born in NEWCASTLE son of JOHN & MARY STEWART I believe he married a ANN KAY the date according to I.G.I. is 04 APR 1697 I would like confirmation because it makes their children incorrect Thank you for any help you can give me Jan

Looking for any kind of information about a person called CHARLES EDWARD BARTON. He also went by the name of CHARLES EDWARD RIPLEY and by the nickname of PANNER BARTON. He was born in 1864, and as far as I am aware he resided at the following addresses in Co Durham: In 1906 he lived at Back Mechanic Street, New Shildon, 1914-Framwellgate Durham 1929-Holiday Terraces Durham and 1929-Milburngate Durham. He may have had some connection with the gypsy community. In 1906 he married PRISCILLA ROWNTREE, at the Register Office in the district of Auckland. By all accounts he was quite a character. If anyone can add to the above, it will be hugely appreciated. Many thanks Brian

Thank you Geoff for the information you sent me. Jan ----- Original Message ----- From: <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Sunday, July 29, 2007 8:03 AM Subject: ENG-DURHAM Digest, Vol 2, Issue 145 > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Re: HELP WANTED ([email protected]) > 2. James Johns(t)on (Tim Callaghan) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Sat, 28 Jul 2007 04:10:19 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 27/07/2007 19:55:54 GMT Daylight Time, > [email protected] writes: > > Now my problem is the only JOHN that I can find born in 1657 appears to > have > died on the 02 oct 1660 so how can he have married MARY.Could anyone help > me > with this problem.Thank you if you can. > > > > > It might be productive for you to check on the earliest dates from which > parish registers run. Once you are back in the 17th century there are > many gaps > in what is available - the registers have not all survived. Since the > BTs > also do not survive from that far back, it could be that you are at a > real > briack wall. Possibly useful non-parish register sources for earlier > periods > include: > > Wills, > Hearth Tax Returns, > Protestation Returns > Records of the County Committee for Compounding with Delinquent Royalists > Deeds > Halmote Court Records > > None of these are "easy" or necessarily straightforward. Some are in > Durham County Record Office, some in The National Archives, some in > Durham > University Library and some have been published many years ago by the > Surtees > Society. You have reached the point where the research, if not the > results of > that research, gets interesting. Good hunting! > > Geoff Nicholson > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Sat, 28 Jul 2007 23:49:08 +0100 > From: "Tim Callaghan" <[email protected]> > Subject: [ENG-DURHAM] James Johns(t)on > To: <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, > <[email protected]> > Message-ID: <[email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > > Looking for a James Johns(t)on with parents John & Elizabeth born around > 1824 in either Chester-le-Street, Tynemouth, North Shields or Hebburn. > > Tim > > ------------------------------ > > 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 145 > ****************************************** >