Hi, Nivard,-snip- > You will find people in hospitals, workhouses and the like variously > described as Inmates, patients or whatever -snip- The term "inmate" was used for people in Poorhouses but it didn't have the same connotation as today's prison inmates.  It wasn't a pejorative expression, although being in a poorhouse was considered a pretty bad experience.      Lou

Lou Can't find a June but did find Jane Olive Burdett on 1911 census. Age 46 Head teacher elementary school county council born Louth living with her Brother and his family at Leicester House Eastgate Louth. Think this is her as no June Burdett on any census. Bev -----Original Message----- From: eng-lincsgen-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:eng-lincsgen-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Louis Mills Sent: 06 May 2012 17:29 To: Eng-lincsgen-L@rootsweb.com Subject: [LIN] June BURDETT in 1912 Hi, Missing Lincs,     I have a Miss June BURDETT who is the mistress at the Infants' School in Louth in 1912.  Where does she hail from?         Lou ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to ENG-LINCSGEN-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

hello everyone, I have been trying for a very long time to find out the birth details of my grgrgrandfather SAMUEL ATKINSON, and have reached the point of not knowing where to turn next. The information I have is as follows:- 1. IGI record shows he married Lucy Charles 23 July 1821 St Martin, Lincoln, and the Bishops Transcripts state they are batchelor and spinster of the parish (no other details). Also the marriage is shown in Genuki - extract from register of St Martin. 2. 1841 census for Kingston upon Hull shows the family: Samuel and Lucy and 7 children all born as Y (under whether born in same county ie Yorkshire). 3. 1851 census for Gibralter Hill, St Michael, Lincoln shows Samuel aged 52 born Hull, Yorks, Lucy born Lincoln, and 3 children born different places in Lincolnshire and 1 in Hull, Yorks. 4. The IGI records show the other children were born in other parts of Lincs and also 2 in Beverley, Yorks. 5. Samuel died 1 Sept 1851 at Gibralter Hill, Lincoln aged 53, and buried 5 Sept 1851 St Michael on the Mount, Lincoln. Taking the 1851 census and D/Cert ages as being correct then his birth falls during April to Aug 1798. The IGI has no Samuel birth or christening for Hull. I have looked at the surrounding area for Hull and have selected 5 IGI possibles for Patrington, Settrington, Pontefract, Birstall, and Bradford. Also I considered the continuation of family christian names. The nearest possible is Birstall: christening 9 Sep 1798 parents Samuel and Mary. (His first daughter was Mary). Next is Patrington (closest to Hull): christening 3 Mar 1800 parents Matthew and Mary. Any help or advice would be greatly appreciated. Peter Newcastle upon tyne

The link I gave you for the Louth baptism register seems not to take you there. On the page it does take you to, type "Louth St James Par/1" into the long grey box at the top and click on "Search" in the red box beside the grey one. Scroll down to the bottom and go to page 7 (you may have to click on "next" to find page 7). The second register on this page is the baptisms for Louth St James 1813-1827. Click on the image on the right. If you increase your browser view to 200 you will be able to read the image better. Hope this is of use. Anne Anne Cole, President, Lincolnshire Family History Society Duncalf(e)/Duncuff/Duncuft One-name Study GOONS member 513 http://www.one-name.org/profiles/duncalf.html Lincolnshire Post 1837 Marriage Index http://mi.lincolnshiremarriages.org.uk/ Lincolnshire Family History Society http://www.lincolnshirefhs.org.uk

Firstly, You can search the Louth St James Baptism Register yourself here http://www.lincstothepast.com/Records/RecordDisplayTranscript.aspx?oid=54640 8&iid=436529 for free. I have looked through 1823 but haven't found his baptism in that year. You should search two or three years before the date you expect to find him and for several years afterwards. His age given in the census may be wrong, or he may not have been baptised as a baby. He may have given Louth as his birthplace, but have actually been born in one of the small villages near Louth. His parents may have moved to Louth when he was a baby, and he thought he was born in Louth as he had lived there as long as he could remember. There are many possibilities. Secondly, as has already been said, he is in the Woolwich Workhouse, not a prison. He is not behind bars. As he is old, he was probably not able to take care of himself and needed medical help. The Workhouse always had its own Medical Officer and nurses. They had infirmary wards where the sick and old people were looked after. It seems likely that he would have had no family (wife, children) to help him. Thirdly, there are Genealogical Societies in New Zealand where you will be able to get advice from people who have experience of researching their families in England. See here http://www.ffhs.org.uk/members2/overseas/newzealand.php You also need to familiarise yourself with the places in, and the records that are available for, Lincolnshire - see here http://www.genuki.org.uk/big/eng/LIN/ Fourthly, never assume anything until you have proved it - you must keep an open mind until you have found documentary proof that a particular event has taken place. The census is not sufficient to assume either age or birthplace. Good luck! Anne Anne Cole, President, Lincolnshire Family History Society Duncalf(e)/Duncuff/Duncuft One-name Study GOONS member 513 http://www.one-name.org/profiles/duncalf.html Lincolnshire Post 1837 Marriage Index http://mi.lincolnshiremarriages.org.uk/ Lincolnshire Family History Society http://www.lincolnshirefhs.org.uk [Firstly the George MARKHAM who was born circa 1824 Louth in the 1901 census is not in prison but in the Woolwich Union (ie the workhouse).]:

The information given on the 1841 is very little compared with later census.  Place of abode,Name,  Age (as told before rounded) " For persons aged 15 yrs and upwards, write the lowest of the term of 5 yrs within which the age is" Age is put in male or female columm. Occupation and, as told before whether born in this county or not No relationships are stated, just occupants of each household. ie if a woman is shown after a man with the same surname it does not necessarily mean she is his wife could be sister unmarried or sister in law) and may be children hers not his. The information we see is all we get. The enumerators schedule books. The original house hold schedules were not kept Chookie is not a word I've come across (apart from chucky egg) You assume Inmate means behind bars. Perhaps an English Dictionary would also help in your research, like I would check out chookie you could look up inmate and see it refers to an occupant of hospital, prison, institution, etc.  GOLDEN RULE of Family History Always check original sources and NEVER NEVER ASSUME always seek proof   ________________________________ From: Bart Simon <thewanderer@iburst.co.za> To: RW UK <MARKHAM-UK@rootsweb.com>; RW ENG-LINCS <ENG-LINCSGEN@rootsweb.com> Sent: Sunday, 13 May 2012, 0:31 Subject: [LIN] Rebecca England in Census 1841: Aged 20 years of Louth lincs [!!!] MGC: OK, let us try to keep this simple, and if we don't have the answer, keep the question. Can we get the full text or info from the record from the Census 1841 where it gives one Rebecca England to be 20 years old in Louth, and where we can see who else is there, parents etc. Who is in the household and so on ?. This is a stopping point .... .... .... - S.K.M. - [!!!] =================================== ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to ENG-LINCSGEN-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

If you look at the website Woolwich workhouse they have transcribed the 1881 census, you will see there are many babies and children listed as inmates so what crime has a 5 month old committed? http://www.workhouses.org.uk/Woolwich/Woolwich1881.shtml#Inmates -----Original Message----- From: Bart Simon Sent: Sunday, May 13, 2012 12:09 AM To: eng-lincsgen@rootsweb.com ; RW UK Subject: Re: [LIN] George Markham b:1823 Louth Lincs [!!!] It tells me he is aged 77yrs INMATE. I would understand that to mean your behind em bars ?. He's in chookie.

MGC: OK, let us try to keep this simple, and if we don't have the answer, keep the question. Can we get the full text or info from the record from the Census 1841 where it gives one Rebecca England to be 20 years old in Louth, and where we can see who else is there, parents etc. Who is in the household and so on ?. This is a stopping point .... .... .... - S.K.M. - [!!!] ===================================

MGC: [Firstly the George MARKHAM who was born circa 1824 Louth in the 1901 census is not in prison but in the Woolwich Union (ie the workhouse).]: === Census 1901: 31 Mar 1901, Plumstead, London, Middlesex, England. George Markham b: 1824 Louth, Lincolnshire. age: 77, Inmate. *********************** birthplace: Louth, Lincolnshire. record type: Institution. registration district: Woolwich. sub-district: Plumstead East. ecclesiastical parish: St. Nicholas. civil parish: Plumstead. county: London, Middlesex. === It tells me he is aged 77yrs INMATE. I would understand that to mean your behind em bars ?. He's in chookie. [He appears in 1891 as a widower]: Well the GM:1823's wife Rebecca (England) Markham d:1891. So that would be correct. [Given his occupation in both census as Army Accouterment maker, it seems quite possible he was out of the Country when the census was taken in some years or just simply missed as he was traveling around.]: I have written to say you seem to be trying to connect to another separate person. In the 1881 Census this 'other' George Markham is 50 years old [1881-50=1831]. Wrong person !!!. There are several George Markhams in Louth, the one we want, he himself tells us in Census 1901 he is aged 77 years, an inmate at Woolwich, and that he is b. in Louth. = Census 1881: Caroline E. GREENWOOD Head W Female 40 Reading George GREENWOOD Son U Male 19 London, London, Middlesex, England Metal Trade Clerk George MARKHAM Boarder W Male 50 Louth, Lincoln, England Army & Navy Accoutrement Mkr THIS IS NOT YOUR GM:1823 !!!. = [Rebekah (note spelling) MARKHAM aged 70 is in Louth in 1891]: I suspect she is b:1821 (!!!). [bur:11-04-1891] ?. I stand to one correct: She is in the 1891 Census !. She dies 6 days after the census. Three of the four dates shows she is b:1821. Their son is b:1850, and after that her husband is gone ???. = 1841: England Rebecca 1821 Lincolnshire Louth, Louth 1851: ? 1861: Markham Rebecca 1821 Middle Rasen Louth, Louth 1871: Markham Rebecca 1821 Lincolnshire Louth, Louth 1881: Markham Rebecca 1823 Middle Rasen Louth, Louth 1891: Markham Rebekah 1821 Middle Rasen Louth, Louth = [No calculation was made in the census, ages were as given and no checks were made for accuracy, they could often easily vary by a year or in some cases many more, so you can't use the age as given in the census as any great yardstick.]: When this George Markham tells you he is an inmate aged 77 years old in 1901 and b. in Louth, why should I doubt it ?. It runs with the fact so far you can't find him ever back in Louth with his wife there ?. [I would suggest that either she guessed at George MARKHAMs age or she entered 56 and the enumerator misread it as 50, whatever the reason the man in 1881, 1891 & in the workhouse in 1901 are I would say all the same man.]: Like I said, drop it. [In 1841 the George MARKHAM in Louth is a Saddlers apprentice, very much in line with an Army accouterment maker.]: Like I said, you keep on putting two George Markhams born years apart together. The GM:1823 you want, was a Saddler in youth. You are crossing two different persons so far. Drop the other GM and look for GM:1823 in Louth. [The fact he gives widower in 1881 and 1891 before her death, suggests they were separated, divorce was not something many except the rich would even contemplate.]: GM:1823 would only have been a widower AFTER the 1891 Census !!!. The REAL QUESTION here is: Where is the b. record for George Markham b:1823 in Louth Lincs. ?. That's the question. That's the Mystery. Even from Doug's post, it shows Rebecca is at home on her own doing dress making. He ain't there. And, were there any other known children apart from T.E. Markham ?. I mean, even if he did wander, how come there ain't any more known kids after 1850 ?. Was this a Life Sentence ?. Seems like it. So where is his b. record ?. Knowing when he went to chookie would help a lot. You have to answer the question: Who is George Markham b:1823 in Louth Lincs., where is his b. record in Louth ?. AFTERNOTE: The Frances Curtis does 'seem' to be the mother of GM:1823 of Louth, or the given mother at least. - S.K.M. - [!!!] =======================

I have been reading an article about the workhouse. This was about a book that has been written. The article states that a lot of people were on parish relief. If they were fit to work they were expected to. If they wouldn't work they would no longer get parish relief and instead placed in the workhouse. It was a way to persuade people to come off parish relief (or state benefits in modern day jargon). Those listed as an inmate in the workhouse would be because they have no means of support. This could be why George Markham is an inmate in the workhouse. The book is called 'I'm a pauper get me out of here' by Tony Cherry and is available from Thornbury and District Museum (www.thornburymuseum.org.uk) Victor On 13/05/2012 12:09 AM, Bart Simon wrote: > MGC: > > [Firstly the George MARKHAM who was born circa 1824 Louth in the 1901 census > is not in prison but in the Woolwich Union (ie the workhouse).]: > === > Census 1901: 31 Mar 1901, Plumstead, London, Middlesex, England. > George Markham b: 1824 Louth, Lincolnshire. > age: 77, Inmate. *********************** > birthplace: Louth, Lincolnshire. > record type: Institution. > registration district: Woolwich. > sub-district: Plumstead East. > ecclesiastical parish: St. Nicholas. > civil parish: Plumstead. > county: London, Middlesex. > === > It tells me he is aged 77yrs INMATE. I would understand that to mean your > behind em bars ?. He's in chookie. > > [He appears in 1891 as a widower]: Well the GM:1823's wife Rebecca (England) > Markham d:1891. So that would be correct. > > [Given his occupation in both census as Army Accouterment maker, it seems > quite possible he was out of the Country when the census was taken in some > years or just simply missed as he was traveling around.]: I have written to > say you seem to be trying to connect to another separate person. In the 1881 > Census this 'other' George Markham is 50 years old [1881-50=1831]. Wrong > person !!!. There are several George Markhams in Louth, the one we want, he > himself tells us in Census 1901 he is aged 77 years, an inmate at Woolwich, > and that he is b. in Louth. > = > Census 1881: > Caroline E. GREENWOOD Head W Female 40 Reading > George GREENWOOD Son U Male 19 > London, London, Middlesex, England Metal Trade Clerk > George MARKHAM Boarder W Male 50 Louth, > Lincoln, England Army& Navy Accoutrement Mkr > THIS IS NOT YOUR GM:1823 !!!. > = > [Rebekah (note spelling) MARKHAM aged 70 is in Louth in 1891]: I suspect she > is b:1821 (!!!). [bur:11-04-1891] ?. I stand to one correct: She is in the > 1891 Census !. She dies 6 days after the census. Three of the four dates > shows she is b:1821. Their son is b:1850, and after that her husband is gone > ???. > = > 1841: England Rebecca 1821 Lincolnshire Louth, Louth > 1851: ? > 1861: Markham Rebecca 1821 Middle Rasen Louth, Louth > 1871: Markham Rebecca 1821 Lincolnshire Louth, Louth > 1881: Markham Rebecca 1823 Middle Rasen Louth, Louth > 1891: Markham Rebekah 1821 Middle Rasen Louth, Louth > = > [No calculation was made in the census, ages were as given and no checks > were made for accuracy, they could often easily vary by a year or in some > cases many more, so you can't use the age as given in the census as any > great yardstick.]: When this George Markham tells you he is an inmate aged > 77 years old in 1901 and b. in Louth, why should I doubt it ?. It runs with > the fact so far you can't find him ever back in Louth with his wife there ?. > > [I would suggest that either she guessed at George MARKHAMs age or she > entered 56 and the enumerator misread it as 50, whatever the reason the man > in 1881, 1891& in the workhouse in 1901 are I would say all the same man.]: > Like I said, drop it. > > [In 1841 the George MARKHAM in Louth is a Saddlers apprentice, very much in > line with an Army accouterment maker.]: Like I said, you keep on putting two > George Markhams born years apart together. The GM:1823 you want, was a > Saddler in youth. You are crossing two different persons so far. Drop the > other GM and look for GM:1823 in Louth. > > [The fact he gives widower in 1881 and 1891 before her death, suggests they > were separated, divorce was not something many except the rich would even > contemplate.]: GM:1823 would only have been a widower AFTER the 1891 Census > !!!. > > The REAL QUESTION here is: Where is the b. record for George Markham b:1823 > in Louth Lincs. ?. That's the question. That's the Mystery. Even from Doug's > post, it shows Rebecca is at home on her own doing dress making. He ain't > there. And, were there any other known children apart from T.E. Markham ?. I > mean, even if he did wander, how come there ain't any more known kids after > 1850 ?. Was this a Life Sentence ?. Seems like it. So where is his b. record > ?. Knowing when he went to chookie would help a lot. You have to answer the > question: Who is George Markham b:1823 in Louth Lincs., where is his b. > record in Louth ?. > > AFTERNOTE: The Frances Curtis does 'seem' to be the mother of GM:1823 of > Louth, or the given mother at least. > > - S.K.M. - [!!!] > ======================= > > > > > > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to MARKHAM-UK-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

MGC: George Markham m:1849 Rebecca England. His wedding certificate was also signed by one Thomas Hewson (!). Where is he for the inbetween Census ?. In 1901 he seems to be in chookie. On 31-03-1901 he says he is 77yrs and b:1824(?) in Louth Lincs. His brother John Markham b:25-11-1824 Louth Lincs., so GM must have been 77yrs turning 78 yrs, i.e. GM will be b:April to Dec 1823 in LOUTH ?. The person who wrote the record must have written a calculation: 1901-77=1824. But GM was 77yrs old in March 1901, he should be turning 78yrs later on in that year ? [1901-78=1823]. I also notice Rebecca Markham GM's wife: 1841: England Rebecca 1821 Lincolnshire Louth, Louth 1851: ? 1861: Markham Rebecca 1821 Middle Rasen Louth, Louth 1871: Markham Rebecca 1821 Lincolnshire Louth, Louth 1881: Markham Rebecca 1823 Middle Rasen Louth, Louth 1891: RM d. 6 days after census. Too sick to participate. Not recorded. 1841: Markham George 1826 Lincolnshire Louth, Louth (?) 1901: Markham George 1824 Louth Woolwich, London (Inmate) Whilst she seems to be recorded in Louth, GM is not there, or is he ?. Is GM in jail already ?. Quite funny, GM's ''Head of Household'' in 1901 is the Chief of the Prison Services. His son Thomas England Markham b:1850 Louth. After this b:1850, where is GM until 1901 ?. I see RM is seemingly out of Louth in 1851 during census time, is it possible GM went to jail already by 1851 until he died 1902 probably in jail Woolwich London ?. Did RM just live in Louth and did not divorce or remarry ?. Is Thomas England Markham an only child, seems like it ?. If GM was b:1824, it would have to be Jan 1824. http://www.familysearch.org/eng/search/Census/household_record.asp?HOUSEHOLD_CODE=1881BR_651098&HOUSEHOLD_SUB=1&frompage=99 But .... .... .... The problem seems to be here is that George Markham's wife as you have it, Rebecca (England) Markham, you have her bur:11-04-1891 in Louth. This George Markham (Saddler) who is in chookie 1901-77=1824. But the George Markham (Army & Navy Accoutrement Mkr) (widower) who is boarder with Caroline E. Greenwood (Widow) in Lambeth, is Census 1881-50=1831, b:1831 in Louth Lincs. These must be two separate GM's ?. Well, 1826+5yrs=1831 I guess. To make this post simple, leave out for now the George Markham (Army & Navy Accoutrement Mkr), and take the rest as I gave it. Once again, did any of the birth records or other give any indication as to the mother's name for your GM who m. Rebecca England ?. [Census: 1881, Only Rebecca that may be right recorded as married but the head and living alone as a dressmaker.]: Maybe she just stayed at home ?. - S.K.M. - [!!!] =============================

Hi again Firstly the George MARKHAM who was born circa 1824 Louth in the 1901 census is not in prison but in the Woolwich Union (ie the workhouse) He appears in 1891 as a widower Given his occupation in both census as Army Accouterment maker, it seems quite possible he was out of the Country when the census was taken in some years or just simply missed as he was traveling around Rebekah (note spelling) MARKHAM aged 70 is in Louth in 1891 No calculation was made in the census, ages were as given and no checks were made for accuracy, they could often easily vary by a year or in some cases many more, so you can't use the age as given in the census as any great yardstick The George MARKHAM aged 50 in 1881 is of the same occupation in 1891 & 1901 and I think the chances of there being two men of the same birthplace and occupation as very slim indeed The census was taken by the householder filling in a schedule, this was collected by the enumerator and transcribed onto the pages we see today, I would suggest that either she guessed at George MARKHAMs age or she entered 56 and the enumerator misread it as 50, whatever the reason the man in 1881, 1891 & in the workhouse in 1901 are I would say all the same man In 1841 the George MARKHAM in Louth is a Saddlers apprentice, very much in line with an Army accouterment maker The fact he gives widower in 1881 and 1891 before her death, suggests they were separated, divorce was not something many except the rich would even contemplate Nivard Ovington in Cornwall (UK) > MGC: > > George Markham m:1849 Rebecca England. His wedding certificate was also > signed by one Thomas Hewson (!). Where is he for the inbetween Census ?. In > 1901 he seems to be in chookie. On 31-03-1901 he says he is 77yrs and > b:1824(?) in Louth Lincs. His brother John Markham b:25-11-1824 Louth > Lincs., so GM must have been 77yrs turning 78 yrs, i.e. GM will be b:April > to Dec 1823 in LOUTH ?. The person who wrote the record must have written a > calculation: 1901-77=1824. But GM was 77yrs old in March 1901, he should be > turning 78yrs later on in that year ? [1901-78=1823]. I also notice Rebecca > Markham GM's wife:

In Digest Mode all letters come as attachments. Bob.

If I remember my ex-husband's home town correctly, there used (1960's) to be a village store in North Somercotes called Staintons. Connected? Happy hunting!   Diana Robinson (nee Gardner) Now in Rochester, NY, USA -----Original Message----- From: Bart Simon [mailto:thewanderer@iburst.co.za] Sent: Saturday, May 12, 2012 7:05 AM To: RW UK; RW ENG-LINCS Subject: [LIN] Notes [!!!] MGC: === name: Herbert S. Markham buried: Connecticut, United States b: 1855 (England?), d: 1873. I would like to know more of him !. === Any Markham with first/second names of: 'Stainton/Stanton/Stenton' are probably all mine. To some degree, the same for 'Herbert'. = Herbert Markham m: 09-06-1928 Benton, Tennessee, USA, Emma England. = [Notes]: Thomas England Markham: This is good, it shows how Markham fits into HEWSON + DAWSON: http://www.wparkinson.com/pdf/Hewson.pdf The Edwin B. Markham (son), I guess would be Edwin B. (Benjamin/Bennett?) Markham ?. === http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/MARKHAM-UK/2003-05/1053815500 GEORGE MARKHAM was *born Abt. 1823 in Walesby, Lincs. He married REBECCA ENGLAND February 26, 1849 in Holy Trinity, Kingston Upon Hull, daughter of JOHN ENGLAND. More About GEORGE MARKHAM: * Census: 1851, No trace Louth and area. * MAY NOT CONNECT: Only George traced to date who fits the age and location. Does not explain marriage in Hull. Occupation: 1850, Son's birth certificate - saddler. === I am looking at the (?) mark in your tree here. Could you tell me how you arrive at (*) b:Abt. 1823 in Walesby Lincs. ?. Do you have any indication for his age at death for George ?. I think your climbing the wrong tree maybe ?. [!!!] There is one George Markham in Census 1841 aged 15 years in Louth, which makes him b:1826. [!!!]. My Markhams also connect to Kingston upon Hull etc. Can we just 'try' to look for a George Markham b:1823/26 in Louth ?. I bet this family is Methodist ?. GM would be 23yrs when m:1849. Can we get the info for this GM b:1826 census 'household', the 'household' can tell us more (parents etc.). Census 1841 Rebecca England: This RE is 20yrs in 1841 in Louth. My Complete Guess: Is your George Markham not b. in Louth ???. All the other children are b. in Louth. We seem to have a GM b. in Louth that fits the bill ?. I need more info. You might be going into the wrong immediate upper tree ?. I am 'just wondering' if your [John Markham, Coachman] (b:1803) is not b:1801 or before 1803 ?. There are problems here. I would look heavily into the whole 'vicinity' of Lee Street. Your T.E. Markham MUST BE (?) related to this whole MARKHAM-HEWSON-DAWSON-SURFLEET-FIFE ETC. set of families !!!. Several of these other surnames all go Kingston - Hull etc. Need more time. Thomas Markham m:1825 Frances 'Fanny' Surfleet. Elizabeth Markham m:1842 Richard Surfleet. George Markham m:1848 Elizabeth Fife. - S.K.M. - [!!!] =======================

Me too, still seems stuck on understanding given age on 1841 ________________________________ From: Hank & Joan Van Daalen <jvandaal@sympatico.ca> To: eng-lincsgen@rootsweb.com Sent: Saturday, 12 May 2012, 12:44 Subject: Re: [LIN] Notes [!!!] Yes, I gave up trying to figure it out.  Joan ----- Original Message ----- From: "Nivard Ovington" <ovington1@sky.com> To: "Bart Simon" <thewanderer@iburst.co.za>; <eng-lincsgen@rootsweb.com> Sent: Saturday, May 12, 2012 7:10 AM Subject: Re: [LIN] Notes [!!!] > Hi Bart > > It may help to explain what it is you seek > > Your post does not make easy reading to the casual observer > > Just a thought :-) > > Nivard Ovington in Cornwall (UK) > > PS a more attractive subject line may also help your cause > > > > >> MGC: >> === >> name: Herbert S. Markham >> buried: Connecticut, United States >> b: 1855 (England?), d: 1873. >> I would like to know more of him !. > > ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to ENG-LINCSGEN-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

MGC: === name: Herbert S. Markham buried: Connecticut, United States b: 1855 (England?), d: 1873. I would like to know more of him !. === Any Markham with first/second names of: 'Stainton/Stanton/Stenton' are probably all mine. To some degree, the same for 'Herbert'. = Herbert Markham m: 09-06-1928 Benton, Tennessee, USA, Emma England. = [Notes]: Thomas England Markham: This is good, it shows how Markham fits into HEWSON + DAWSON: http://www.wparkinson.com/pdf/Hewson.pdf The Edwin B. Markham (son), I guess would be Edwin B. (Benjamin/Bennett?) Markham ?. === http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/MARKHAM-UK/2003-05/1053815500 GEORGE MARKHAM was *born Abt. 1823 in Walesby, Lincs. He married REBECCA ENGLAND February 26, 1849 in Holy Trinity, Kingston Upon Hull, daughter of JOHN ENGLAND. More About GEORGE MARKHAM: * Census: 1851, No trace Louth and area. * MAY NOT CONNECT: Only George traced to date who fits the age and location. Does not explain marriage in Hull. Occupation: 1850, Son's birth certificate - saddler. === I am looking at the (?) mark in your tree here. Could you tell me how you arrive at (*) b:Abt. 1823 in Walesby Lincs. ?. Do you have any indication for his age at death for George ?. I think your climbing the wrong tree maybe ?. [!!!] There is one George Markham in Census 1841 aged 15 years in Louth, which makes him b:1826. [!!!]. My Markhams also connect to Kingston upon Hull etc. Can we just 'try' to look for a George Markham b:1823/26 in Louth ?. I bet this family is Methodist ?. GM would be 23yrs when m:1849. Can we get the info for this GM b:1826 census 'household', the 'household' can tell us more (parents etc.). Census 1841 Rebecca England: This RE is 20yrs in 1841 in Louth. My Complete Guess: Is your George Markham not b. in Louth ???. All the other children are b. in Louth. We seem to have a GM b. in Louth that fits the bill ?. I need more info. You might be going into the wrong immediate upper tree ?. I am 'just wondering' if your [John Markham, Coachman] (b:1803) is not b:1801 or before 1803 ?. There are problems here. I would look heavily into the whole 'vicinity' of Lee Street. Your T.E. Markham MUST BE (?) related to this whole MARKHAM-HEWSON-DAWSON-SURFLEET-FIFE ETC. set of families !!!. Several of these other surnames all go Kingston - Hull etc. Need more time. Thomas Markham m:1825 Frances 'Fanny' Surfleet. Elizabeth Markham m:1842 Richard Surfleet. George Markham m:1848 Elizabeth Fife. - S.K.M. - [!!!] =======================

Hi Bart It may help to explain what it is you seek Your post does not make easy reading to the casual observer Just a thought :-) Nivard Ovington in Cornwall (UK) PS a more attractive subject line may also help your cause > MGC: > === > name: Herbert S. Markham > buried: Connecticut, United States > b: 1855 (England?), d: 1873. > I would like to know more of him !.

Let's take this topic off-list please.     Lou (list admin.) > However, if one is subscribed to the digest version, there are > always attachments. -snip-

However, if one is subscribed to the digest version, there are always attachments. Diana ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ _____________________________________________ From: eng-lincsgen-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:eng-lincsgen-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of eng-lincsgen-request@rootsweb.com Sent: Saturday, May 12, 2012 3:00 AM To: eng-lincsgen@rootsweb.com Subject: ENG-LINCSGEN Digest, Vol 7, Issue 219 << File: Today's Topics (4 messages).txt >> << Message: [LIN] attachments? (492 bytes) >> << Message: Re: [LIN] attachments? (1.01 KB) >> << Message: Re: [LIN] attachments? (960 bytes) >> << Message: Re: [LIN] attachments? (1.51 KB) >> << File: Digest Footer.txt >>

Most often, the "accidental" attachments come because something is sent in Rich Text or HTML format and the person is opening it in Plain Text. The computer or system does not know what to do with the formatting information that Plain Text does not use, and saves it in a .dat file as an attachment, just in case anyone wants it later. However, as far as I know Rootsweb only accepts Plain Text messages, so that should not be happening. Something seems wrong. Happy hunting!   Diana Robinson (nee Gardner) Now in Rochester, NY, USA -----Original Message----- From: Louis Mills [mailto:louis_mills@att.net] Sent: Friday, May 11, 2012 12:03 PM To: eng-lincsgen@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [LIN] attachments? It's easy for me to reassure you, Margaret, that Rootsweb doesn't send out e-mail with attachments, but Rootsweb isn't the only character in this drama.  Your gmail software also has to "process" the e-mail and make it readable.  And it is possible that it treats some of message pieces as attachments.  Usually these are harmless. My suggestion is to ignore them.  On any e-mail.  If you get an e-mail with an attachment from someone you know, ask them first if they meant to send you an attachment.  It's too easy for some kook to "spoof" an e-mail address and send you malicious software.  So double check before opening anything.     Lou ________________________________ From: Margaret Gardiner <maggie.sunshine@blueyonder.co.uk> To: eng-lincsgen@rootsweb.com Sent: Friday, May 11, 2012 12:24 AM Subject: [LIN] attachments? I'm rather puzzled by the latest digest message from this list. It has arrived with two attachments, entitled 'no name'. I'm a little reluctant (well, very, actually) to open them. Has anyone else received the same unusually format? Is this a glitch in the system? Maggie ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to ENG-LINCSGEN-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message