I have something similar myself, in the similarity of name and a dedicated web site, but, the website owner has confirmed that though his ancestry has been taken back to 15th century, there is no link with mine with his. http://www/dun.org.uk As far as I know there was no compulsion to recording a birth, marriage or death, prior to 1855. Where is the certainty? If someone knows differently for the purpose of English records please correct me because most of my ancestry is in Scotland. For instance, in 1818 it was not necessary to have a marriage licence in England. I have a copy of a Marriage Bond for a Liverpool marriage. There's no information there as to the parent of the parties to the marriage. What I am saying is that earler records, those in the 15th century have to be viewed with caution because there is no certainty, other than having a paper document confirming the record that someone was married in 14 [something or other] The problem is that people who are pursing genealogy are grabbing at names believing they are theirs, and even though they might be the same, it may not be that they are related. Of course, if you have Royal blood, then that's a different story. d;^) Janet. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Paul Chapman" <paul.chapman286@ntlworld.com> > It is true that I have not checked it all out myself but there is little > doubt about the authenticity. It really helps to have an unusual name. I > started with my great grandmother's death certificate - all that I knew was > that her name was Margaret Chapman and she died in 1932. However, I was able > to track her back through the census returns to 1881 when she had her mother > living with her - by the name of Hannah Wildgoose, which had to be her > maiden name. The cousins I contacted put me on to a website devoted entirely > to that family (they all come from Derbyshire) check it out for yourself on > :http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~willgooseweb/. > > Best of luck with your search > > Paul >

Even ROYAL fathers only know that the mother SAYS he is the father - of course, today we have DNA, but I think most ROYALS would shrink from DNA tests Marged The problem is that people who are pursing genealogy are grabbing at names believing they are theirs, and even though they might be the same, it may not be that they are related. Of course, if you have Royal blood, then that's a different story. d;^) Janet.

As I understand it registration of births marriages and deaths became compulsory in 1837 in England, I do not know about Scotland. However my own research indicates that people were pretty careless about it even as late as the 1890s. Paul -----Original Message----- From: Janet [mailto:wightway@tiscali.co.uk] Sent: 27 March 2006 00:54 To: ENG-MERSEYSIDE-L@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [ENG-MERSEY] 1901 and Genes Reunited I have something similar myself, in the similarity of name and a dedicated web site, but, the website owner has confirmed that though his ancestry has been taken back to 15th century, there is no link with mine with his. http://www/dun.org.uk As far as I know there was no compulsion to recording a birth, marriage or death, prior to 1855. Where is the certainty? If someone knows differently for the purpose of English records please correct me because most of my ancestry is in Scotland. For instance, in 1818 it was not necessary to have a marriage licence in England. I have a copy of a Marriage Bond for a Liverpool marriage. There's no information there as to the parent of the parties to the marriage. What I am saying is that earler records, those in the 15th century have to be viewed with caution because there is no certainty, other than having a paper document confirming the record that someone was married in 14 [something or other] The problem is that people who are pursing genealogy are grabbing at names believing they are theirs, and even though they might be the same, it may not be that they are related. Of course, if you have Royal blood, then that's a different story. d;^) Janet. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Paul Chapman" <paul.chapman286@ntlworld.com> > It is true that I have not checked it all out myself but there is > little doubt about the authenticity. It really helps to have an > unusual name. I started with my great grandmother's death certificate > - all that I knew was that her name was Margaret Chapman and she died > in 1932. However, I was able to track her back through the census > returns to 1881 when she had her mother living with her - by the name > of Hannah Wildgoose, which had to be her maiden name. The cousins I > contacted put me on to a website devoted entirely to that family (they > all come from Derbyshire) check it out for yourself on > :http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~willgooseweb/. > > Best of luck with your search > > Paul > ==== ENG-MERSEYSIDE Mailing List ==== You can search or browse the archives of this list and also change membership - move from digest to normal mail mode, or vice versa and sub and unsub at this link http://lists.rootsweb.com/index/intl/ENG/ENG-MERSEYSIDE.html ============================== 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