Hi Everyone, Another query! Just wondering if anyone can tell me if Springwell Terrace, Hetton-le-Hole, was owned by a coal company, and if they let the houses to Coal Miners? Why I'm asking, is that quite a few of my ancestors, The ELMS, HUBBARD'S and HURN families lived in Springwell Terrace, around about the same time as each other, in 1866 up to about 1871 and they were all Coal Miners. I've got the address from different certificates, about the different related families, but the number of the Street was never written down. I just presumed that they were all staying in the one house, maybe some of them as short term guests with their relatives. Jan Boyes

Hi Everyone, I'd appreciate listers input on a puzzle I have please! I have the birth certificate of Hannah HUBBARD. She was born on 17th Jan 1864 at Ryhope. I knew she had died young, from family information, but didn't know when she died. Then I found her death entry, and the death certificate arrived this morning! It says she died on 27th June 1866, aged 10 months old. At Hetton-le-Hole. Now I know that I have the right family, as the correct Father is recorded as being the informant. And I know that they had moved to Hetton-le-Hole sometime! The mystery is, if Hannah was born in 1864 and died in 1866, she should have been 2 years and 5 months old at the time of the death, and not 10 months old! I have looked on Free bmd site, and there are no more Hannah HUBBARD's listed, born or died in the area where mine was, in that time scale! I haven't looked in the GRO indexes at the library though! My thoughts are that it is the same Hannah in the birth and death certificates I have got, and for some reason, the age at death has been put down wrongly!! But it beats me how a Father can put down a wrong age of his own daughter, by that much!! Any thoughts about it appreciated!! Anyone else come across anything like this? Jan Boyes

In a message dated 25/02/2004 18:46:53 GMT Standard Time, GNicresearch@aol.com writes: > I therefore do not use modern names such as Tyne and > Wear, Cumbria, Cleveland etc for any events before 1974, For an explanation of the 1974-myth and the problems it can cause historians and genealogists see http://www.abcounties.co.uk/newgaz/cen.htm#section3.4 Regards Stan Mapstone

Hi Jan, I can help you here. I'm going to my local Family History Centre tomorrow night and would be happy to look in the GRO birth and death registration indexes for the 1864 - 1866 period. Regards, Paul At 06:29 PM 2/25/04 +0000, markandjanboyes wrote: >Hi Everyone, >I'd appreciate listers input on a puzzle I have please! > >I have the birth certificate of Hannah HUBBARD. >She was born on 17th Jan 1864 at Ryhope. >I knew she had died young, from family information, but didn't know when she >died. >Then I found her death entry, and the death certificate arrived this >morning! > >It says she died on 27th June 1866, aged 10 months old. At Hetton-le-Hole. > >Now I know that I have the right family, as the correct Father is recorded >as being the informant. And I know that they had moved to Hetton-le-Hole >sometime! > >The mystery is, if Hannah was born in 1864 and died in 1866, she should have >been >2 years and 5 months old at the time of the death, and not 10 months old! > >I have looked on Free bmd site, and there are no more Hannah HUBBARD's >listed, born or died in the area where mine was, in that time scale! >I haven't looked in the GRO indexes at the library though! > >My thoughts are that it is the same Hannah in the birth and death >certificates I have got, and for some reason, the age at death has been put >down wrongly!! >But it beats me how a Father can put down a wrong age of his own daughter, >by that much!! > >Any thoughts about it appreciated!! Anyone else come across anything like >this? > >Jan Boyes > > > > >==== ENG-DURHAM Mailing List ==== >Browse the ENG-DURHAM archives >http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/index/eng-durham Paul Roberts Chryxus Corporation Suite 201, 92 Lakeshore Road East, Mississauga Ontario L5G 4S2 Phone: (905) 891-2987 Fax: (647) 439-1357 Chryxus Corporation http://www.chryxus.com/ Provider of the B.I.O.Frame/RS enterprise architecture repository.

In a message dated 25/02/2004 18:28:43 GMT Standard Time, markandjanboyes@ntlworld.com writes: > I have looked on Free bmd site, and there are no more Hannah HUBBARD's > listed, born or died in the area where mine was, in that time scale! > I haven't looked in the GRO indexes at the library though! > In other words you have used only an incomplete secondary source and not used the complete primary source! Your information is therefore incomplete and, as such, proves nothing. I suspect that the Hannah whose death certificate you have found was a second Hannah ("Hannah II") and that the first one ("Hannah I") had died before Hannah II was born. Hannah II died aged 10 months in June 1866, so was born around August 1865. Hannah I was born in Jan 1864 so there was plenty of time for her to have died between then and the birth, or even the conception, of Hannah II. Geoff Nicholson 57 Manor Park, Concord, WASHINGTON, Tyne & Wear NE37 2BU NBL/DUR family history research in depth by THE local expert. Record searching service: you name the records, I search them!

In a message dated 25/02/2004 11:19:37 GMT Standard Time, relder@tiscali.co.uk writes: > When filling in places names where family were born or died etc in > 1800/1900 do you put down as I.E Birtley Co Durham or Birtley Tyne &Wear, or > Cumberland/ Cumbria or does it not really matter as the Boundary may change at a > later date. It is just that the census show them as the old names. Just a thought It is all a matter of personal taste, but I always take the attitude that the "place" where something happened was the "place" as it would have been known at the time. I therefore do not use modern names such as Tyne and Wear, Cumbria, Cleveland etc for any events before 1974, and I think you will find that most of those who are active and experienced in this field would agree with me. Geoff Nicholson 57 Manor Park, Concord, WASHINGTON, Tyne & Wear NE37 2BU NBL/DUR family history research in depth by THE local expert. Record searching service: you name the records, I search them!

When filling in places names where family were born or died etc in 1800/1900 do you put down as I.E Birtley Co Durham or Birtley Tyne & Wear, or Cumberland/ Cumbria or does it not really matter as the Boundary may change at a later date. It is just that the census show them as the old names. Just a thought Bob

Hi Robert, I'm curious how much the Stepping Stones 1851 for County Durham costs, and whether the CD's are indexed, or is it an onliine search thing? I bought the 1871 London CD set from S&N genealogy, looking for some relatives, but the onlline indexes are so far behind, that I haven't in fact found even one individual, after spending 160 dollars Canadian. The site doesn't mention of course, the percentage of names that are indexed. So, do consider how searchable the information will be before you go ahead. Janet in Canada >From: "Robert Hildrop" <robert@hildrop.freeserve.co.uk> >To: ENG-DURHAM-L@rootsweb.com >Subject: [ENG-DUR] Stepping Stones 1851 Census >Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2004 19:51:35 -0000 > >Hi Listers, >I am considering sending for the Stepping Stones 1851 census for Durham. My >main interest at the moment is Darlington. I am trying to find quite a few >HILDROP's >Would all Darlington be on these cd's. > I am not quite sure of the York/Durham bounderies >Bob HILDROP >Looking for HILDROP,s >anywhere, any time > > >==== ENG-DURHAM Mailing List ==== >Newbies' Guide to Genealogy & Family History >by ROY STOCKDILL >http://www.genuki.org.uk/gs/Newbie.html > _________________________________________________________________ Help STOP SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=dept/bcomm&pgmarket=en-ca&RU=http%3a%2f%2fjoin.msn.com%2f%3fpage%3dmisc%2fspecialoffers%26pgmarket%3den-ca

I think that the HILDROP researcher was asking if all of Darlington's 1851 census returns would be on Stepping Stones CD's for County Durham. Since the census enumeration districts do not conform to county boundaries, it would seem to be a valid question. I'm sure there will be some kind lister who knows the answer. Irene -----Original Message----- From: GNicresearch@aol.com [mailto:GNicresearch@aol.com] Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2004 3:24 AM To: ENG-DURHAM-L@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [ENG-DUR] Stepping Stones 1851 Census In a message dated 23/02/2004 19:53:22 GMT Standard Time, robert@hildrop.freeserve.co.uk writes: > I am considering sending for the Stepping Stones 1851 census for Durham. My > main interest at the moment is Darlington. I am trying to find quite a few > HILDROP's > Would all Darlington be on these cd's. > I am not quite sure of the York/Durham bounderies Until 1974 it was the River Tees, as will be apparent from any map. road map or atlas prior to that date. Darlington was therefore in Co Durham. Geoff Nicholson 57 Manor Park, Concord, WASHINGTON, Tyne & Wear NE37 2BU NBL/DUR family history research in depth by THE local expert. Record searching service: you name the records, I search them! ______________________________

In a message dated 25/02/2004 11:19:37 GMT Standard Time, relder@tiscali.co.uk writes: > When filling in places names where family were born or died, etc. in > 1800/1900 do you put down as I.E Birtley Co Durham or Birtley Tyne &Wear, or > Cumberland/ Cumbria or does it not really matter as the Boundary may change at a > later date. It is just that the census show them as the old names. Just a > thought > This question is discussed at length on this site http://www.abcounties.co.uk/newgaz/cen.htm#section1 For censuses it states; From the 1851 Census onwards, the actual enumerators' books were not re-ordered into historic County order (as the 1841 returns had been). They were stored in division order and, within each division, in registration county order. Subsequently these records have been filmed and indexed in this order. Genealogists need to be aware that the references to "county" in the Place Name Indexes to the Census returns from 1851 onwards are to registration county and NOT to historic County. This matter is discussed in more detail in Section 4.5 below. Appendix C provides a list of those parishes, townships, etc. which lay in a registration county of a different name to their historic County at the time of the 1851 Census. Appendix D presents a similar list for the time of the 1881 Census. Regards Stan Mapstone

Hi all, I have recently joined this list and am particularly interested in the Maddisons of Tanfield and Whickham, County Durham, UK. Reading recent posts on this list (notably that of Geoff Nicholson on Sunday) has set me thinking, as I have a few Lionel Maddisons in my family and I wonder how they are connected (if at all) to the others in Dragon Villa and Newcastle. I apologise for the detail in this email but I hope someone out there will persist to the end and be able to help me! I have traced my family back to a Thomas Maddison 'Junr', born about 1741, who married Elizabeth Wray at Tanfield on 9 May 1771 and died in Tanfield on 2 September 1814 aged 73. There is also a Thomas Maddison 'Senr' (d. May 1779 in Tanfield), who was married to an Elizabeth (d. 23 Nov 1810 aged 94 in Tanfield). The only Thomas and Elizabeth Maddison I have so far found in all the surrounding parishes are Thomas Maddison and Elizabeth Leish, married in Whickham on 9 November 1740. Further, the only baptism I have found that appears to match my Thomas 'Junr' is that of Thomas, the youngest son of Thomas Maddison and Ruth Wood, baptised on 22 June 1740 at Whickham. Thomas and Ruth were married on 25 February 1722/3 at Whickham and have three other sons baptised in the parish: Michael (6 April 1729), Edward (19 March 1731/2) and Ralph (23 May 1736), but after their son Thomas is baptised in 1740, they vanish from the records. The families at Tanfield of the two Thomas Maddisons are as follows: Thomas MADDISON Senr & Elizabeth ? Thomas: brd. 10.5.1779. Elizabeth: bd. abt 1716, dd. 23.11.1810. Married: ? Children: William, bpd. 8.11.1740, brd. 24.7.1765. Lionel, bpd. 16.6.1744, brd. 25.7.1818. He married Ann BUDDLE (of Chester Le Street) on 11.5.1785. After Ann died on 5.7.1794 he married Mary JOHNSON (of Whickham) on 1.5.1797. Mary died on 20.7.1820. Ann, bpd. 14.2.1747/8. John, bpd. 1.7.1749, dd. 25.1.1798. Matthew, bpd. 12.2.1753, brd. 30.11.1767. Isabel, bpd. 25.1.1756, brd. 14.10.1778. Jane, bpd. 4.6.1758. Elizabeth, bpd. 23.11.1760. She married George FINDLEY/FINDLAY (of Tanfield) on 15.5.1783. --- Thomas MADDISON Junr & Elizabeth WRAY/WREY Thomas: bd. abt 1741, dd. 2.9.1814. Elizabeth: bpd. 17.4.1747, dd. 4.12.1821. Married: 9.5.1771. Children: Ann (bpd. 6.4.1772). John (bpd. 31.10.1773, dd. 23.8.1842). He married Ann TAYLOR (of Tanfield) on 31.8.1795. Elizabeth (bpd. 27.8.1775). She married John FENWICK (of Tanfield) on 19.8.1797. Jane (bpd. 21.9.1777). Isabel (bpd. 9.1.1780). She married John HANDY (of Tanfield) on 3.12.1804. Thomas (bpd. 26.5.1782, dd. 31.12.1798). George (bpd. 28.11.1784). He married Sarah SA(U)NDERS on 12.6.1804. Mary (bpd. 28.9.1788, dd. 9.4.1822). She married George WINTER (of Low Lampton/Chester Le Street) on 20.2.1813. William (bpd. 5.2.1792, brd. 18.6.1859). I am pretty sure he married Mary LAWS on 2.8.1817. The questions I have are these: i) Is the Thomas who married Ruth Wood the same as the one who married Elizabeth Leish? ii) Even if the Thomas Maddison who married Ruth Wood is not the same as the one who married Elizabeth Leish, what happened to Ruth? I cannot find her burial record in either the Tanfield or Whickham registers! iii) Is Thomas Maddison Senr the father of Thomas Maddison Junr? I can't see why one would be 'Senr' and one 'Junr' if they weren't father and son, but I have no definite proof that they are so related. iv) Who was the father of Thomas (d. 1779) - I have at least two possibilities from the Whickham registers, if indeed he came from there! Any help would be much appreciated for any of these problems! Further, if anyone is connected to the Maddisons of Tanfield, Whickham, or Collierley/Dipton (where my branch ended up), and has further information, I would really like to hear from them! Thanks in advance, Robert Maddison --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.593 / Virus Database: 376 - Release Date: 20/2/2004

Hi Listners, Is Jane Pearson [Person] the neice of William Widdowfield OR Mary A. Reay ? Is the name, Mary A. Reay familair Is William W. Roberts the baby of Matthew Roberts and Sarah A. Roberts ? Is Harriet H. Ridley the sister Alfred Henderson OR his wife, Mary A Henderson Jane Dinsdale b. abt. 1841 ? Jane Smurthwaite b. abt.1845 Middlesbrough ? Is the name, Mary Jane Lamb familiar ? Sarah Dixon, b. 1851 married 28 Dec 1878 to James Widdowfield ? Are any of these people in your Tree ? Are you familair with any of these names ? If so please contact me. [The last list I sent in, I found at least three new "cousins". And I thank you all. Phyllis.....California.....USA __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard - Read only the mail you want. http://antispam.yahoo.com/tools

I am trying to trace the Quin/Quinn family from Washington Co Durham ( Tyne & Wear) 1880 James Quin married Susan Mullen 1859 in Birtley John Quinn b1859 Rose A Quinn b1862 James Quinn b 1863 Mary Quinn b1870 Susan Quinn b 1872 Thomas Quinn b 1873 my grandfather Andrew Quinn b 1876 James Richard Quinn b 1877 Daniel Quinn b1882 None of the family was registered I only found them through the Church baptism. There is a James Quinn d: 1883 & Susan Quinn d: 1903 but I have not found anything of the rest of the family who they married etc. there are a number of Quinn's buried in the RC Church in Washington are they descents? Any help to get over this brick wall welcome Bob

Helen - Thanks! a useful link i didnt know about and ive found them - saved me a lot of random searching! hopefully things should start to move along nicely once i have the certificates as ill be able to cross reference against census' etc john On 24 Feb 2004, at 2:00 am, ENG-DURHAM-D-request@rootsweb.com wrote: > Hello John, > If you do not have access to GRO indexes for the marriage, > have you looked at > > <http://www.durham.gov.uk/gro/search.nsf/search+index> > > Assuming they married locally of course! > > There are 2 marriages indexed on here between the years 1901-1910, > between a Robert SAYERS and an Elizabeth. You should be able to cross > reference with the mother's maiden name on the birth certificate which > you have. > > Regards, > -- > Helen Oram -- http://www.buckland-design.co.uk t: 020 8878 3664 f: 020 8878 3717

In a message dated 23/02/2004 19:53:22 GMT Standard Time, robert@hildrop.freeserve.co.uk writes: > I am considering sending for the Stepping Stones 1851 census for Durham. My > main interest at the moment is Darlington. I am trying to find quite a few > HILDROP's > Would all Darlington be on these cd's. > I am not quite sure of the York/Durham bounderies Until 1974 it was the River Tees, as will be apparent from any map. road map or atlas prior to that date. Darlington was therefore in Co Durham. Geoff Nicholson 57 Manor Park, Concord, WASHINGTON, Tyne & Wear NE37 2BU NBL/DUR family history research in depth by THE local expert. Record searching service: you name the records, I search them!

Hi Listers, I am considering sending for the Stepping Stones 1851 census for Durham. My main interest at the moment is Darlington. I am trying to find quite a few HILDROP's Would all Darlington be on these cd's. I am not quite sure of the York/Durham bounderies Bob HILDROP Looking for HILDROP,s anywhere, any time

Good Day Maybe all we wanted was a good Beer! Mum, n. (ger.) Mumme. from Chr. Momme, who first brewed it in 1492) A sort of strong beer, originally introduced from Brunswick, in Germany, and hence Often called Brunswick Mum From An American Dictionary ot the English Language by Noah Webster, LL D 1870 William F Stratton Dartmouth Nova Scotia Canada

Eric My 'Collins 21st Century English Dictionary' gives the following: mum n Chiefly Brit. an informal word for mother. [C19: a child's word] 'C19' means that the first known occurrence of the word was in the 19th century. Hope this helps. Bill Dodshon ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tennett, Eric R." <ERTennett@cvs.com> To: <ENG-DURHAM-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Monday, February 23, 2004 4:08 PM Subject: RE: [ENG-DUR] Mum's the word - non-gen > Thanks for everyone's reply to the post. Still have no ideas if the term was used in 19th century though. > > Eric > > -----Original Message----- > From: david.williams4153 [mailto:david.williams4153@ntlworld.com] > Sent: Monday, February 23, 2004 10:56 AM > To: Tennett, Eric R.; ENG-DURHAM-L@rootsweb.com > Subject: Re: [ENG-DUR] Mum's the word - non-gen > > > Hello > Mam is Welsh for mother. Tad, mutates to dad, when addressing him, for > father. So, I suggest that both words were taken by the English from the > Welsh way, way back. Mam became mum purely down to accent. > Tthat's my theory. > David Williams in essex > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Tennett, Eric R." <ERTennett@cvs.com> > To: <ENG-DURHAM-L@rootsweb.com> > Sent: Sunday, February 22, 2004 10:56 PM > Subject: [ENG-DUR] Mum's the word - non-gen > > > > Hi all, > > > > I am curious as to when the term "Mum" was first used in England. Is it a > 20th term, or was it used earlier? > > > > We here in America call our mothers Mom, and our fathers Dad. I know that > in the early 1900's, children called there fathers Pa, or at least here in > New England they did. But now it's Dad. > > > > Eric Tennett > > > > > > ==== ENG-DURHAM Mailing List ==== > > A-Z of BRITISH GENEALOGICAL RESEARCH > > by Dr Ashton Emery > > http://www.genuki.org.uk/big/EmeryPaper.html > > > > > > ==== ENG-DURHAM Mailing List ==== > A-Z of BRITISH GENEALOGICAL RESEARCH > by Dr Ashton Emery > http://www.genuki.org.uk/big/EmeryPaper.html >

In message <DE0F6CC0BB981646AFBA712DCD1D4B7816C98400@cvsex002>, "Tennett, Eric R." <ERTennett@cvs.com> writes >Thanks for everyone's reply to the post. Still have no ideas if the >term was used in 19th century though. > >Eric Hi Eric, My dictionary (New Oxford Dictionary of English) has Mam Origin- late 16th century Mum origin- mid 17th century; abbreviation of mummy, but Mummy origin-late 18th century; perhaps an alteration of earlier Mammy. -- Helen Oram

Hello Mam is Welsh for mother. Tad, mutates to dad, when addressing him, for father. So, I suggest that both words were taken by the English from the Welsh way, way back. Mam became mum purely down to accent. Tthat's my theory. David Williams in essex ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tennett, Eric R." <ERTennett@cvs.com> To: <ENG-DURHAM-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Sunday, February 22, 2004 10:56 PM Subject: [ENG-DUR] Mum's the word - non-gen > Hi all, > > I am curious as to when the term "Mum" was first used in England. Is it a 20th term, or was it used earlier? > > We here in America call our mothers Mom, and our fathers Dad. I know that in the early 1900's, children called there fathers Pa, or at least here in New England they did. But now it's Dad. > > Eric Tennett > > > ==== ENG-DURHAM Mailing List ==== > A-Z of BRITISH GENEALOGICAL RESEARCH > by Dr Ashton Emery > http://www.genuki.org.uk/big/EmeryPaper.html >