Just seen these while browsing Ebay!! I thought that Bridgenorth researchers may be interested. SELECTION OF VICTORIAN DOCUMENTS FOR BRIDGNORTH Item No: 180026423748 Four hand written victorian documents relating to Bridgenorth . They are bills are all issued by Messrs Nichols & Taylor Of Bridgnorth , Shropshire One bill is dated 14th august 1893 to a Mr G Marcy ( signed by a Mr J B Stokes on behalf of Mr Marcy ) another is dated 17th feb 1903 to a George rashleigh and signed by him another is dated 1894 to a Mr Spearman and signed by him ( SHOWN IN PHOTO )another is dated 1905 to a Mr G N Marcy only one document shown in photo. RARE DOCUMENTS CONCERNING FAMILYS OF BRIDGENORTH P&P to the UK will cost £1.00 and £2.50 worldwide

Hi Jo Sending this off-list as you suggested. I have a subscription to Ancestry UK records, but have also tried their fourteen-day offers a couple of times hoping to find emigrants, and they have behaved very well, cancelling them at the end of the fortnight with no problems. I have used both telephone and e-mail to contact them and they have always been very helpful. Hope you find the same if you try them. Was there something particular you wanted a look-up for? I'd be happy to have a look for you. Best regards Alan (Huxley) HUXLEY, KYNASTON, MADELEY, PRESCOTT, SAMBROOK in SAL ___________________________________________________________ To help you stay safe and secure online, we've developed the all new Yahoo! Security Centre. http://uk.security.yahoo.com

I know it does not show the actual page of the census but some info can be gained as to who is living in the house if you scroll down the page it will show household members and if there is someone you dont know click on them and it will show you what relation they are to head of house and at the botttom it give the source the RG information which might be useful if you are able to go to the archives to look Althea ----- Original Message ----- From: "2twigs3" <2twigs3@dsl.pipex.com> To: <eng-shropshire-plus@rootsweb.com>; <ENG-SHROPSHIRE-PLUS-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Thursday, September 07, 2006 11:27 PM Subject: Re: [ENG-SHROP] Free 1901 Census but seems no image download. > Hello Carol, > As list is quiet take it ok to comment on above. I tried this, delighted > to see whats on offer. BUT appears to be a pay in advance, so if I did not > like site there may or may not be, difficulty in cancelling subscription, > after the 14 days. By then they would have my name, addresss, phone number > (phone no compulsory), details of payment card. > > If I have misunderstood these conditions, would be pleased to hear from > someone experienced in trying fourteen days free trial, better be off line > as not specific to Shropshire. It would seem the two day trial you mention, > does not allow images to be downloaded. > > I do not expect everything for free, but dont like sites of any description > where there is an automatic renewal of ones's subscription. A pay in > advance as for 1837 and I belive others, is acceptable. > > Look forward to the list becoming more energetic Shropshire-wise, now as > weather changing in the UK. Jo. > > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to ENG-SHROPSHIRE-PLUS-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Hello Carol, As list is quiet take it ok to comment on above. I tried this, delighted to see whats on offer. BUT appears to be a pay in advance, so if I did not like site there may or may not be, difficulty in cancelling subscription, after the 14 days. By then they would have my name, addresss, phone number (phone no compulsory), details of payment card. If I have misunderstood these conditions, would be pleased to hear from someone experienced in trying fourteen days free trial, better be off line as not specific to Shropshire. It would seem the two day trial you mention, does not allow images to be downloaded. I do not expect everything for free, but dont like sites of any description where there is an automatic renewal of ones's subscription. A pay in advance as for 1837 and I belive others, is acceptable. Look forward to the list becoming more energetic Shropshire-wise, now as weather changing in the UK. Jo.

Sorry all, just a test. New Norton software just installed and it seems no mail (or is it just ultra-quiet whilst the world watches tributes to Steve Irwin.....). Louise

For the duration of the new series of Who do you Think you are. Today until 8th November 2006 Ancestry.co.uk are giving free online access to the 1901 census. Best Wishes Carol O'Neill www.genealogyprinters.com

judy olsen wrote: > I am getting a bit muddled as to where John was and when, but just to > chuck into the pot.... SOK, I get confused as well from time to time :)) I tell you how this particular PYE family connected to the MONTEFIOREs, a suspected buccaneer and an elusive, evasive English born soldier in the US Cavalry who seems to have hijacked another family's history, but I won't <BG> 1829 Stanton upon Hine Heath (probably) 1861 Shawbury 1871 Shawbury 1875 High Ercall 1879 Atcham 1881 Shrewsbury 1891 Atcham 1901 Shrewsbury 1906 Atcham 1912 Shawbury (probably)(Death certificate on order) > Blacksmithing was a capital intensive and sought after trade. Setting > up a new business in a new town would be difficult - you would have > to muscle in on the existing trade as well as finding a forge to work > in. You can often see men taking on their sons and nephews as > apprentices and in this case at least one son took up the trade. Its > a bit like foxes - the countryside can only support a given number, > after which the extra ones starve. He would have had some money behind him then. > > But...Shropshire had industry as well as agriculture. Blacksmithing > was an industrial trade as well as a rustic one. Perhaps part of the > story was the offer of good money to work for an employer, even > temporarily. I think that is the most feasible explanation, esp if more than one son took up blacksmithing, or a son in law. Maybe he handed over his forge to that son/in law if he got an offer he couldn't refuse. Further investigation into John's children is called for methinks :)) Many thanks :)) The picture is getting clearer.

Hello, This is my first time here. A friend suggested this might help. I'm looking for Thomas William Booth (or maybe William Thomas Booth) born about 1770-1780. I only have family stories to go on. This is what my 94 year old aunt said: "Thomas William Booth was a methodist minister and gentleman farmer. He had a daughter named Mary Booth. She married a Woods or something like that. After that she married George Jones. Thomas didn't approve because she married beneath her so he cut her off. Mary and George had a son - Noah. He married Fanny Dunning and they had a child - Emily Jones. (Emily was my aunt's mother.) Emily said when she was a little girl they sometimes went to her Grandfather's house and he would give them milk. The house was called Windsor Hall. They could only go to the back door and it had "gold" door knobs." I can't find Windsor Hall. I can't find Thomas William Booth. And I have too many birth places for daughter Mary. Here's what I've found so far. There is a Mary Booth married to Thomas Wood in 1820 in Eyton. 1841 Census shows (Malinslee) George Jones and Mary Jones Children: William Jones 10, Sarah Jones 8, Louisa Jones 6, George Jones 4, Elizabeth Wood 18, Ann Wood 15. (All born in Shropshire) 1851 Census (Dawley) George Jones - 46 born in Hem Mary Jones - 53 for in Burton Children: Lucy M Jones16, George Jones 13, Noah Jones 11, Ann Walker 25 (all born in Malinslee) 1861 Census (Dawley Magna) George Jones 56 -born in Shiffnal Mary Jones 62 - born in Shiffnal children George 21, Noah 23 (children born in Dawley) 1871 Census (Dawley) Mary Jones 72 widow (I believe it says born in Wellington) Sorry if this is too long. Has any one ever heard of Windsor Hall near any of these places? --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Get on board. You're invited to try the new Yahoo! Mail.

I am getting a bit muddled as to where John was and when, but just to chuck into the pot.... Blacksmithing was a capital intensive and sought after trade. Setting up a new business in a new town would be difficult - you would have to muscle in on the existing trade as well as finding a forge to work in. You can often see men taking on their sons and nephews as apprentices and in this case at least one son took up the trade. Its a bit like foxes - the countryside can only support a given number, after which the extra ones starve. But...Shropshire had industry as well as agriculture. Blacksmithing was an industrial trade as well as a rustic one. Perhaps part of the story was the offer of good money to work for an employer, even temporarily. Judy On 6 Sep 2006, at 20:29, Charani wrote: > Tmollaun@aol.com wrote: > >> Perhaps he had financial troubles and had to sell his >> business and/or >> equipment. > > I've a feeling it was economic reasons, rather than health that caused > the move. I need to find out the reason: competition, lack of trade, > misdemeanour of some sort, an opportunity that didn't pan out. > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to ENG- > SHROPSHIRE-PLUS-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' > without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Tmollaun@aol.com wrote: > Perhaps he had financial troubles and had to sell his business and/or > equipment. I've a feeling it was economic reasons, rather than health that caused the move. I need to find out the reason: competition, lack of trade, misdemeanour of some sort, an opportunity that didn't pan out.

judy olsen wrote: > No, there is no number and no indication that John Pye was an > employer, although the evidence from other sources might suggest > that. All it says on the form is: > > Blacksmith. Labourer. I meant that the "1" had been omitted in error. > > > One of his sons is Blacksmith Labourer without the point or full stop > and another is Whitesmith Labourer. > > On the page before there is a "Mason - Labourer". A couple of pages > back there are three "Labourer Railwayman" and a "Labourer Farm > Servant". The three railway labourers were in the same household as a > 'railway servant' - which I take to mean a clerk. > > The column is headed "Rank, Profession, or OCCUPATION". My reading of > all this is that the enumerator was just being a little officious in > his form filling - his aim was to make it clear that the men were > doing manual work. In some cases there is a dash between the word > labourer and the other part of the occupation, in others there is > nothing and in this one case there is a full stop. Just a quirk of > notation. > > Hmm. I have now scrolled through quite a few pages and found a few > 'blacksmith"s with no qualifier and journeyman of various trades > including one blacksmith. So I am coming back to the view that John > Pye at this point was an employee rather than an employer. Am I right > in thinking he was away from his home turf? That might be an > explanation of sorts. It's possible the enumerator started off transcribing the forms one way before deciding to indicate manual workers. Could have been two different enumerators who collected and checked the forms but only one, or a different one, writing them up into the books. I think it's going to be one of those questions that isn't going to get an definitive answer without some additional information. Yes, he was away from where he says he was born and where he lived for a long time. He might have had to give up the smithy in Shawbury for some reason which forced a move first to Higher Ercall, then to Shrewsbury. The John PYE I found on the IGI was baptised 1 Feb 1829 at Stanton upon Hine Heath, only about a mile north of Shawbury. It's possible the family moved shortly after 1831 to Shawbury so he believed that's where he was born. If that's the right John PYE, then his parents were Thomas and Mary (nee EVANS) and they were married in Hodnet in 1825. That's only a few miles north east of Stanton upon Hine Heath. John's older brother, William was born in 1826 but not baptised until 1828. I'll see if I can find William and the youngest of the three brothers, Thomas (bapt 1831), in any of the censuses, and also the parents, to see where they said they were born. Also what the occupations were. Thanks for your help, tis much appreciated :))

2twigs3 wrote: > Charani: > Had a rather belated bright idea and tried a google, uk only, criteria pye > + shawbury. > > If you want it, quickest way is probably to do above rather than type this: > > http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=pye+%2B+shawbury+&btnG=Search&meta=cr%3DcountryUK%7CcountryGB > > Appears you have to register for further details to what is given, age of > messages unknown. However may give you a bit of earlier info. Thanks, I'll have a look through there :))

Hello, I am trying to read a mid-1500 will for Roger Luter of Shrewsbury. Do any of you know of "someone" who transcribes these Wills by email? By the way I am researching the Luter family of Shrewsbury before about 1650 when they began to move to Virginia. Thanks. Shirley Luther

KEITH ROBERTS wrote: > Definitely Shawbury Charani! > Here`s the kids off IGI if you haven`t allready got them. > > 1. JAMES PYE - International Genealogical Index > Gender: Male Christening: 28 SEP 1862 Shawbury, Shropshire, England > > 2. GEORGE WILLIAMS PYE - International Genealogical Index > Gender: Male Christening: 23 DEC 1860 Shawbury, Shropshire, England > > 3. WILLIAM PYE - International Genealogical Index > Gender: Male Christening: 23 FEB 1868 Shawbury, Shropshire, England > > 4. JOHN PYE - International Genealogical Index > Gender: Male Christening: 30 JAN 1870 Shawbury, Shropshire, England > > 5. MARY PYE - International Genealogical Index > Gender: Female Christening: 27 MAR 1859 Shawbury, Shropshire, England > > 6. THOMAS PYE - International Genealogical Index > Gender: Male Christening: 08 JAN 1865 Shawbury, Shropshire, England > > 7. ALICE PYE - International Genealogical Index > Gender: Female Christening: 06 APR 1873 Shawbury, Shropshire, England > > I checked that year of death and yes I think you should take that as > a good one as it shows his age at death in 1912 as 83 which ties in > well with his birth at 1829. Wem is the odd one though isn`t it? Brilliant!!! Many thanks :)) Most of the children I did have, but not Alice. I went through FreeBMD and pulled up all the children registered in Wem RD because there are some long gaps between those I knew about. Alice was one of those I picked out as most likely being one of John and Harriet's, but I wasn't sure. The two youngest are Annie (b Higher Ercall 1875 [Wellington RD]) and Emma (b Shrewsbury 1879 [Atcham RD]) Harriet's maiden name was WILLIAMS, hence George Williams. It looks as though she probably lost 3 children though. I'm pretty sure that John went home again because Wem RD covers Shawbury. I think I may have found John's baptism and his parents. If I'm right they were Thomas and Mary nee EVANS.

Hmm. I have now scrolled through quite a few pages and found a few 'blacksmith"s with no qualifier and journeyman of various trades including one blacksmith. So I am coming back to the view that John Pye at this point was an employee rather than an employer. Am I right in thinking he was away from his home turf? That might be an explanation of sorts. judy

Charani: Had a rather belated bright idea and tried a google, uk only, criteria pye + shawbury. If you want it, quickest way is probably to do above rather than type this: http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=pye+%2B+shawbury+&btnG=Search&meta=cr%3DcountryUK%7CcountryGB Appears you have to register for further details to what is given, age of messages unknown. However may give you a bit of earlier info. Jo.

No, there is no number and no indication that John Pye was an employer, although the evidence from other sources might suggest that. All it says on the form is: Blacksmith. Labourer. One of his sons is Blacksmith Labourer without the point or full stop and another is Whitesmith Labourer. On the page before there is a "Mason - Labourer". A couple of pages back there are three "Labourer Railwayman" and a "Labourer Farm Servant". The three railway labourers were in the same household as a 'railway servant' - which I take to mean a clerk. The column is headed "Rank, Profession, or OCCUPATION". My reading of all this is that the enumerator was just being a little officious in his form filling - his aim was to make it clear that the men were doing manual work. In some cases there is a dash between the word labourer and the other part of the occupation, in others there is nothing and in this one case there is a full stop. Just a quirk of notation. Judy On 5 Sep 2006, at 22:43, Charani wrote: > and the entry should have read "Blacksmith. > 1 labourer" and not "Blacksmith's labourer".

Definitely Shawbury Charani! Here`s the kids off IGI if you haven`t allready got them. 1. JAMES PYE - International Genealogical Index Gender: Male Christening: 28 SEP 1862 Shawbury, Shropshire, England 2. GEORGE WILLIAMS PYE - International Genealogical Index Gender: Male Christening: 23 DEC 1860 Shawbury, Shropshire, England 3. WILLIAM PYE - International Genealogical Index Gender: Male Christening: 23 FEB 1868 Shawbury, Shropshire, England 4. JOHN PYE - International Genealogical Index Gender: Male Christening: 30 JAN 1870 Shawbury, Shropshire, England 5. MARY PYE - International Genealogical Index Gender: Female Christening: 27 MAR 1859 Shawbury, Shropshire, England 6. THOMAS PYE - International Genealogical Index Gender: Male Christening: 08 JAN 1865 Shawbury, Shropshire, England 7. ALICE PYE - International Genealogical Index Gender: Female Christening: 06 APR 1873 Shawbury, Shropshire, England I checked that year of death and yes I think you should take that as a good one as it shows his age at death in 1912 as 83 which ties in well with his birth at 1829. Wem is the odd one though isn`t it? Keith Charani <familyhistory@charani.plus.com> wrote: 2twigs3 wrote: > In Mercer & Crocker 1877, page 161, John Pye, Blacksmith, is at Shawbury. > 1881 you of course quote. > 1901 index he gives birth place as Shrewsbury rather than Shawbury, age 72, > living Shrewsbury, civil parish St. Mary's, Blacksmith. > Could not find wife Harriet on the 1901 index. You may well have him 1901. > > So if labourer in 1881 was correct, he must have moved up the ladder again. Very many thanks for that. That's brilliant :)) It looks like Keith was right in saying that the 1881 was an error on the part of the enumerator and the entry should have read "Blacksmith. 1 labourer" and not "Blacksmith's labourer". It could be that Shawbury, which I'd never heard of before, has been misread as Shrewsbury. I thought it was supposed to be the latter initially, but it didn't look right, did a bit of checking and found it was the former. It also means that the 1912 death at age 83 is the one I want. ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to ENG-SHROPSHIRE-PLUS-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

2twigs3 wrote: > In Mercer & Crocker 1877, page 161, John Pye, Blacksmith, is at Shawbury. > 1881 you of course quote. > 1901 index he gives birth place as Shrewsbury rather than Shawbury, age 72, > living Shrewsbury, civil parish St. Mary's, Blacksmith. > Could not find wife Harriet on the 1901 index. You may well have him 1901. > > So if labourer in 1881 was correct, he must have moved up the ladder again. Very many thanks for that. That's brilliant :)) It looks like Keith was right in saying that the 1881 was an error on the part of the enumerator and the entry should have read "Blacksmith. 1 labourer" and not "Blacksmith's labourer". It could be that Shawbury, which I'd never heard of before, has been misread as Shrewsbury. I thought it was supposed to be the latter initially, but it didn't look right, did a bit of checking and found it was the former. It also means that the 1912 death at age 83 is the one I want.

In Mercer & Crocker 1877, page 161, John Pye, Blacksmith, is at Shawbury. 1881 you of course quote. 1901 index he gives birth place as Shrewsbury rather than Shawbury, age 72, living Shrewsbury, civil parish St. Mary's, Blacksmith. Could not find wife Harriet on the 1901 index. You may well have him 1901. So if labourer in 1881 was correct, he must have moved up the ladder again. Jo.