Hi Jon, The digital images on the National Archives are actual images , not transcriptions. The fact that they are digital images shouldnt deter you though, as the image, once downloaded, can be blown up to a huge size. I import images in to Paint Shop Pro and just keep enlarging until I can read. (No I am not blind, but age has certainly taken its toll on my eyesight.) As far as the ship's name is concerned, have you considered emailing Portsmouth Record Office and asking if they would check the original entry for you? I am sure, if you explained the situation, they might do a one-off check. The microfiche, which Knightroot uses are notoriously difficult to read at times, so the original may well be easier for someone to read. Regards Sandra J P NIXEY wrote: >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Sandra J Smith" <sandra.s@ntlworld.com> >To: <ENG-HAMPSHIRE-L@rootsweb.com> >Sent: Friday, August 19, 2005 7:44 AM >Subject: Re: [ENG-HANTS] Re: [Ham] ] A Question - divorce / Widowed > >You said: > >"What a complication!!" > >Hi Sandra, you're telling me!! lol > > >"You put ?? as his ship - does this mean you dont know > > >>the name or you cant read it in the register?" >> >> > >Tony and Linda Knight very kindly sent me the entry for their marriage from >the parish records in May 1825, and they obviously couldn't read which >vessel he was with at that time. Being totally blind, I don't stand an >earthly's in seeing it any better? lol > > >"The new database on the national archives site (Register of Seamen's >Services) is far from complete, but there is an entry for a George Parsons >enlisting in 1824." > > >That sounds a good possiblity, I must say. Are these records digital images >or transcriptions? Transcriptions are within reach of my text reader, sadly >digital images aren't. > > >"You say you havent been able to trace the marriage of Elizabeth Parsons or >Elizabeth Childs to George Aubrey/Allberry. Have you checked the GRO >indexes rather than just FreeBMD which is far from complete?" > > >I haven't personally checked myself due to the digital image problem again, >but a friend in Southampton did search 1837online for me, but there was no >index even remotely close to being them. I am keeping my "eyes" open on Free >BMD though, just in case. > > >"because of the 7 year rule the marriage may well have taken place a lot >later than you thought. Of course, it is possible that they never married - >just set up home together." > >I must say the latter of these two suggestions seems far more likely at the >moment? On James and Henry's birth certificates though, Elizabeth's details >are clearly written down as Elizabeth Aldbury (or Aubery) late Parsons >formerly childs. That's almost like a legal declaration that she is married >to George, but, as you know, nothing is apparent to prove that. > > >"The only conclusion you can draw from the marriage cert is that the father >is dead if recorded as deceased" > > >Yes, so from henry's marriage cert, I at least know that the very latest >George was alive was 1871. However, with Elizabeth changing her surname to >Williams in 1861 for whichever reason, out of choice or another marriage, >I'm pretty certain I'm looking prior to 1861, and possibly after Henry's >baptism in 1858. > > >"> I'd be very interested to know if you ever sort this one out. It is >possibly one of the most complicated scenarios I have heard of in 40 years >of genealogical research!!" > > >Believe me Sandra, when or if this lot gets sorted, the whole wide world >will know! lol >thanks for your reply and very helpful suggestions, it's all very much >appreciated! > >Kindest regards, Jon > > > > >