Sorry, Bob, can't help with the 1851 censuses. However, on the 1841 census age, remember that only children under 15 were recorded with an accurate age, everyone else was supposed to be rounded down to the nearest 5 years. I say supposed to be, before I get lots of posts saying that accurate ages were sometimes recorded. Given that people's memories of their ages was a little awry at times anyway, it does mean that the 1841 ages were sometimes a long way off. I certainly have one family where Mum and Dad were actually only a couple of years apart in age, but in the 1841 census they appear to be 10 years apart! Regards Sandra bob.newell@ntlworld.com wrote: > Thank you Sandra for your sympathy. It had to be this man, he is > really causing me grief all the way through I have problems with him. > He was a Baker journeyman and never at home at census times except for > once in 1861. I think I have found him with his parents in the 1841 > but his age there is wrong, you don't have the 1851 Sussex or Surrey > Census up your sleeve by any chance do you, to see if he is there. > > Kind regards Bob Newell > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sandra J Smith" > <sandra.s@ntlworld.com> > To: <ENG-HAMPSHIRE-L@rootsweb.com> > Sent: Saturday, August 20, 2005 2:50 PM > Subject: Re: [ENG-HANTS] Certificates > > >> Bob, it was not necessary for a baby to have a name in order to be >> registered. You see these frequently in the GRO indices as "Male" >> Surname. On the birth certificate, there is a column for the name if >> added after the registration, but I have never ever seen this used. >> To most families of this era the most important event was the baptism >> when the child would be given their names and they rarely considered >> it necessary to inform the "authorities" >> You also see them in the census too...just listed as "infant". >> Unfortunately, you seem to have drawn the short straw in this case. >> Regards >> Sandra >> >> >> bob.newell@ntlworld.com wrote: >> >>> Great Joy at finding a birth certificate for my brickwall Stephen >>> NEWELL on the mat this morning only to find that there is no name >>> under the name if any column. Is this a common occurrence or has the >>> register clerk missed it off. Being Saturday of course they are >>> closed. Has anyone had this before. >>> >>> Bo Newell >>> >>> ============================== >>> Find your ancestors in the Birth, Marriage and Death Records. >>> New content added every business day. Learn more: >>> http://www.ancestry.com/s13964/rd.ashx >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> ============================== >> Search the US Census Collection. Over 140 million records added in the >> last 12 months. Largest online collection in the world. Learn more: >> http://www.ancestry.com/s13965/rd.ashx >> > > > ============================== > View and search Historical Newspapers. Read about your ancestors, find > marriage announcements and more. Learn more: > http://www.ancestry.com/s13969/rd.ashx > > >

Yes Jon of course he would have been rounded off to 5 I wonder what they have in 1851, I had no response for my lookup request. This family seemed to move between Sussex and Surrey quite often. Bob Bob ----- Original Message ----- From: "J P NIXEY" <jpnixey@btinternet.com> To: <ENG-HAMPSHIRE-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Saturday, August 20, 2005 4:05 PM Subject: Re: [ENG-HANTS] Certificates > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: <bob.newell@ntlworld.com> > To: <ENG-HAMPSHIRE-L@rootsweb.com> > Sent: Saturday, August 20, 2005 3:42 PM > Subject: Re: [ENG-HANTS] Certificates > > he is listed as Stephen in the 1841 but even then the age was wrong by 2 > years. > > > Hi Bob, don't forget the 1841 was a mish-mash for ages being rounded up or > down. When I've compared my family's aages in 1841 and 1851, it was almost > hard to believe they were the same family. > > regards, Jon > > > > -- > No virus found in this outgoing message. > Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. > Version: 7.0.338 / Virus Database: 267.10.13/78 - Release Date: 8/19/05 > > > ============================== > Search Family and Local Histories for stories about your family and the > areas they lived. Over 85 million names added in the last 12 months. > Learn more: http://www.ancestry.com/s13966/rd.ashx >

----- Original Message ----- From: <bob.newell@ntlworld.com> To: <ENG-HAMPSHIRE-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Saturday, August 20, 2005 3:42 PM Subject: Re: [ENG-HANTS] Certificates he is listed as Stephen in the 1841 but even then the age was wrong by 2 years. Hi Bob, don't forget the 1841 was a mish-mash for ages being rounded up or down. When I've compared my family's aages in 1841 and 1851, it was almost hard to believe they were the same family. regards, Jon -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.338 / Virus Database: 267.10.13/78 - Release Date: 8/19/05

Thanks the only thing that annoys me is they had four other children and they managed to name them. According to our great helper Diane he is listed as Stephen in the 1841 but even then the age was wrong by 2 years. Ho Hum Bob ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sandra J Smith" <sandra.s@ntlworld.com> To: <ENG-HAMPSHIRE-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Saturday, August 20, 2005 2:50 PM Subject: Re: [ENG-HANTS] Certificates > Bob, it was not necessary for a baby to have a name in order to be > registered. You see these frequently in the GRO indices as "Male" > Surname. On the birth certificate, there is a column for the name if > added after the registration, but I have never ever seen this used. To > most families of this era the most important event was the baptism when > the child would be given their names and they rarely considered it > necessary to inform the "authorities" > You also see them in the census too...just listed as "infant". > Unfortunately, you seem to have drawn the short straw in this case. > Regards > Sandra > > > bob.newell@ntlworld.com wrote: > >> Great Joy at finding a birth certificate for my brickwall Stephen NEWELL >> on the mat this morning only to find that there is no name under the name >> if any column. Is this a common occurrence or has the register clerk >> missed it off. Being Saturday of course they are closed. Has anyone had >> this before. >> >> Bo Newell >> >> ============================== >> Find your ancestors in the Birth, Marriage and Death Records. >> New content added every business day. Learn more: >> http://www.ancestry.com/s13964/rd.ashx >> >> >> > > > ============================== > Search the US Census Collection. Over 140 million records added in the > last 12 months. Largest online collection in the world. Learn more: > http://www.ancestry.com/s13965/rd.ashx >

Thanks to all who replied it looks like I have a certificate of a boy that confirms nothing for me. Do you think I can get my money back or another cert in lieu of this one LOL Bob Newell ----- Original Message ----- From: "barnstaple" <barnstaple@kellread.plus.com> To: <ENG-HAMPSHIRE-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Saturday, August 20, 2005 3:00 PM Subject: [ENG-HANTS] Certificates > There is a maximum 42 day period for registration of a birth, I have one > that was registered on day 41 with no name listed as a female. Luckily an > elderly Aunt had already given us the birth date. So it would appear that > although he was registered the parents hadn't named him. > > David > > > ============================== > Search the US Census Collection. Over 140 million records added in the > last 12 months. Largest online collection in the world. Learn more: > http://www.ancestry.com/s13965/rd.ashx >

Thank you Sandra for your sympathy. It had to be this man, he is really causing me grief all the way through I have problems with him. He was a Baker journeyman and never at home at census times except for once in 1861. I think I have found him with his parents in the 1841 but his age there is wrong, you don't have the 1851 Sussex or Surrey Census up your sleeve by any chance do you, to see if he is there. Kind regards Bob Newell ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sandra J Smith" <sandra.s@ntlworld.com> To: <ENG-HAMPSHIRE-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Saturday, August 20, 2005 2:50 PM Subject: Re: [ENG-HANTS] Certificates > Bob, it was not necessary for a baby to have a name in order to be > registered. You see these frequently in the GRO indices as "Male" > Surname. On the birth certificate, there is a column for the name if > added after the registration, but I have never ever seen this used. To > most families of this era the most important event was the baptism when > the child would be given their names and they rarely considered it > necessary to inform the "authorities" > You also see them in the census too...just listed as "infant". > Unfortunately, you seem to have drawn the short straw in this case. > Regards > Sandra > > > bob.newell@ntlworld.com wrote: > >> Great Joy at finding a birth certificate for my brickwall Stephen NEWELL >> on the mat this morning only to find that there is no name under the name >> if any column. Is this a common occurrence or has the register clerk >> missed it off. Being Saturday of course they are closed. Has anyone had >> this before. >> >> Bo Newell >> >> ============================== >> Find your ancestors in the Birth, Marriage and Death Records. >> New content added every business day. Learn more: >> http://www.ancestry.com/s13964/rd.ashx >> >> >> > > > ============================== > Search the US Census Collection. Over 140 million records added in the > last 12 months. Largest online collection in the world. Learn more: > http://www.ancestry.com/s13965/rd.ashx >

There is a maximum 42 day period for registration of a birth, I have one that was registered on day 41 with no name listed as a female. Luckily an elderly Aunt had already given us the birth date. So it would appear that although he was registered the parents hadn't named him. David

Hi Chris I hear ranting on the streets of Gosport! "What's this?" I hear them cry, "a suburb of Portsmouth - damned cheek!" The Borough of Gosport is quite, quite separate from its large neighbour and is a borough council within the County of Hampshire's area of interest.The City of Portsmouth is, of course a unitary authority that does not come under the aegis of the Hampshire County Council. I think that I'm in danger of being pedantic, so I'll shut up. Regards John (By the way I have got the Drummond story about as far as I'm likely to get it in the next few years and if you would like to read it then let me know! It has taken rather a long time because of business and university commitments). ----- Original Message ----- From: "Chris and Caroline" <chris@chayles.freeserve.co.uk> To: <ENG-HAMPSHIRE-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Saturday, August 20, 2005 2:31 PM Subject: Re: [ENG-HANTS] Forton, Hampshire > Forton is not a parish in its own right, this is why you will not find it > on Parish Locator. > It is part of the parish of Alverstoke. > Alverstoke comprises the town and port of Gosport and is a suburb of > Portsmouth, the hamlets of Gosport, Forton, Anglesey, Elson and Hardway. > See our website for more > http://www.southernlife.org.uk/forton.htm > Chris > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "PMR" <cliveden@acenet.net.au> > To: <ENG-HAMPSHIRE-L@rootsweb.com> > Sent: Saturday, August 20, 2005 12:10 PM > Subject: [ENG-HANTS] Forton, Hampshire > > >> Hello Listers >> >> I have seen reference on the List to the parish of Forton in >> Hampshire but can't find it on Parish Locator. Could someone tell me, >> please, how far it is from Alverstoke (I'm interested in checking out >> near-by parishes) and is it an 'ancient parish' or of more recent >> establishment? >> >> Many thanks. >> Pam >> >> cliveden@acenet.net.au >> >> Beaudesert, Queensland, Australia >> >> >> >> ============================== >> Search Family and Local Histories for stories about your family and the >> areas they lived. Over 85 million names added in the last 12 months. >> Learn more: http://www.ancestry.com/s13966/rd.ashx >> >> > > > ============================== > New! Family Tree Maker 2005. Build your tree and search for your ancestors > at the same time. Share your tree with family and friends. Learn more: > http://landing.ancestry.com/familytreemaker/2005/tour.aspx?sourceid=14599&targetid=5429 > >

Bob, it was not necessary for a baby to have a name in order to be registered. You see these frequently in the GRO indices as "Male" Surname. On the birth certificate, there is a column for the name if added after the registration, but I have never ever seen this used. To most families of this era the most important event was the baptism when the child would be given their names and they rarely considered it necessary to inform the "authorities" You also see them in the census too...just listed as "infant". Unfortunately, you seem to have drawn the short straw in this case. Regards Sandra bob.newell@ntlworld.com wrote: > Great Joy at finding a birth certificate for my brickwall Stephen > NEWELL on the mat this morning only to find that there is no name > under the name if any column. Is this a common occurrence or has the > register clerk missed it off. Being Saturday of course they are > closed. Has anyone had this before. > > Bo Newell > > ============================== > Find your ancestors in the Birth, Marriage and Death Records. > New content added every business day. Learn more: > http://www.ancestry.com/s13964/rd.ashx > > >

Wish I did Rebekah! LOL Have plenty of them to moan about, especially variations in spelling!! A few parish clerks and vicars to complain to as well!! LOL Chris ----- Original Message ----- From: "Rebekah Canada" <rebekahcanada@mchsi.com> To: <ENG-HAMPSHIRE-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Saturday, August 20, 2005 2:45 PM Subject: Re: [ENG-HANTS] Certificates > Chris, > > Do you have the address to send complaints to our ancestors about the > incomplete information they have left us to work with? If you > do then I have about twenty thousand Grans and cozens to gripe at. ;-) > > Rebekah > Iowa, US > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Chris and Caroline" <chris@chayles.freeserve.co.uk> > To: <ENG-HAMPSHIRE-L@rootsweb.com> > > Write and complain Bob, if you pay for something you expect to get it > complete. > Chris > > > > ============================== > New! Family Tree Maker 2005. Build your tree and search for your ancestors > at the same time. Share your tree with family and friends. Learn more: > http://landing.ancestry.com/familytreemaker/2005/tour.aspx?sourceid=14599&targetid=5429 > >

Forton is not a parish in its own right, this is why you will not find it on Parish Locator. It is part of the parish of Alverstoke. Alverstoke comprises the town and port of Gosport and is a suburb of Portsmouth, the hamlets of Gosport, Forton, Anglesey, Elson and Hardway. See our website for more http://www.southernlife.org.uk/forton.htm Chris ----- Original Message ----- From: "PMR" <cliveden@acenet.net.au> To: <ENG-HAMPSHIRE-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Saturday, August 20, 2005 12:10 PM Subject: [ENG-HANTS] Forton, Hampshire > Hello Listers > > I have seen reference on the List to the parish of Forton in > Hampshire but can't find it on Parish Locator. Could someone tell me, > please, how far it is from Alverstoke (I'm interested in checking out > near-by parishes) and is it an 'ancient parish' or of more recent > establishment? > > Many thanks. > Pam > > cliveden@acenet.net.au > > Beaudesert, Queensland, Australia > > > > ============================== > Search Family and Local Histories for stories about your family and the > areas they lived. Over 85 million names added in the last 12 months. > Learn more: http://www.ancestry.com/s13966/rd.ashx > >

Here you are Linda, Dorothy, Calgary, Canada *** HOW TO UNSUBSCRIBE *********************** Send a message to: ENG-HAMPSHIRE-L-request@rootsweb.com that contains (in the body of the message) the command unsubscribe -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.338 / Virus Database: 267.10.13/78 - Release Date: 8/19/2005

Write and complain Bob, if you pay for something you expect to get it complete. Chris ----- Original Message ----- From: <bob.newell@ntlworld.com> To: <ENG-HAMPSHIRE-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Saturday, August 20, 2005 11:54 AM Subject: Re: [ENG-HANTS] Certificates >I have since looked at this birth on Ancestry and found it to read NEWELL >Male. born 26 Feb 1838 Stedham. Why was he not named, he was not registered >for a week so surely they could have named him. Grrrrrrr this man is a real >pain. > > Bob > ----- Original Message ----- > From: <bob.newell@ntlworld.com> > To: <ENG-HAMPSHIRE-L@rootsweb.com> > Sent: Saturday, August 20, 2005 11:40 AM > Subject: [ENG-HANTS] Certificates > > >> Great Joy at finding a birth certificate for my brickwall Stephen NEWELL >> on the mat this morning only to find that there is no name under the name >> if any column. Is this a common occurrence or has the register clerk >> missed it off. Being Saturday of course they are closed. Has anyone had >> this before. >> >> Bo Newell >> >> ============================== >> Find your ancestors in the Birth, Marriage and Death Records. >> New content added every business day. Learn more: >> http://www.ancestry.com/s13964/rd.ashx >> > > > ============================== > Census images 1901, 1891, 1881 and 1871, plus so much more. > Ancestry.com's United Kingdom & Ireland Collection. Learn more: > http://www.ancestry.com/s13968/rd.ashx > >

I have since looked at this birth on Ancestry and found it to read NEWELL Male. born 26 Feb 1838 Stedham. Why was he not named, he was not registered for a week so surely they could have named him. Grrrrrrr this man is a real pain. Bob ----- Original Message ----- From: <bob.newell@ntlworld.com> To: <ENG-HAMPSHIRE-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Saturday, August 20, 2005 11:40 AM Subject: [ENG-HANTS] Certificates > Great Joy at finding a birth certificate for my brickwall Stephen NEWELL > on the mat this morning only to find that there is no name under the name > if any column. Is this a common occurrence or has the register clerk > missed it off. Being Saturday of course they are closed. Has anyone had > this before. > > Bo Newell > > ============================== > Find your ancestors in the Birth, Marriage and Death Records. > New content added every business day. Learn more: > http://www.ancestry.com/s13964/rd.ashx >

Great Joy at finding a birth certificate for my brickwall Stephen NEWELL on the mat this morning only to find that there is no name under the name if any column. Is this a common occurrence or has the register clerk missed it off. Being Saturday of course they are closed. Has anyone had this before. Bo Newell

Hello listers I am searching for a marriage of Benjamin READE to Sarah around 1810, first child baptised 1811 Milford. I have look at the registers for Milford and Milton without finding it. Also looking for the baptisms of two daughters of Benjamin & Sarah, Ruth born abt 1831 married Richard LONGLAND 1856 at Milford. Fanny a minor when she married George West in 1850 at Pennington. I would appreciate any help or suggestions as to where I could look. Thank you. Patricia researching: Read, Ware, Flight, Strickland, West, LONGLAND, Liebermann, Warwick in Pennington, Milford, Milton and Lymington.

Chris, Do you have the address to send complaints to our ancestors about the incomplete information they have left us to work with? If you do then I have about twenty thousand Grans and cozens to gripe at. ;-) Rebekah Iowa, US ----- Original Message ----- From: "Chris and Caroline" <chris@chayles.freeserve.co.uk> To: <ENG-HAMPSHIRE-L@rootsweb.com> Write and complain Bob, if you pay for something you expect to get it complete. Chris

1851 Census H107 1504 page 215 Wellington Road, Hackney, London Frederick PREEDY, age 29, Carpenter, born Andover, Hants Eliza PREEDY, wife, age 25, born looks like Greying? Kent (hard to read) Eliza PREEDY, dau, age 3, born Stoke Newington, Middlesex Mary PREEDY, dau, age 1, born Stoke Newington, Middlesex William MILLS, Lodger, unmarried, age 20, born Andover, Hants 1851 Census H107 1504 page 216 Wellington Road, Hackney, London John PREEDY, age 40, Builder, born Andover, Hants Elizabeth PREEDY, wife, age 38, born London Middlesex Elizabeth PREEDY, dau, age 7, born London Middlesex John PREEDY, son, age 5, born London Middlesex Charles PREEDY, son, age 1, born London Middlesex 1851 Census H107 1480 page 9 House of Commons, St Margaret Westminster, London James RIDDEL, age 27, Office Keeper to Committee Rooms House of Commons, born Portsea, Hants Margaret RIDDEL, wife, age 29, born Gravesend, Kent James RIDDEL, son, age 2, born Westminster Archibald RIDDEL, son, age 2 months, born Westminster Linda Tasmania, Australia

Hello. I am new to this list and am hoping that someone can help with an 1851 census check or index reference. I am searching for a Samuel HALE born c1815 in Essex. He married around this time, probably to a Susan, and there appear to be children born in South Stoneham... Susan Ann HALE born Dec quarter 1853, and Florence HALE born Mar quarter 1856. I am not certain if the couple were married prior to the 1851 census. If someone is able to check an 1851 census index or the census itself for a Samuel HALE born Essex c1815 I would greatly appreciate it. Sincere thanks! David Hale, Adelaide, South Australia.

Hi Sandra, there's no need to apologise, I promise you . Folks who know me know I have a weird sense of humour about my blindness, pretty sure I got it from my mum who was forever laughing and joking about her blindness. I do find it frustrating though when so much info is available on digital images, and i can't access it. I have a subscription to ancestry.co.uk and I have to pay the same as everyone else, even though approx 3/4 of it is not accessible to me. but there are always ways and means, so I gave my log in details to a close friend who gets the additional info for me that I can't get from the images. OK, maybe that isn't allowed, but what else can I do? I must say, most of the rootsweb lists I've subscribed to have been more than helpful, which has made up for things immensley. sian, if you wouldn't mind, can you please send me the link to your site again please, I have a demo version of a different text reader that may work better with your site. If there are graphical numbers etc to type in while registering, I could do with a bit of help from your team on that though. Regards to all, Jon -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.338 / Virus Database: 267.10.12/77 - Release Date: 8/18/05