1851 census indexes for Southampton; HO 107/1669 TERRY William age 29 b Portsea page 821 William age 5 b Dibden page 822 Alfred age 1 b So'ton page 822 Benjamin age 2 b So'ton page 822 Henrietta age 30 b Dibden page 822 Sarah age 3mths b So'ton page 822 No sign of Mr Terry snr...HTH Debbie >-- Original Message -- >Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2004 13:37:09 +0000 (GMT) >From: Elaine Lawrence <lainey_soton@yahoo.co.uk> >To: ENG-SOUTHAMPTON-L@rootsweb.com >Subject: [ENG-SOU] TERRY > > > > >Hi, I would be grateful if someone could help with the following. My GGGG >Grandfather William TERRY was born Portsea Hants abt 1802. His wife was >Jemima TERRY nee Romain born abt 1800. They married 1822. They had a son >born abt 1822 William John Terry (my GGG Grandfather). I am looking for >any entries in the 1841/1851 Censuses or any more siblings of William John >Terry. I know the family moved to Southampton at some point. Any help would >be appreciated. > >Best wishes Elaine Lawrence > > > >--------------------------------- >Moving house? Beach bar in Thailand? New Wardrobe? Win £10k with Yahoo! Mail >to make your dream a reality. > > >============================== >View and search Historical Newspapers. Read about your ancestors, find >marriage announcements and more. Learn more: >http://www.ancestry.com/s13969/rd.ashx > ___________________________________________________________ FREE weekend phone calls! NO monthly fee, NO contract! http://www.tiscali.co.uk/services/smarttalk/?StartupCode=OL063&srccode=COD_563

Hi, I would be grateful if someone could help with the following. My GGGG Grandfather William TERRY was born Portsea Hants abt 1802. His wife was Jemima TERRY nee Romain born abt 1800. They married 1822. They had a son born abt 1822 William John Terry (my GGG Grandfather). I am looking for any entries in the 1841/1851 Censuses or any more siblings of William John Terry. I know the family moved to Southampton at some point. Any help would be appreciated. Best wishes Elaine Lawrence --------------------------------- Moving house? Beach bar in Thailand? New Wardrobe? Win £10k with Yahoo! Mail to make your dream a reality.

Hello Dave I would like to take up your very kind offer of a lookup on the 1861 census if you haven't been swamped with requests. I have found a family on the 1851 census living at 36 Russell Street ref HO 107/1669 folio no. 543. The family are Catherine Gard(e)ner with children Margaret and John Gardener. There is no husband present in 1851 but her husband William Gardner is a mariner so probably at sea. I would like to know if they remained in Southampton after 1852 when William junior was born. regards, Jeanette

yes folks! You can listen to Radio Solent on the web now!! Go to http://www.bbc.co.uk/southampton/ and on the right hand side is a red and white box RADIO SOLENT LIVE Click on here!! also BBC Radio Solent On 96.1 FM, 103.8 FM, 999 and 1359 AM Listen to the latest news and sport bulletins. Or watch the action from Radio Solent Studios BBC South Today 13.30, 18.30 & 22.25 BBC1 Watch the latest bulletins updated after the lunchtime, evening and late evening programmes. You will need Real Player. For details, check the BBC download guide. http://www.bbc.co.uk/southampton/news/index.shtml Middle Right hand side of screen -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.289 / Virus Database: 265.4.1 - Release Date: 19/11/2004

Dear List This is the full and accurate situation on the Southampton 1861 census index. At present if you want to consult it, you can Drop in at the local studies section of Southampton Central Library. There are no formalities at all. Contact them by email. Ask someone on the list if they can do it for you. Cheers, Dave Jacobs ============== >From: "Local Studies" <local.studies@southampton.gov.uk> >To: <dave@jacobs.net> >Subject: Re: Index for 1861 Census >Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2004 12:01:00 -0000 >X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106 >X-MDaemon-Deliver-To: dave@jacobs.net >X-Return-Path: Local.Studies@southampton.gov.uk >Reply-To: local.studies@southampton.gov.uk >X-Loop: dave@jacobs.net >X-NAS-Language: English >X-NAS-Bayes: #0: 2.41263E-171; #1: 1 >X-NAS-Classification: 0 >X-NAS-MessageID: 486 >X-NAS-Validation: {09458C76-AB72-4285-9EE5-33F40D371171} > >Dear Mr Jacobs >Our index to the 1861 census will be published as a CD, as the 1871 census >has been. There is no date yet for this publication > >We will be including all the areas we covered on the 1871 census > >The Family History Club is transcribing, checking, and computerising the >1861 census enumeration district by enumeration district: as each district >is added to the database, we print out a surname index for that district. >Each time we complete another 10 districts, we create a merged index and >print out a surname index for all those districts. The present position is: >Surname index Southampton Enumeration Districts 1-20 & Workhouse (merged) >Surname indexes Southampton Enumeration Districts 21-29 (separate) >I now am preparing Enumeration District 30 for adding to the database, and I >hope to have created a merged surname index for districts 1-30 by Christmas. > >There are 47 districts in Southampton itself, and these are all at various >stages of being completed. We have also just started work on St Mary Extra, >which will be followed by South Stoneham and Millbrook. > >As the work is very definitely "in progress", it will always be worth >checking for additions. > >Yours >Vicky Green >Special Collections Library >Southampton Reference Library >Civic Centre >Southampton >SO14 7LW > >Tel 023 8083 2205 >This E-mail is intended for the addressee only. If you are not the intended >recipient, the unauthorised use, disclosure, copying or re-transmission of >the e-mail are strictly prohibited. Such action may result in legal >proceedings. Please advise the sender as soon as possible and then delete . >This e-mail, whether it is marked confidential or otherwise, may be >disclosed. No employee, Councillor or agent is authorised to conclude by >e-mail any binding agreement with another party on behalf of the Council. >The Council does not accept service by e-mail of court proceedings or other >legal notices etc. E-mails to and from the Council may be monitored in >accordance with the law. > > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Dave Jacobs" <Dave@Jacobs.net> >To: <local.studies@southampton.gov.uk> >Sent: Thursday, November 18, 2004 3:33 PM >Subject: Index for 1861 Census > > > > Dear Local Studies staff. > > > > I have noticed with pleasure that the index to the 1861 census of > > Southampton is almost complete on your shelves, and I wonder if you could > > kindly tell me just a little more about it, please? > > > > Questions various correspondents have asked me include: > > * when will it be complete (as far as Southampton is concerned) and > > amalgamated into one continuous index? > > * is there a plan to include the surrounding area of South Stoneham, as >has > > been done for the 1871 census? > > * is there a plan for wider distribution, such as a CD, or web-site >access? > > > > Many thanks for your help > > > > Dave Jacobs > > > >

Hi I am a new subscriber and my surname interests in Southampton are CAWS, PHILP, PETTIT, TULK, I also noticed that Dave Jacobs posted an item about an 1861 census index for Southampton. This is great news as I have been trying to find my GGG grandfather in Southampton in 1861 (although there is an outside chance that he was still living in the IOW) He is Anthony William CAWS a shoemaker living at 215 Bevois Hill in 1871 he has wife Elizabeth, and children Anna Maria, Louisa, John E., Charles, Martin, Elizabeth and Agnes. He would have been around 40 years old in 1861. I have been ploughing my way through the Southampton census returns to no avail so far - so I will visit Southampton ASAP to consult the index. Lynne Smith

Had this sent me today, and it is a great website, especially for those searching military records etc Chris The Men of the Imperial Yeomanry, Lovats Scouts and Scottish Horse in the Boer War of 1899 to 1902. This is a complete list extracted from my book on this subject - here I give the names, ranks and numbers, as well as units of the nearly 40,000 men who fought with these units in this war. Names are listed alphabetically by surname.. The Army Death Indexes 1901-1905. This is the index of the Deaths recorded by the British Army in this period, they relate to a series of Death Certificates available through the ONS (familiar to any Genealogist) and are orderable through that organization. They cover deaths in India, Ceylon, South Africa, Burma, Egypt and a dozen more locations around the Empire which occured outside of war periods (it does not cover the Boer War deaths). A sample certificate is available here. The index covers both soldiers, soldiers wives and children. The format is Surname, Christian name, Location of Registration of Death, Year of Death and Page of Entry. AND MUCH MUCH MORE!! http://hometown.aol.co.uk/kevinasplin/home.html If you're searching for anyone military take a look you never know what you might find. The chap that runs the site is very helpful indeed -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.289 / Virus Database: 265.4.1 - Release Date: 19/11/2004

Hi Dave, I'm taking you up on your very generous offer to look in the census indexes for 1851 and 1861. I'm hoping you will be able to find (yes still) Albert John DREW and hopefully with his family including parents, Henry and Ann DREW. In 1851 Albert would have been 8 or 9. You might recall I was looking for him in Dorset as that is where he was born but recently found a DREW in the `1881 and 1901 in Portsmouth. I am fairly sure that this DREW, George H on the census, is Albert's older brother George Henry Nathaniel Drew born 1835, Weymouth of Henry and Ann Drew. At any rate there is enough info to give me hope I'll find Albert with his parents in one or both of the census in Hampshire. He/they certainly were not in Dorset and I haven't been able to locate any info re deaths. Many thanks Dave. Eleanor B. C. Canada

Dear Jean OK. It occurs to me that you might find a likely address by either: * getting the birth certificate for William Kingston, born 1840-41. Probably not worth the cost if he was not your direct ancestor. * finding his baptism, which might at least give a street where the family lived. If you ask archives@southampton.gov.uk they would probably look in their card index for you, for William's baptism. Cheers, Dave Jacobs =============== At 17:05 19/11/2004, Jean Williams wrote: >Many thanks Dave - I thought the 1841 was not indexed but it was worth an >ask! The family were in Shirley Terrace in 1849 but had moved to Common >Street Portsmouth by 1851. > >Jean > >-----Original Message----- >From: Dave Jacobs [mailto:Dave@Jacobs.net] >Sent: 18 November 2004 21:10 >To: ENG-SOUTHAMPTON-L@rootsweb.com >Subject: [ENG-SOU] 1841 census > > >Hi Jean > >You are quite right, the 1841 census has not been indexed. > >The reason why organisations have not spent any effort to do this, is >because the 1841 census is not very useful. At each address, it gives a >list of names, approximate ages and occupations if any. It also says >whether each person was born in the same County as that in which the census >was being taken. > >So whereas from the 1851 census (and later ones) one can establish >(assuming always that the people concerned were giving true answers) pretty >much where and when someone was born, and their relationships to other >people in the same household, we cannot do the same from the 1841 returns. > >As a result of this, one cannot just look up a name in 1841. Given an >address, one can use street indexes to find the right part of the census to >look at, but without an address it is just a matter of virtually wandering >the streets looking for the name you want. Not a nice or rewarding job, >especially in a crowded town. > >If you give us the address from 1851, either I or the local studies people >could look at it, but the chances of a family being at the same address for >ten years is pretty low, especially among the renting classes. > >Cheers, Dave Jacobs >=============== > >At 19:47 18/11/2004, Jean Williams wrote: > >Hi Dave > > > >You did not mention the 1841 census so I take it that is not indexed. > > > >I am still trying to find my Family in the 1841 census and as one child was > >born in 1839/40 in Southampton I think that is where they are most likely >to > >be in 1841. The details in 1851, in case you come across them, are: > > > >Piece 1659 Folio 736 > > > >William Kingston born Portsmouth, age 42 mechanical draughtsman > >Tryphena Kingston, born Dartmouth, age 35 > >William born Southampton, age 11 > > > >Many thanks > > > >Jean > > > >-----Original Message----- > >From: Dave Jacobs [mailto:Dave@Jacobs.net] > >Sent: 18 November 2004 15:28 > >To: ENG-SOUTHAMPTON-L@rootsweb.com > >Subject: Re: [ENG-SOU] 1861 census > > > > > >Dear Eleanor and others > > > >An index for the 1861 census of Southampton is apparently all but complete, > >and is available on paper at Southampton Local Studies Library, which is > >where I have consulted it. > > > >I do not know what plans there are for wider publication, but I will send a > >message to local.studies@southampton.gov.uk and ask them. I'll relay their > >answer to the List. > > > >Meanwhile if anyone has a name to look up there, you have a choice of > >asking the LSL directly, or asking me and I'll do it on my next trip > >in. The same in fact for any of the 1851-1891 censuses which are all > >indexed. > > > >Cheers, Dave Jacobs > >=============== > > > > At 23:13 17/11/2004, Elenor Ross wrote: > > >Hi DAve and all, > > > > > >Jumping on the back of this last message, I wasn't aware that an index >for > > >the 1861 census was in the works anywhere so I'm very delighted to see >this > > >message. I've been waiting for a long time now to receive the 1861 census > >CD > > >from Archive Books but would very much like to get my hands on a copy of > >the > > >index. More information please? > > > > > >Thanks. Eleanor, B. C. Canada > > >----- Original Message ----- > > >From: "Dave Jacobs" <Dave@Jacobs.net> > > >To: <ENG-SOUTHAMPTON-L@rootsweb.com> > > >Sent: Wednesday, November 17, 2004 7:37 AM > > >Subject: Re: [ENG-SOU] 1861 census Look up Please / LEAKE > > > > > > > > > > Hi Heather > > > > > > > > Sory if someone has already answered off line, although there is >really > > > > nothing to report. > > > > The 1861 census index for Southampton (I take it this was where you > >wanted > > > > us to look?) is almost completely finished, but sadly there is no >entry > > >for > > > > William or Isabella Leake or family. Or any variation on the name, as > > > > Leak, Leek, Leeke. > > > > > > > > Cheers, Dave Jacobs > > > > =============== > > > > > > > > At 13:10 09/11/2004, Heather Brown wrote: > > > > >Hello List, > > > > > > > > > >If any kind member has access to the 1861 census, would they please >do > >a > > > > >look up for me? > > > > > > > > > >I am interested in finding any information on the LEAKE family. > > > > > > > > > > >From the 1871 census this family are all stated as being born in St > > > > > Mary's Bourne. > > > > > > > > > >Now I am not to sure about all of them as being born there, but I >think > > > > >there is a very good chance of William LEAKE being born there. > > > > > > > > > >The LEAKE family should include in 1861: > > > > >William - c 1823 ? -1831? > > > > >Isabella (nee HOSKIN) - 1823 ? - 1831 ? > > > > >William - ? - son > > > > >Thomas - c 1857 - 1862 - son - (given places of birth from Army >records > > > > >Somerset & Marriage cert & 1901 Census Southampton) > > > > >Robert - 1860 - son > > > > > > > > > >1871 Census: > > > > >William - 48 - St Mary Bourne > > > > >Isabella - 48 - St Mary Bourne > > > > >Robert - 11 - St Mary Bourne > > > > >Sarah - 5 - St Mary Bourne > > > > >John - 1 - St Mary Bourne > > > > > > > > > >The 1881 census > > > > >William - 50 - Portsmouth, Hampshire > > > > >Isabella - 50 - Devon > > > > >Robert - 21 - Taunton, Somerset > > > > >Sarah - 18 - Southampton - seems to have gained quite a few years! > > > > >John - 11 - Portsmouth, Hampshire > > > > > > > > > >Thomas is not on either the 1871 or 1881 census. > > > > > > > > > >I have been unable to find any birth record for Thomas, when he >married > > >my > > > > >gt Aunt Sarah HOSKING in July 1900 he gave his age as 40 yrs, and on > >the > > > > >1901 census he gave his age as 41yrs. > > > > > > > > > >Any help would be truly appreciated, no matter how small. > > > > > > > > > >Many thanks and best wishes > > > > >Heather Brown (nee Hosking) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >============================== > > > > >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 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ============================== > > > > Jumpstart your genealogy with OneWorldTree. Search not only for > > > > ancestors, but entire generations. Learn more: > > > > http://www.ancestry.com/s13972/rd.ashx > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >============================== > > >Search our Immigration Records and view names from multiple ports > > >ranging from 1500s - 1900s. Over 23 million records to view. Learn more: > > >http://www.ancestry.com/s13967/rd.ashx > > > > > > > >============================== > >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 > > > >============================== >Search our Immigration Records and view names from multiple ports >ranging from 1500s - 1900s. Over 23 million records to view. Learn more: >http://www.ancestry.com/s13967/rd.ashx

Hi Jean You are quite right, the 1841 census has not been indexed. The reason why organisations have not spent any effort to do this, is because the 1841 census is not very useful. At each address, it gives a list of names, approximate ages and occupations if any. It also says whether each person was born in the same County as that in which the census was being taken. So whereas from the 1851 census (and later ones) one can establish (assuming always that the people concerned were giving true answers) pretty much where and when someone was born, and their relationships to other people in the same household, we cannot do the same from the 1841 returns. As a result of this, one cannot just look up a name in 1841. Given an address, one can use street indexes to find the right part of the census to look at, but without an address it is just a matter of virtually wandering the streets looking for the name you want. Not a nice or rewarding job, especially in a crowded town. If you give us the address from 1851, either I or the local studies people could look at it, but the chances of a family being at the same address for ten years is pretty low, especially among the renting classes. Cheers, Dave Jacobs =============== At 19:47 18/11/2004, Jean Williams wrote: >Hi Dave > >You did not mention the 1841 census so I take it that is not indexed. > >I am still trying to find my Family in the 1841 census and as one child was >born in 1839/40 in Southampton I think that is where they are most likely to >be in 1841. The details in 1851, in case you come across them, are: > >Piece 1659 Folio 736 > >William Kingston born Portsmouth, age 42 mechanical draughtsman >Tryphena Kingston, born Dartmouth, age 35 >William born Southampton, age 11 > >Many thanks > >Jean > >-----Original Message----- >From: Dave Jacobs [mailto:Dave@Jacobs.net] >Sent: 18 November 2004 15:28 >To: ENG-SOUTHAMPTON-L@rootsweb.com >Subject: Re: [ENG-SOU] 1861 census > > >Dear Eleanor and others > >An index for the 1861 census of Southampton is apparently all but complete, >and is available on paper at Southampton Local Studies Library, which is >where I have consulted it. > >I do not know what plans there are for wider publication, but I will send a >message to local.studies@southampton.gov.uk and ask them. I'll relay their >answer to the List. > >Meanwhile if anyone has a name to look up there, you have a choice of >asking the LSL directly, or asking me and I'll do it on my next trip >in. The same in fact for any of the 1851-1891 censuses which are all >indexed. > >Cheers, Dave Jacobs >=============== > > At 23:13 17/11/2004, Elenor Ross wrote: > >Hi DAve and all, > > > >Jumping on the back of this last message, I wasn't aware that an index for > >the 1861 census was in the works anywhere so I'm very delighted to see this > >message. I've been waiting for a long time now to receive the 1861 census >CD > >from Archive Books but would very much like to get my hands on a copy of >the > >index. More information please? > > > >Thanks. Eleanor, B. C. Canada > >----- Original Message ----- > >From: "Dave Jacobs" <Dave@Jacobs.net> > >To: <ENG-SOUTHAMPTON-L@rootsweb.com> > >Sent: Wednesday, November 17, 2004 7:37 AM > >Subject: Re: [ENG-SOU] 1861 census Look up Please / LEAKE > > > > > > > Hi Heather > > > > > > Sory if someone has already answered off line, although there is really > > > nothing to report. > > > The 1861 census index for Southampton (I take it this was where you >wanted > > > us to look?) is almost completely finished, but sadly there is no entry > >for > > > William or Isabella Leake or family. Or any variation on the name, as > > > Leak, Leek, Leeke. > > > > > > Cheers, Dave Jacobs > > > =============== > > > > > > At 13:10 09/11/2004, Heather Brown wrote: > > > >Hello List, > > > > > > > >If any kind member has access to the 1861 census, would they please do >a > > > >look up for me? > > > > > > > >I am interested in finding any information on the LEAKE family. > > > > > > > > >From the 1871 census this family are all stated as being born in St > > > > Mary's Bourne. > > > > > > > >Now I am not to sure about all of them as being born there, but I think > > > >there is a very good chance of William LEAKE being born there. > > > > > > > >The LEAKE family should include in 1861: > > > >William - c 1823 ? -1831? > > > >Isabella (nee HOSKIN) - 1823 ? - 1831 ? > > > >William - ? - son > > > >Thomas - c 1857 - 1862 - son - (given places of birth from Army records > > > >Somerset & Marriage cert & 1901 Census Southampton) > > > >Robert - 1860 - son > > > > > > > >1871 Census: > > > >William - 48 - St Mary Bourne > > > >Isabella - 48 - St Mary Bourne > > > >Robert - 11 - St Mary Bourne > > > >Sarah - 5 - St Mary Bourne > > > >John - 1 - St Mary Bourne > > > > > > > >The 1881 census > > > >William - 50 - Portsmouth, Hampshire > > > >Isabella - 50 - Devon > > > >Robert - 21 - Taunton, Somerset > > > >Sarah - 18 - Southampton - seems to have gained quite a few years! > > > >John - 11 - Portsmouth, Hampshire > > > > > > > >Thomas is not on either the 1871 or 1881 census. > > > > > > > >I have been unable to find any birth record for Thomas, when he married > >my > > > >gt Aunt Sarah HOSKING in July 1900 he gave his age as 40 yrs, and on >the > > > >1901 census he gave his age as 41yrs. > > > > > > > >Any help would be truly appreciated, no matter how small. > > > > > > > >Many thanks and best wishes > > > >Heather Brown (nee Hosking) > > > > > > > > > > > >============================== > > > >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 > > > > > > > > > > > > ============================== > > > Jumpstart your genealogy with OneWorldTree. Search not only for > > > ancestors, but entire generations. Learn more: > > > http://www.ancestry.com/s13972/rd.ashx > > > > > > > > > > > > > >============================== > >Search our Immigration Records and view names from multiple ports > >ranging from 1500s - 1900s. Over 23 million records to view. Learn more: > >http://www.ancestry.com/s13967/rd.ashx > > > >============================== >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

Dear Eleanor and others An index for the 1861 census of Southampton is apparently all but complete, and is available on paper at Southampton Local Studies Library, which is where I have consulted it. I do not know what plans there are for wider publication, but I will send a message to local.studies@southampton.gov.uk and ask them. I'll relay their answer to the List. Meanwhile if anyone has a name to look up there, you have a choice of asking the LSL directly, or asking me and I'll do it on my next trip in. The same in fact for any of the 1851-1891 censuses which are all indexed. Cheers, Dave Jacobs =============== At 23:13 17/11/2004, Elenor Ross wrote: >Hi DAve and all, > >Jumping on the back of this last message, I wasn't aware that an index for >the 1861 census was in the works anywhere so I'm very delighted to see this >message. I've been waiting for a long time now to receive the 1861 census CD >from Archive Books but would very much like to get my hands on a copy of the >index. More information please? > >Thanks. Eleanor, B. C. Canada >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Dave Jacobs" <Dave@Jacobs.net> >To: <ENG-SOUTHAMPTON-L@rootsweb.com> >Sent: Wednesday, November 17, 2004 7:37 AM >Subject: Re: [ENG-SOU] 1861 census Look up Please / LEAKE > > > > Hi Heather > > > > Sory if someone has already answered off line, although there is really > > nothing to report. > > The 1861 census index for Southampton (I take it this was where you wanted > > us to look?) is almost completely finished, but sadly there is no entry >for > > William or Isabella Leake or family. Or any variation on the name, as > > Leak, Leek, Leeke. > > > > Cheers, Dave Jacobs > > =============== > > > > At 13:10 09/11/2004, Heather Brown wrote: > > >Hello List, > > > > > >If any kind member has access to the 1861 census, would they please do a > > >look up for me? > > > > > >I am interested in finding any information on the LEAKE family. > > > > > > >From the 1871 census this family are all stated as being born in St > > > Mary's Bourne. > > > > > >Now I am not to sure about all of them as being born there, but I think > > >there is a very good chance of William LEAKE being born there. > > > > > >The LEAKE family should include in 1861: > > >William - c 1823 ? -1831? > > >Isabella (nee HOSKIN) - 1823 ? - 1831 ? > > >William - ? - son > > >Thomas - c 1857 - 1862 - son - (given places of birth from Army records > > >Somerset & Marriage cert & 1901 Census Southampton) > > >Robert - 1860 - son > > > > > >1871 Census: > > >William - 48 - St Mary Bourne > > >Isabella - 48 - St Mary Bourne > > >Robert - 11 - St Mary Bourne > > >Sarah - 5 - St Mary Bourne > > >John - 1 - St Mary Bourne > > > > > >The 1881 census > > >William - 50 - Portsmouth, Hampshire > > >Isabella - 50 - Devon > > >Robert - 21 - Taunton, Somerset > > >Sarah - 18 - Southampton - seems to have gained quite a few years! > > >John - 11 - Portsmouth, Hampshire > > > > > >Thomas is not on either the 1871 or 1881 census. > > > > > >I have been unable to find any birth record for Thomas, when he married >my > > >gt Aunt Sarah HOSKING in July 1900 he gave his age as 40 yrs, and on the > > >1901 census he gave his age as 41yrs. > > > > > >Any help would be truly appreciated, no matter how small. > > > > > >Many thanks and best wishes > > >Heather Brown (nee Hosking) > > > > > > > > >============================== > > >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 > > > > > > > > ============================== > > Jumpstart your genealogy with OneWorldTree. Search not only for > > ancestors, but entire generations. Learn more: > > http://www.ancestry.com/s13972/rd.ashx > > > > > > > >============================== >Search our Immigration Records and view names from multiple ports >ranging from 1500s - 1900s. Over 23 million records to view. Learn more: >http://www.ancestry.com/s13967/rd.ashx

Just to echo Elenor's request for more info about an 1861 Census Index ... particularly as Rod Neep says that Hampshire will be the next 1861 Census ACDB issues (didn't say when that would be mind, nor how many other counties for other years will appear first: but at least it's on its way). The census and an index would complement each other nicely! Karen > -----Original Message----- > From: Elenor Ross [mailto:crowe@oberon.ark.com] > Sent: 17 November 2004 23:13 > To: ENG-SOUTHAMPTON-L@rootsweb.com > Subject: Re: [ENG-SOU] 1861 census Look up Please / LEAKE > > > Hi DAve and all, > > Jumping on the back of this last message, I wasn't aware that > an index for > the 1861 census was in the works anywhere so I'm very > delighted to see this > message. I've been waiting for a long time now to receive the > 1861 census CD > from Archive Books but would very much like to get my hands > on a copy of the > index. More information please? > > Thanks. Eleanor, B. C. Canada >

Hi Heather Sory if someone has already answered off line, although there is really nothing to report. The 1861 census index for Southampton (I take it this was where you wanted us to look?) is almost completely finished, but sadly there is no entry for William or Isabella Leake or family. Or any variation on the name, as Leak, Leek, Leeke. Cheers, Dave Jacobs =============== At 13:10 09/11/2004, Heather Brown wrote: >Hello List, > >If any kind member has access to the 1861 census, would they please do a >look up for me? > >I am interested in finding any information on the LEAKE family. > > >From the 1871 census this family are all stated as being born in St > Mary's Bourne. > >Now I am not to sure about all of them as being born there, but I think >there is a very good chance of William LEAKE being born there. > >The LEAKE family should include in 1861: >William - c 1823 ? -1831? >Isabella (nee HOSKIN) - 1823 ? - 1831 ? >William - ? - son >Thomas - c 1857 - 1862 - son - (given places of birth from Army records >Somerset & Marriage cert & 1901 Census Southampton) >Robert - 1860 - son > >1871 Census: >William - 48 - St Mary Bourne >Isabella - 48 - St Mary Bourne >Robert - 11 - St Mary Bourne >Sarah - 5 - St Mary Bourne >John - 1 - St Mary Bourne > >The 1881 census >William - 50 - Portsmouth, Hampshire >Isabella - 50 - Devon >Robert - 21 - Taunton, Somerset >Sarah - 18 - Southampton - seems to have gained quite a few years! >John - 11 - Portsmouth, Hampshire > >Thomas is not on either the 1871 or 1881 census. > >I have been unable to find any birth record for Thomas, when he married my >gt Aunt Sarah HOSKING in July 1900 he gave his age as 40 yrs, and on the >1901 census he gave his age as 41yrs. > >Any help would be truly appreciated, no matter how small. > >Many thanks and best wishes >Heather Brown (nee Hosking) > > >============================== >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

Hi DAve and all, Jumping on the back of this last message, I wasn't aware that an index for the 1861 census was in the works anywhere so I'm very delighted to see this message. I've been waiting for a long time now to receive the 1861 census CD from Archive Books but would very much like to get my hands on a copy of the index. More information please? Thanks. Eleanor, B. C. Canada ----- Original Message ----- From: "Dave Jacobs" <Dave@Jacobs.net> To: <ENG-SOUTHAMPTON-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Wednesday, November 17, 2004 7:37 AM Subject: Re: [ENG-SOU] 1861 census Look up Please / LEAKE > Hi Heather > > Sory if someone has already answered off line, although there is really > nothing to report. > The 1861 census index for Southampton (I take it this was where you wanted > us to look?) is almost completely finished, but sadly there is no entry for > William or Isabella Leake or family. Or any variation on the name, as > Leak, Leek, Leeke. > > Cheers, Dave Jacobs > =============== > > At 13:10 09/11/2004, Heather Brown wrote: > >Hello List, > > > >If any kind member has access to the 1861 census, would they please do a > >look up for me? > > > >I am interested in finding any information on the LEAKE family. > > > > >From the 1871 census this family are all stated as being born in St > > Mary's Bourne. > > > >Now I am not to sure about all of them as being born there, but I think > >there is a very good chance of William LEAKE being born there. > > > >The LEAKE family should include in 1861: > >William - c 1823 ? -1831? > >Isabella (nee HOSKIN) - 1823 ? - 1831 ? > >William - ? - son > >Thomas - c 1857 - 1862 - son - (given places of birth from Army records > >Somerset & Marriage cert & 1901 Census Southampton) > >Robert - 1860 - son > > > >1871 Census: > >William - 48 - St Mary Bourne > >Isabella - 48 - St Mary Bourne > >Robert - 11 - St Mary Bourne > >Sarah - 5 - St Mary Bourne > >John - 1 - St Mary Bourne > > > >The 1881 census > >William - 50 - Portsmouth, Hampshire > >Isabella - 50 - Devon > >Robert - 21 - Taunton, Somerset > >Sarah - 18 - Southampton - seems to have gained quite a few years! > >John - 11 - Portsmouth, Hampshire > > > >Thomas is not on either the 1871 or 1881 census. > > > >I have been unable to find any birth record for Thomas, when he married my > >gt Aunt Sarah HOSKING in July 1900 he gave his age as 40 yrs, and on the > >1901 census he gave his age as 41yrs. > > > >Any help would be truly appreciated, no matter how small. > > > >Many thanks and best wishes > >Heather Brown (nee Hosking) > > > > > >============================== > >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 > > > > ============================== > Jumpstart your genealogy with OneWorldTree. Search not only for > ancestors, but entire generations. Learn more: > http://www.ancestry.com/s13972/rd.ashx > >

Thanks Sandra and all those that replied to the WWI medals problem. The trouble was the Bank of Scotland not the actual archives that made the mess!! Chris -----Original Message----- From: Sandra J Smith [mailto:sandra.s@ntlworld.com] Sent: 15 November 2004 12:04 To: ENG-SOUTHAMPTON-L@rootsweb.com Subject: [ENG-SOU] Medal Rolls at National Archives Hi List The medal Rolls of WW1 started to be put on the national archives web site many many months ago. Like the "Burnt Papers" they were indexed and added to the database as each letter of the surname alphabet was completed. I was one of the lucky ones whose surname interests appeared in the early days. So, I suspect that the problems with the site are due to over use as a result of the recent publicity. I have been delving around in the WW1 army records at Kew for several years now and have compared various classes of records of the period to see whether I could come up with a definitive list for my one-name study. What I have discovered is that not everyone who served got a medal, so because someone is not in the medal rolls doesnt mean that they didnt serve. A number, for example, who only spent a short time in the army and were discharged as medically unfit before any overseas service, didnt qualify for a medal - or at least dont appear in the medal rolls. You will be very disappointed if you are hoping to get much information from the medal rolls, other than service numbers and regiments or corps. The discharge papers are where all the personal information is found. If you are lucky enough to discover that your ancestor's paper survived the WW2 blitz, here you will find, addresses, age, physical descriptions, next of kin, marriage dates and places, children with either dates and places of birth or ages. This would certainly be worth a £3.50 spend if they ever put these records online!! Regards Sandra Smith ============================== 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 --- Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.796 / Virus Database: 540 - Release Date: 13/11/2004 --- All of our outgoing mail is checked and certified Virus Free by regularl updates Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.796 / Virus Database: 540 - Release Date: 13/11/2004

Hi List The medal Rolls of WW1 started to be put on the national archives web site many many months ago. Like the "Burnt Papers" they were indexed and added to the database as each letter of the surname alphabet was completed. I was one of the lucky ones whose surname interests appeared in the early days. So, I suspect that the problems with the site are due to over use as a result of the recent publicity. I have been delving around in the WW1 army records at Kew for several years now and have compared various classes of records of the period to see whether I could come up with a definitive list for my one-name study. What I have discovered is that not everyone who served got a medal, so because someone is not in the medal rolls doesnt mean that they didnt serve. A number, for example, who only spent a short time in the army and were discharged as medically unfit before any overseas service, didnt qualify for a medal - or at least dont appear in the medal rolls. You will be very disappointed if you are hoping to get much information from the medal rolls, other than service numbers and regiments or corps. The discharge papers are where all the personal information is found. If you are lucky enough to discover that your ancestor's paper survived the WW2 blitz, here you will find, addresses, age, physical descriptions, next of kin, marriage dates and places, children with either dates and places of birth or ages. This would certainly be worth a £3.50 spend if they ever put these records online!! Regards Sandra Smith

And yet four weeks ago it was all working absolutely fine! Karen > -----Original Message----- > From: Brian [mailto:beejaycave@btinternet.com] > Sent: 14 November 2004 13:57 > > "...So, if any of you are thinking about using the service, I > would hang on > for a day or two until they get it sorted." > > > The problem is probably not helped by a news item and > interview on BBC TV > yesterday announcing the service - 1901 all over again??? <g> > > Regards > Brian > > Incoming mail is certified Virus Free > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com) > Version 6.0.796 Virus Database 540 - Release Date: 13/11/2004 >

"...So, if any of you are thinking about using the service, I would hang on for a day or two until they get it sorted." The problem is probably not helped by a news item and interview on BBC TV yesterday announcing the service - 1901 all over again??? <g> Regards Brian Incoming mail is certified Virus Free Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com) Version 6.0.796 Virus Database 540 - Release Date: 13/11/2004

This came via our Royal Signals group list and thought it might affect some of you Chris and Caroline A word of warning for those of you who want to look up the newly released medal records from WW1. I have tried it this morning and found my Mum's uncle. It was a very trying process because, even though I have one of his medals here complete with name, rank and number, it took me a few goes to find the record. Once you find the record, you have to purchase a copy of the record card to see the details. It is only £3.50 but, after going through the RBS "Checkout" procedure, the process fails. I saw a notice saying the payment was processed and giving a receipt number. The next step is supposed to be the server sends you an email with the receipt and a link you can go to to download the record. Well, as the server fails at the "send email" step, that never arrives. Giving it the benefit of the doubt, I tried again (after writing a mail whingeing about the failure). Guess what? Correct! It fails again! So, if any of you are thinking about using the service, I would hang on for a day or two until they get it sorted. --- All of our outgoing mail is checked and certified Virus Free by regularl updates Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.796 / Virus Database: 540 - Release Date: 13/11/2004

Some of you might find this interesting and maybe it will explain a few facts when researching family trees!! Chris and Caroline Not everybody knows what the term "Gregorian" means and maybe assumed that here this was a trick question going back to the ten month system , nor does everybody know that before the Gregorian system (Introduced in England and its Colonies in 1752), we still had 12 months (12 month system first introduced in 45 BC), BUT between 45 BC and 1752 we counted our years differently. Everyone knows about the original Pre-Julius Augustian ten month system, and how new months were added to make the end of the year meet the start of the next new year without every one needing to stand around and wait nine weeks doing nothing. If you have ever done any research into events of the pre 1752 times, you will find an odd report occasionaly, such as someone being executed in March for some hideous crime or other, then actually doing the crime in November of that Year, or being Sentenced for that same crime in February or March of that same year! Did they have preminitions? Was their Detection rate so good that they could solve and hold trial of a crime before it had even been committed? i.e. that a Brother born in January 1621 is the younger brother of his elder brother who was born in December of that same year! - or - another example, that when two brothers were born, one in say December 1621 and another in January 1622, it is not a miricle short (30 day) pregnancy, nor twins with a prolonged delivery delay, but rather the older brother is correctly the one born in December, and the next brother was born 13 Months (and not just one) later. Why? Simply that before the Gregorian Calendar was adopted, the year started on March 25th (Ladies day) and ended on March 24th. Here is an extract of what I wrote about this on a History site a couple of years ago... (Between the lines) ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Before 1752 (in Britain and their colonies) the year officially began on March 25th (Lady Day). Any dates between January 1st and March 24th were therefore at the end of the preceeding year rather than the beginning. In most modern transcribed printings, and hopefully most on-line sources however two different conventions exist to try to avoid old-date to new-date conversion confusion; 1). dates in the pre-1752 range are marked with an asterisk e.g. 12 March 1654* where the old date (for accuracy is given and an one must be added to get the real date e.g. 12 March 1655 2). dates are occasionally seen in the form 12 March 1654/5. Knowing this info may add to more confusion, then sometimes it is easier simply not to know this, unless researching your geneology and finding two children born to same mother one end of March 1625 and then the second in early March 1625 ??? in reality the births are nearly a year apart, but apparently in wrong order ad only a few weeks apart! It is also important to know this when reading case law and seeing that a person was charged with a crime in February 1720 and oddly for the untrained eye apparently then subsequently committed the crime say "months later" in June 1720... ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ The Decision making back then was almost as slow as getting plannin permission from your council, or Disable benifits from the DHSS is today... For example it took Eight hundred years to invent the Year AD 1 and BC counting... Bede, the eighth-century English historian, began the practice of counting years backward from A.D. 1 And since a lot of Religions and People did not comprehend negative numbering or counting, in some cases it took till 1800 (1000 years after Bede) to totally accept the system. History of the Gregorian Calendar The Gregorian calendar resulted from a perceived need to reform the method of calculating dates of Easter. Under the Julian calendar the dating of Easter had become standardized, using March 21 as the date of the equinox and the Metonic cycle as the basis for calculating lunar phases. By the thirteenth century it was realized that the true equinox had regressed from March 21 (its supposed date at the time of the Council of Nicea, +325) to a date earlier in the month. As a result, Easter was drifting away from its springtime position and was losing its relation with the Jewish Passover. Over the next four centuries, (a Four Hundred year long meeting to discuss time!) scholars debated the "correct" time for celebrating Easter and the means of regulating this time calendrically. The Church made intermittent attempts to solve the Easter question, without reaching a consensus. Pope Gregory XIII orded the world to stop turning till the moon phases and religious holidays caught up with each other, and then to start a ney system of counting with the Leap year thrown in to save having to buy Birthday cards and presents for children born on Feb 29th. Pope Gregory XIII worked out that thus with carefull family planning (which thereafter the Catholic church felt was their perogative to define how and when people should have sex, and/or children for ever more) he could save up to 75% of expenditure for Birthday gifts. Now problems come in with Leap years, then not every fourth year has a leap year... ??? True, there are Leap-leap years, which are ignored and retain 28 days meaning that in such cases it can be eight years between February 29ths... When and Why??? Leap years are determined according to the following rule: Every year that is exactly divisible by 4 is a leap year, except for years that are exactly divisible by 100; these centurial years are leap years only if they are exactly divisible by 400. As a result the year 2000 is a leap year, whereas 1900 and 2100 are not leap years. These rules can be applied to times prior to the Gregorian reform to create a proleptic Gregorian calendar. In this case, year 0 (1 B.C.) is considered to be exactly divisible by 4, 100, and 400; hence it is a leap year. The Gregorian calendar is thus based on a cycle of 400 years, which comprises 146097 days. Since 146097 is evenly divisible by 7, the Gregorian civil calendar exactly repeats after 400 years. Dividing 146097 by 400 yields an average length of 365.2425 days per calendar year, which is a close approximation to the length of the tropical year. Comparison with Equation 1.1-1 reveals that the Gregorian calendar accumulates an error of one day in about 2500 years. Although various adjustments to the leap-year system have been proposed, none has been instituted. Within each year, dates are specified according to the count of days from the beginning of the month. The order of months (except the problem of Jan, Feb and March comming at the end of the year, that I mentioned at the start of this post) and number of days per month were adopted from the Julian calendar. Well it is unfair to claim Gregory invented the Leap year, then it was calculated correctly in the Julian system, only the Catholic Church missread the system user manual when they added the AD-1 revison, and instead of using every forth February to add the spare day, added it every third year, which soon accumulated when (long before Cook invented Australia to send our Sheep Stealers), meant Chrismas soon became a summer holiday! A bit about the Julian Calendar Caesar created a solar calendar with twelve months of fixed lengths and a provision for an intercalary day to be added every fourth year. As a result, the average length of the Julian calendar year was 365.25 days. This is consistent with the length of the tropical year as it was known at the time. Following Caesar's death, the Roman calendrical authorities misapplied the leap-year rule, with the result that every third, rather than every fourth, year was intercalary. Although detailed evidence is lacking, it is generally believed that Emperor Augustus corrected the situation by omitting intercalation from the Julian years -8 through +4. After this the Julian calendar finally began to function as planned. Through the Middle Ages the use of the Julian calendar evolved and acquired local peculiarities that continue to snare the unwary historian. There were variations in the initial epoch for counting years, the date for beginning the year, and the method of specifying the day of the month. Not only did these vary with time and place, but also with purpose. Different conventions were sometimes used for dating ecclesiastical records, fiscal transactions, and personal correspondence. Caesar designated January 1 as the beginning of the year. However, other conventions flourished at different times and places. The most popular alternatives were March 1, March 25, and December 25. This continues to cause problems for historians, since, for example, +998 February 28 as recorded in a city that began its year on March 1, would be the same day as +999 February 28 of a city that began the year on January 1. Days within the month were originally counted from designated division points within the month: Kalends, Nones, and Ides. The Kalends is the first day of the month. The Ides is the thirteenth of the month, except in March, May, July, and October, when it is the fifteenth day. The Nones is always eight days before the Ides (see Table 8.2.1). Dates falling between these division points are designated by counting inclusively backward from the upcoming division point. Intercalation was performed by repeating the day VI Kalends March, i.e., inserting a day between VI Kalends March (February 24) and VII Kalends March (February 23). By the eleventh century, consecutive counting of days from the beginning of the month came into use. Local variations continued, however, including counts of days from dates that commemorated local saints. The inauguration and spread of the Gregorian calendar resulted in the adoption of a uniform standard for recording dates. Cappelli (1930), Grotefend and Grotefend (1941), and Cheney (1945) offer guidance through the maze of medieval dating. Parts of the Above histories of calendar systems are from this web site... http://astro.nmsu.edu/~lhuber/leaphist.html There are many other calendar systems described there as well. --- All of our outgoing mail is checked and certified Virus Free by regularl updates Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.788 / Virus Database: 533 - Release Date: 01/11/2004