Looking for the baptism of Elizabeth Booker Or Brooker who married my 3xGt grandfather George Wicks 26 March 1798 in Reigate and was buried in Leigh, Sy 28 June 1803. Haven't had any luck so far so if anyone can make a suggestion or has Booker/Brookers in their tree from that part of Surrey I'd be very grateful. -- Pauline Wicks

Hi Listers and Nivard, I agree it is an unusual way to start a post, but as the last few editions were all about trees on Ancestry etc. and their pros and cons I thought I would make it plain that I like to do my own research and not copy from others. I did not put any specific information about the Wenmans as they are such a huge family I hoped that someone on the list just might have a connection to them. I could write a book about their various escapades. But I still have mysteries I am trying to solve. I tend to find out as much as I can about ancestors, rather than just collect names and dates. Georgina Wenman is one of the most difficult. She was born 1849 in Christchurch, Surrey to Henry Wenman and Georgina Sarah Spaughton, her parents did not marry until 1866, but all children were registered and baptised as Wenman. She married Edward Wright in 1870 at Waterloo, Surrey. The only census they appear in is 1881. They had 3 children Horace Edward in 1872, he died the same year. Ada Mary in 1876 and Marion in 1879. In 1891 Georgina had another child Horace Sydney, he was born in the Lambeth Workhouse and she gave Edward Wright as his father. He was born 3rd Jan and Baptised 14th Jan. His baptism Gives Georgina as a single women. Obviously they had split up but there is no further sighting of Edward, Georgina or Horace. There is a possible death for Georgina in 1908. The older children are just as ellusive, Horace no 1 was baptised, Ada Mary may or may not have been registered as there are many Ada Mary Wrights. Marion is a complete mystery, I have tried many variations, but maybe this is her second name or a nick name. So father and children have disapeared also Georgina. And thats just one of the members of the family. I am sure they all tried to outdo their parents in their marital wanderings. So if anyone has a connection to the Wenmans I would be pleased to hear from you. kind regards Sylvia.

Hi Dave, It seems very possible that Charles was removed to his original parish as, according to http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=22760, the Bethnal Green asylum's inmates were paid for by their parish. If Brighton parish were aware of this I would think that they would have sent him there. You need to search the Brighton poor law removals which unfortunately I don't think are searchable online - unless anyone else knows where to find them? This is also interesting http://studymore.org.uk/3_06.htm as it mentions Bethnal asylum quite a lot. I haven't read through it in detail but it appears that the asylum regularly housed patients from outside the area. hth, Anne > Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2012 18:13:07 +0100 > From: davemassie@btinternet.com > To: eng-surrey@rootsweb.com > Subject: [SRY] Death in Bethnal Green Asylum > > My ggg-grandfather Charles YORK married Charlotte JORDAN, probably > around 1828, place unknown. In 1837, his son William's birth certificate > was registered by a workhouse clerk. In 1841, he appears in the census > as a patient in the Brighton Workhouse Infirmary, birthplace 'outside > SSX'. Also in the workhouse were his wife and 3 children, down as paupers. > > In the 1851, 1861 and 1871 censuses, Charlotte was still in the > workhouse, enumerated as a widow, and nurse in the infirmary/hospital. > > I've now discovered that Charles died of epilepsy in 1846, in Bethnal > Green Lunatic Asylum, which raises some questions: > > Why Bethnal Green, if he had been in the Brighton Workhouse for 4 years? > Was it the nearest treatment centre? There seem to have been no > effective treatments for epilepsy before 1875. Was he just maybe > transferred to his parish of settlement? > > I'm assuming here that the epilepsy was the reason for his internment in > the first place. I have read on an un-sourced site that suggest > epileptics were kept apart from other mental patients, as the epilepsy > was considered contagious. > > I'd appreciate any insight as to why he died far apart from his family, > an suggestions for a good read on the subject, and of course, if anyone > has a link to the family. > > > -- > Regards > Dave > *************************************** > Send your List messages using **PLAIN TEXT** and always **TRIM AWAY** superfluous old messages in replies. > > List Admin can be contacted at: Eng-Surrey-admin@rootsweb.com. > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to ENG-SURREY-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

My ggg-grandfather Charles YORK married Charlotte JORDAN, probably around 1828, place unknown. In 1837, his son William's birth certificate was registered by a workhouse clerk. In 1841, he appears in the census as a patient in the Brighton Workhouse Infirmary, birthplace 'outside SSX'. Also in the workhouse were his wife and 3 children, down as paupers. In the 1851, 1861 and 1871 censuses, Charlotte was still in the workhouse, enumerated as a widow, and nurse in the infirmary/hospital. I've now discovered that Charles died of epilepsy in 1846, in Bethnal Green Lunatic Asylum, which raises some questions: Why Bethnal Green, if he had been in the Brighton Workhouse for 4 years? Was it the nearest treatment centre? There seem to have been no effective treatments for epilepsy before 1875. Was he just maybe transferred to his parish of settlement? I'm assuming here that the epilepsy was the reason for his internment in the first place. I have read on an un-sourced site that suggest epileptics were kept apart from other mental patients, as the epilepsy was considered contagious. I'd appreciate any insight as to why he died far apart from his family, an suggestions for a good read on the subject, and of course, if anyone has a link to the family. -- Regards Dave

Hi Sylvia A curious way to start a post I must say :-) The choice of where a researcher puts their tree (if they ever wish to do so of course) is entirely up to the individual Finding researchers looking into the same names on lists is rarely profitable in itself so you may want to post some specific questions on your WENMANs You might also like to check the lists archives http://www.rootsweb.ancestry.com/ (select mailing lists from the top bar menu) However a search for WENMAN Newingtin finds only a few posts but perhaps worth checking out Nivard Ovington in Cornwall (UK) >> Hi Everybody, First I would like to say I do not have a tree on >> Ancestry, nor will I ever. But I do subscribe to Lost Cousins and >> Genesreunited. I am also always willing to share. I am hoping that >> someone on the list has connections to Henry WENMAN, he married >> Sarah HERBERT in 1838. They had 3 children 1 of them died. He moved >> on with Georgina Sarah Spaughton and had 8 Children one of whom was >> my gt. grandmother, Julia Henrietta. Henry and Georgina finally >> married in 1866 after all but 2 of the children were born. I have >> followed all 8 children, they all seem to be trying to outdo their >> father with many children and various marriages or not as the case >> may be. But there are quite a few unanwered questions with many of >> them. So if anyone has a connection to them I would be glad to hear >> from you. Maybe we can fill in some of the answers. Regards Sylvia >> in Aus.

From a workhouse site, I can't remember which one.  I discovered that the information I required was now held at a branch of a nearby hospital.  The workhouse was Gordon Road, Peckham and the hospital was Kings College Camberwell. Any way, I wrote and explained what I was looking for, and they sent me ________________________________ From: Jean Hunter <jean.e.hunter26@gmail.com> To: eng-surrey@rootsweb.com Sent: Wednesday, 12 September 2012, 7:51 Subject: Re: [SRY] the mathematics of case paper numbers Kristen den Hartog wrote: > Hello list, > In trying to track a couple of my relatives who were in and out of asylums > and workhouse infirmaries, I have come across their "case paper numbers." > I'm wondering if anyone knows how these were issued, and by whom. Were they > only for people who were ill, or were they given to workhouse residents as > well? Once a person was issued a case paper number, did that same number > follow them throughout their lives, if they were admitted and discharged at > different institutions over a period of years? My g-grandmother spent time > in Newington and Lambeth infirmaries, and died in Cane Hill; her sister was > at Stone Asylum and Newington. Their numbers are 6514 and 25818, so can I > assume there is some rhyme and reason to the numbering and therefore their > original admissions (which I've yet to find) are quite some time apart? > I'd appreciate hearing your ideas. Hallo I do not think the numbers swent with them like a modern hospital or medialc numer would.  I think it is possible they might have had the asme number if they were in he smae asylum or infirmaty.  I think a patient or inmate would have been fgiven then ext number on the lsit when they were admiteed if they were new.  If you saw the case papers for each admissiin uou might see a reasol.  Can you get the papers? Jean Hunter Kent *************************************** Send your List messages using **PLAIN TEXT** and always **TRIM AWAY** superfluous old messages in replies. List Admin can be contacted at:  Eng-Surrey-admin@rootsweb.com.   ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to ENG-SURREY-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

As part of the Open Day at Surrey History Centre in Woking this Saturday there will be 15-minute talks by staff members: 10.00-10.15 Julian Pooley - Who Do You Think They Were? 11.45-12.00 Abby Guinness - Discovery of Gold Hat Pin at Woking Palace 12.15-12.30 Mike Page - Elizabethan Lottery No need to book. Just come along! Please note that the Search Room will be closed for research on Saturday. Instead there will be displays of our archive and map treasures, as well as family history and military ancestor helpdesks and much more. More details on our website: http://www.surreycc.gov.uk/surreyhistorycentre We look forward to seeing you! Jill Hyams On behalf of Surrey Heritage

----- Forwarded Message ----- >From: sylvia thomas <boxstaffy@yahoo.com.au> >To: "ENG-SURREY-D-request@rootsweb.com" <ENG-SURREY-D-request@rootsweb.com> >Sent: Sunday, 30 September 2012 11:35 AM >Subject: WENMANS OF NEWINGTON > > >Hi Everybody, >First I would like to say I do not have a tree on Ancestry, nor will I ever. But I do subscribe to Lost Cousins and Genesreunited. I am also always willing to share. >I am hoping that someone on the list has connections to Henry WENMAN, he married Sarah HERBERT in 1838. They had 3 children 1 of them died. >He moved on with Georgina Sarah Spaughton and had 8 Children one of whom was my gt. grandmother, Julia Henrietta. Henry and Georgina finally married in 1866 after all but 2 of the children were born. I have followed all 8 children, they all seem to be trying to outdo their father with many children and various marriages or not as the case may be. But there are quite a few unanwered questions with many of them. So if anyone has a connection to them I would be glad to hear from you. Maybe we can fill in some of the answers. >Regards Sylvia in Aus. > >

Hi Lynda, Thank you for your reply - I must admit I thought it bizarre that you couldn't access it - so I appreciate your response. Cheers Maree -----Original Message----- From: eng-surrey-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:eng-surrey-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Lynda Rooke Sent: Saturday, 29 September 2012 8:38 PM To: eng-surrey@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [SRY] Family History Sites Hi Maree, Once you have posted your tree on Ancestry, you can continue to look at your own tree even after your subscription has lapsed. You can also look at any records which you attached as source details to your tree. However, you cannot access any other records after your subscription has lapsed (with the exception of those records which are free to all) nor can you contact other tree owners if you think you have a match. Hope this helps Lynda > From: mpps@alphalink.com.au > To: tomsam18@yahoo.com; eng-surrey@rootsweb.com > Date: Sat, 29 Sep 2012 20:19:45 +1000 > Subject: Re: [SRY] Family History Sites > > Hi everyone, > Just getting on the tail end of this - but I have heard that once you > put your tree up on Ancestry, you have to stay subscribed to the site > to access it, is this correct? > Cheers > Maree > > -----Original Message----- > From: eng-surrey-bounces@rootsweb.com > [mailto:eng-surrey-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Rita > Sent: Saturday, 29 September 2012 6:33 PM > To: eng-surrey@rootsweb.com > Subject: Re: [SRY] Family History Sites > > Hello I sent a email about that to Ancestry but they didn't answer. > regards > Rita > > > ________________________________ > From: Neil & Jan Hearn <neil.hearn3@bigpond.com> > To: eng-surrey@rootsweb.com > Sent: Saturday, 29 September 2012 7:40 AM > Subject: [SRY] Family History Sites > > I have found that looking at all the available sites along with > newspapers available online gives the best and most accurate results > when searching for ancestors. By far the most disappointing site I > have found is the Ancestry Family Trees site where members are > actually prompted to attach matches on their site.Someone will have > spent countless hours and much money on compiling their tree only to > have others attach, to their own tree, whole sections that they > haven't researched. It's very common to find that several or many > researchers have copied the same information which often does not > relate to their own family at all. It's so disheartening that this is > happening on a site available from the one company which has done so much to promote genealogy. > > Jan > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Anne Capewell" <alc_goytre@hotmail.com> > To: <eng-surrey@rootsweb.com> > Sent: Friday, September 28, 2012 10:01 PM > Subject: Re: [SRY] BOOKER James and Elizabeth > > > > Hi Lawrence, > > I agree that Genes RU were annoying for a long time with 'hot matches' > etc - but these seem to have stopped now so maybe it depends on how > long you are with them? I also agree that Lost Cousins is a great > simple idea - I should probably go back to it again and see if I can > add anyone else to improve my chances. I'll keep doing the lottery as well though!! > > all the best, Anne > > > > From: lawrencepearse@msn.com > > To: eng-surrey@rootsweb.com > > Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2012 08:24:59 +0000 > > Subject: Re: [SRY] BOOKER James and Elizabeth > > > > > > Yes, Anne, completely agree - diversification is key in trying to > > find > one's ancestors, and I certainly didn't mean to imply that Lost > Cousins is the only or the best site. But what I do like about it are > its simplicity - it takes only a few minutes to add census data - and > its being almost foolproof. I get fed up with the countless emails I > get from Genes Reunited suggesting matches that are nothing like the > details I have posted with them. I am sorry you have had no matches > through LC - yet! The odds on you doing so are far far greater than a win on the Lottery! > > > > Lawrence > > > > > > > From: alc_goytre@hotmail.com > > > To: eng-surrey@rootsweb.com > > > Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2012 14:02:31 +0100 > > > Subject: Re: [SRY] BOOKER James and Elizabeth > > > > > > > > > Hi Lawrence, > > > > > > I'm glad that you have found Lost Cousins useful but I think that > > > it is > good practice to post queries on as many sites as you can. I have > entered a large number of ancestors and their cousins on Lost Cousins > and have absolutely no matches whatsoever. However I am also > subscribed to Genes Reunited, Romany &Travellers FHS and Sussex FHG > and have linked up with several 'cousins' as well as receiving relevat > information from people that I am not remotely related to. I'm also on > this site and the Staffordshire one, Ancestry Aid and a couple of > other ones I cannot even remember but I get the odd email from! > > > > > > Just get your info out there and someone will come up with an answer! > > > > > > > > > > From: lawrencepearse@msn.com > > > > To: eng-surrey@rootsweb.com > > > > Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2012 22:01:30 +0000 > > > > Subject: Re: [SRY] BOOKER James and Elizabeth > > > > > > > > > > > > Norma - one really great, and free, way to find other people > researching the same people as you is to use the Lost Cousins website. > This operates through people entering 1841/1881/1911 census data, and > then matching people who have entered the same data. It is thus a > pretty foolproof way of matching 'cousins'. Clearly the more data you > enter the better your chance of getting a match - and it also pays to > enter data not just for your direct ancestors but for their siblings > and descendants too. I have found many cousins over the years in this > way, from all over the world, and they have all enabled me to further > my research, and better still provide photos, memories etc. > > > > > > > > You ought to be able to find 1841 census data for James and > > > > Elizabeth > - it would also pay to look in the 1881 (and indeed 1871) census for > other relatives of theirs (and enter their data on to LC). That might > give you clues about James and Elizabeth. > > > > > > > > You do not have to pay a subscription - though it costs only £10 > > > > a > year to do so. The benefit of paying a sub is that you not only get > told that other people have entered the same data as you but are also > enabled to contact them securely through the LC site. > > > > > > > > I am getting the LC site to send you an invitation - you don't > > > > have to > take it up, but from my experience you should certainly benefit if you do. > > > > > > > > Lawrence > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Is there anyone researching BOOKER. > > > > > > > > > > I have the marriage of James BOOKER to Elizabeth ANDREW on > > > > > 14th > September 1864 St Mary Magdalene Burmondsey, Surrey. > > > > > James aged 30 bachelor father Edward Booker Elizabeth aged 33 > > > > > a widow, father John Drew Colebrook. > > > > > > > > > > I just cannot find them after this. I have tried the 1871 > > > > > census > with no success. > > > > > There are some possible deaths, but I just cannot narrow it down. > > > > > I am particularly following Elizabeth and have all the > > > > > census', her > first marriage details etc but nothing after her wedding to James. > > > > > > > > > > Any help much appreciated, > > > > > Norma Johnson in N.Z. > > > > > > > > *************************************** > > > Send your List messages using **PLAIN TEXT** and always **TRIM > > > AWAY** > superfluous old messages in replies. > > > > > > List Admin can be contacted at: Eng-Surrey-admin@rootsweb.com. > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------- > > > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > ENG-SURREY-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without > the quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > > > *************************************** > > Send your List messages using **PLAIN TEXT** and always **TRIM > > AWAY** > superfluous old messages in replies. > > > > List Admin can be contacted at: Eng-Surrey-admin@rootsweb.com. > > > > > > ------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > ENG-SURREY-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without > the quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > *************************************** > Send your List messages using **PLAIN TEXT** and always **TRIM AWAY** > superfluous old messages in replies. > > List Admin can be contacted at: Eng-Surrey-admin@rootsweb.com. > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > ENG-SURREY-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without > the quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > > > *************************************** > Send your List messages using **PLAIN TEXT** and always **TRIM AWAY** > superfluous old messages in replies. > > List Admin can be contacted at: Eng-Surrey-admin@rootsweb.com. > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > ENG-SURREY-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without > the quotes in the subject and the body of the message > *************************************** > Send your List messages using **PLAIN TEXT** and always **TRIM AWAY** > superfluous old messages in replies. > > List Admin can be contacted at: Eng-Surrey-admin@rootsweb.com. > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > ENG-SURREY-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without > the quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > > > *************************************** > Send your List messages using **PLAIN TEXT** and always **TRIM AWAY** superfluous old messages in replies. > > List Admin can be contacted at: Eng-Surrey-admin@rootsweb.com. > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > ENG-SURREY-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without > the quotes in the subject and the body of the message *************************************** Send your List messages using **PLAIN TEXT** and always **TRIM AWAY** superfluous old messages in replies. List Admin can be contacted at: Eng-Surrey-admin@rootsweb.com. ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to ENG-SURREY-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

I agree with most comments on this message, they are all familiar problems to me. I have never subscribed to Ancestry myself but I was included as a family member on a relative's subscription for a while. I then discovered just how much data that I had supplied to others researching the same name had been included on their trees and copied on from one to another without so much as a by your leave from me. Some of them had also included photos which I had sent them as copies from my great grandmother's photo album quite a long time ago now. I did actually ask them to remove these as I understand that Ancestry claim these as their own once they are posted on the site, and I did not wish this to happen. Until I was aware of what goes on on Ancestry I was very happy to share all data and photos, but like Maree I am very cautious now, and I find that very sad. One of the errors that I discovered was that someone I do not know has recorded on his tree that my father married my grandmother, I've learnt to shrug my shoulders about that now but at first I found it very offensive. I agree with Nivard that however much we complain it will do no good, but that does not make it right, Ancestry should provide a means for even those of us who do not subscribe to ask to have such errors removed. Pauline. -------------------------------------------------- From: "Veronica I Barr" <mordensurrey@gmail.com> Sent: Saturday, September 29, 2012 2:42 PM To: <eng-surrey@rootsweb.com> Subject: Re: [SRY] Family History Sites > What an interesting message string. Thank you to all, I've learned a lot > and it's also confirmed to me that doing my own checking is not be > ultra-picky. I cannot recall anyone mentioning the Genes Reunited site, > where there are tree owners claiming thousands of family connections. One > in particular I recall had over 11,000 - by now that number may have > doubled! > > If I was far ahead enough (and as knowledgeable as so many of you) in my > research I know at least one branch of my tree would thoroughly confuse > would be information copiers -- the person in bygone days who entered my > maternal, grandmother's father's marriage information transposed two lines > of information. So the wife is listed an another person! > > I recall a couple of years ago a message string about the Civilian > Technical > Corps; a subject on which I have some knowledge. At least one of the > participants in the string was honest enough to say he was writing a book > and asked me for more information. No, I was just too mean to share :) > > Regards, > Veronica > > -----Original Message----- > From: eng-surrey-bounces@rootsweb.com > [mailto:eng-surrey-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Nivard Ovington > Sent: Saturday, 29 September, 2012 6:19 AM > To: eng-surrey@rootsweb.com > Subject: Re: [SRY] Family History Sites > > Hi John > > The reason people put there data out there (on Ancestry or anywhere > else) is to find connections > > If you hide everything from all others you are not likely to find as many > connections as those that do > > However, no matter what you tell people to do you have no control once you > pass data on, no amount of telling them or asking them not to will work, > they will either ignore you or simply forget and do it anyway > > I have expressly requested that some data I supplied to another connected > researcher not be put on the net, a couple of years later there it is > > But at the end of the day you and I don't own much of the data anyway > > All civil & religious events are public record > > Nivard Ovington in Cornwall (UK) > > > *************************************** > Send your List messages using **PLAIN TEXT** and always **TRIM AWAY** > superfluous old messages in replies. > > List Admin can be contacted at: Eng-Surrey-admin@rootsweb.com. > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > ENG-SURREY-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Ha, I got a real laugh from your reply JK, I had exactly the same thing to me, I gave someone a lot of info, and expressly asked that it not go up on the web as I still needed to check a couple of things, but no, up it went, mistakes and all - so suffer in boots I say. I am more than happy to share, always have been, but I take a lot more care these days. Cheers Maree -----Original Message----- From: eng-surrey-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:eng-surrey-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of J K gen Sent: Saturday, 29 September 2012 8:19 PM To: eng-surrey@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [SRY] Family History Sites The danger of sharing ones information has been with us for longer than we have accessed Ancestry data. I sent my tree details to a one-namer before the web became the norm. All my information turned up on someone else's tree some years later. I then discovered that, without permission from me, the original one-namer had passed a complete gedcom to another researcher who had then published everything. The original one-namer's attitude was that it was important to share with everybody, and he saw no reason to contact the individuals who had provided him with their information. Part of the reason being, I guess, that he'd had a lot of data donations over the years and probably couldn't remember or work out who had given what. My grain of comfort is that one particular part of my tree details given to him is wrong - because I was using software with which I was unfamiliar and didn't enter it correctly. So I know who's pinched what! Doesn't help, and I cannot stop it. I also see details on other trees which have come from my tree on Ancestry - once or twice it has produced a bona fide relation, but mostly it hasn't. All I do is laugh - they have their trees wrong - I know mine is right. Hahahahah! JK *************************************** Send your List messages using **PLAIN TEXT** and always **TRIM AWAY** superfluous old messages in replies. List Admin can be contacted at: Eng-Surrey-admin@rootsweb.com. ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to ENG-SURREY-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Hi everyone, Just getting on the tail end of this - but I have heard that once you put your tree up on Ancestry, you have to stay subscribed to the site to access it, is this correct? Cheers Maree -----Original Message----- From: eng-surrey-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:eng-surrey-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Rita Sent: Saturday, 29 September 2012 6:33 PM To: eng-surrey@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [SRY] Family History Sites Hello I sent a email about that to Ancestry but they didn't answer. regards Rita ________________________________ From: Neil & Jan Hearn <neil.hearn3@bigpond.com> To: eng-surrey@rootsweb.com Sent: Saturday, 29 September 2012 7:40 AM Subject: [SRY] Family History Sites I have found that looking at all the available sites along with newspapers available online gives the best and most accurate results when searching for ancestors. By far the most disappointing site I have found is the Ancestry Family Trees site where members are actually prompted to attach matches on their site.Someone will have spent countless hours and much money on compiling their tree only to have others attach, to their own tree, whole sections  that they haven't researched. It's very common to find that several or many researchers have copied the same information which often does not relate to their own family at all. It's so disheartening that this is happening on a site available from the one company which has done so much to promote genealogy. Jan ----- Original Message ----- From: "Anne Capewell" <alc_goytre@hotmail.com> To: <eng-surrey@rootsweb.com> Sent: Friday, September 28, 2012 10:01 PM Subject: Re: [SRY] BOOKER James and Elizabeth Hi Lawrence, I agree that Genes RU were annoying for a long time with 'hot matches' etc - but these seem to have stopped now so maybe it depends on how long you are with them? I also agree that Lost Cousins is a great simple idea - I should probably go back to it again and see if I can add anyone else to improve my chances. I'll keep doing the lottery as well though!! all the best, Anne > From: lawrencepearse@msn.com > To: eng-surrey@rootsweb.com > Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2012 08:24:59 +0000 > Subject: Re: [SRY] BOOKER James and Elizabeth > > > Yes, Anne, completely agree - diversification is key in trying to find one's ancestors, and I certainly didn't mean to imply that Lost Cousins is the only or the best site. But what I do like about it are its simplicity - it takes only a few minutes to add census data - and its being almost foolproof. I get fed up with the countless emails I get from Genes Reunited suggesting matches that are nothing like the details I have posted with them. I am sorry you have had no matches through LC - yet! The odds on you doing so are far far greater than a win on the Lottery! > > Lawrence > > > > From: alc_goytre@hotmail.com > > To: eng-surrey@rootsweb.com > > Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2012 14:02:31 +0100 > > Subject: Re: [SRY] BOOKER James and Elizabeth > > > > > > Hi Lawrence, > > > > I'm glad that you have found Lost Cousins useful but I think that it is good practice to post queries on as many sites as you can. I have entered a large number of ancestors and their cousins on Lost Cousins and have absolutely no matches whatsoever. However I am also subscribed to Genes Reunited, Romany &Travellers FHS and Sussex FHG and have linked up with several 'cousins' as well as receiving relevat information from people that I am not remotely related to. I'm also on this site and the Staffordshire one, Ancestry Aid and a couple of other ones I cannot even remember but I get the odd email from! > > > > Just get your info out there and someone will come up with an answer! > > > > > > > From: lawrencepearse@msn.com > > > To: eng-surrey@rootsweb.com > > > Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2012 22:01:30 +0000 > > > Subject: Re: [SRY] BOOKER James and Elizabeth > > > > > > > > > Norma - one really great, and free, way to find other people researching the same people as you is to use the Lost Cousins website. This operates through people entering 1841/1881/1911 census data, and then matching people who have entered the same data. It is thus a pretty foolproof way of matching 'cousins'. Clearly the more data you enter the better your chance of getting a match - and it also pays to enter data not just for your direct ancestors but for their siblings and descendants too. I have found many cousins over the years in this way, from all over the world, and they have all enabled me to further my research, and better still provide photos, memories etc. > > > > > > You ought to be able to find 1841 census data for James and Elizabeth - it would also pay to look in the 1881 (and indeed 1871) census for other relatives of theirs (and enter their data on to LC). That might give you clues about James and Elizabeth. > > > > > > You do not have to pay a subscription - though it costs only £10 a year to do so. The benefit of paying a sub is that you not only get told that other people have entered the same data as you but are also enabled to contact them securely through the LC site. > > > > > > I am getting the LC site to send you an invitation - you don't have to take it up, but from my experience you should certainly benefit if you do. > > > > > > Lawrence > > > > > >> > > > > > Is there anyone researching BOOKER. > > > > > > > > I have the marriage of James BOOKER to Elizabeth ANDREW on 14th September 1864 St Mary Magdalene Burmondsey, Surrey. > > > > James aged 30 bachelor father Edward Booker > > > > Elizabeth aged 33 a widow, father John Drew Colebrook. > > > > > > > > I just cannot find them after this. I have tried the 1871 census with no success. > > > > There are some possible deaths, but I just cannot narrow it down. > > > > I am particularly following Elizabeth and have all the census', her first marriage details etc but nothing after her wedding to James. > > > > > > > > Any help much appreciated, > > > > Norma Johnson in N.Z. > > > > > > *************************************** > > Send your List messages using **PLAIN TEXT** and always **TRIM AWAY** superfluous old messages in replies. > > > > List Admin can be contacted at: Eng-Surrey-admin@rootsweb.com. > > > > > > ------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to ENG-SURREY-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > *************************************** > Send your List messages using **PLAIN TEXT** and always **TRIM AWAY** superfluous old messages in replies. > > List Admin can be contacted at: Eng-Surrey-admin@rootsweb.com. > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to ENG-SURREY-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message       *************************************** Send your List messages using **PLAIN TEXT** and always **TRIM AWAY** superfluous old messages in replies. List Admin can be contacted at:  Eng-Surrey-admin@rootsweb.com.   ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to ENG-SURREY-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message *************************************** Send your List messages using **PLAIN TEXT** and always **TRIM AWAY** superfluous old messages in replies. List Admin can be contacted at:  Eng-Surrey-admin@rootsweb.com.   ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to ENG-SURREY-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message *************************************** Send your List messages using **PLAIN TEXT** and always **TRIM AWAY** superfluous old messages in replies. List Admin can be contacted at: Eng-Surrey-admin@rootsweb.com. ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to ENG-SURREY-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

My husband's ancestors were the WINGATE family who worked as Thames watermen and lived at Battersea. I'd be very interested to exchange info with anyone else researching this family. Thanks! Jan Hill

Hi John The reason people put there data out there (on Ancestry or anywhere else) is to find connections If you hide everything from all others you are not likely to find as many connections as those that do However, no matter what you tell people to do you have no control once you pass data on, no amount of telling them or asking them not to will work, they will either ignore you or simply forget and do it anyway I have expressly requested that some data I supplied to another connected researcher not be put on the net, a couple of years later there it is But at the end of the day you and I don't own much of the data anyway All civil & religious events are public record Nivard Ovington in Cornwall (UK) On 29/09/2012 10:17, John Phillips wrote: > Hi all > > The simple answer to the problem is not to let Ancestry have your > information. Why let a commercial site have all the info you have > spent years and countless ££££ compiling for them to make free and > easy of it on the net. where some idiot is going to pinch it and then > make connections which don't exist. Once it's out there you have lost > control. I am happy to share my info with bona fide connections, but > on the express condition that they do not, under any circumstances > give it to Ancestry. Perish the thought!!!! That's why they didn't > reply. They couldn't care less. > > > John

Hi Jan & all Nothing will replace doing your own research, once anyone starts to use someone else's research without checking it first they are asking for problems Use others research as a signpost certainly but only trust it if you double check it yourself There are largely two camps as regards family history research, those that want the most accurate family tree with all entries sourced and verified and then those that want to compile the largest tree they can and hoover up other peoples research and attach it to their own Compiling inaccurate and fictitious trees is not a new phenomenon, its been going on for as long as man has walked the earth The two worst offenders are genesreunited and Ancestry (although there are others), neither police their users input and neither should they, that is entirely down to the user, as I said its not a new phenomenon, but its just that the sites mentioned have made it easier add data to, I say offenders but in reality its the users who are the offenders not the facilitators At one time I was rather annoyed at the people who have all sorts including some of my relatives, often erroneously attached to their trees but realise I could spend my whole life trying to correct them only for the tree owner to ignore any evidence placed in front of them, so have largely given up on that and concentrate on my own research If it makes them happy let them get on with it One thing is very clear, bemoaning the fact on the lists will achieve absolutely nothing I am afraid :-( They can be quite amusing though as one had my g.g.g.grandmother passing away 20 years before she gave birth to my g.g.grandmother, quite an achievement I think you would agree :-) Nivard Ovington in Cornwall (UK) On 28/09/2012 22:40, Neil & Jan Hearn wrote: > I have found that looking at all the available sites along with > newspapers available online gives the best and most accurate results > when searching for ancestors. By far the most disappointing site I > have found is the Ancestry Family Trees site where members are > actually prompted to attach matches on their site.Someone will have > spent countless hours and much money on compiling their tree only to > have others attach, to their own tree, whole sections that they > haven't researched. It's very common to find that several or many > researchers have copied the same information which often does not > relate to their own family at all. It's so disheartening that this is > happening on a site available from the one company which has done so > much to promote genealogy. > > Jan

Hi Maree, Once you have posted your tree on Ancestry, you can continue to look at your own tree even after your subscription has lapsed. You can also look at any records which you attached as source details to your tree. However, you cannot access any other records after your subscription has lapsed (with the exception of those records which are free to all) nor can you contact other tree owners if you think you have a match. Hope this helps Lynda > From: mpps@alphalink.com.au > To: tomsam18@yahoo.com; eng-surrey@rootsweb.com > Date: Sat, 29 Sep 2012 20:19:45 +1000 > Subject: Re: [SRY] Family History Sites > > Hi everyone, > Just getting on the tail end of this - but I have heard that once you put > your tree up on Ancestry, you have to stay subscribed to the site to access > it, is this correct? > Cheers > Maree > > -----Original Message----- > From: eng-surrey-bounces@rootsweb.com > [mailto:eng-surrey-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Rita > Sent: Saturday, 29 September 2012 6:33 PM > To: eng-surrey@rootsweb.com > Subject: Re: [SRY] Family History Sites > > Hello I sent a email about that to Ancestry but they didn't answer. > regards > Rita > > > ________________________________ > From: Neil & Jan Hearn <neil.hearn3@bigpond.com> > To: eng-surrey@rootsweb.com > Sent: Saturday, 29 September 2012 7:40 AM > Subject: [SRY] Family History Sites > > I have found that looking at all the available sites along with newspapers > available online gives the best and most accurate results when searching for > ancestors. By far the most disappointing site I have found is the Ancestry > Family Trees site where members are actually prompted to attach matches on > their site.Someone will have spent countless hours and much money on > compiling their tree only to have others attach, to their own tree, whole > sections that they haven't researched. It's very common to find that > several or many researchers have copied the same information which often > does not relate to their own family at all. It's so disheartening that this > is happening on a site available from the one company which has done so much > to promote genealogy. > > Jan > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Anne Capewell" <alc_goytre@hotmail.com> > To: <eng-surrey@rootsweb.com> > Sent: Friday, September 28, 2012 10:01 PM > Subject: Re: [SRY] BOOKER James and Elizabeth > > > > Hi Lawrence, > > I agree that Genes RU were annoying for a long time with 'hot matches' etc - > but these seem to have stopped now so maybe it depends on how long you are > with them? I also agree that Lost Cousins is a great simple idea - I should > probably go back to it again and see if I can add anyone else to improve my > chances. I'll keep doing the lottery as well though!! > > all the best, Anne > > > > From: lawrencepearse@msn.com > > To: eng-surrey@rootsweb.com > > Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2012 08:24:59 +0000 > > Subject: Re: [SRY] BOOKER James and Elizabeth > > > > > > Yes, Anne, completely agree - diversification is key in trying to find > one's ancestors, and I certainly didn't mean to imply that Lost Cousins is > the only or the best site. But what I do like about it are its simplicity - > it takes only a few minutes to add census data - and its being almost > foolproof. I get fed up with the countless emails I get from Genes Reunited > suggesting matches that are nothing like the details I have posted with > them. I am sorry you have had no matches through LC - yet! The odds on you > doing so are far far greater than a win on the Lottery! > > > > Lawrence > > > > > > > From: alc_goytre@hotmail.com > > > To: eng-surrey@rootsweb.com > > > Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2012 14:02:31 +0100 > > > Subject: Re: [SRY] BOOKER James and Elizabeth > > > > > > > > > Hi Lawrence, > > > > > > I'm glad that you have found Lost Cousins useful but I think that it is > good practice to post queries on as many sites as you can. I have entered a > large number of ancestors and their cousins on Lost Cousins and have > absolutely no matches whatsoever. However I am also subscribed to Genes > Reunited, Romany &Travellers FHS and Sussex FHG and have linked up with > several 'cousins' as well as receiving relevat information from people that > I am not remotely related to. I'm also on this site and the Staffordshire > one, Ancestry Aid and a couple of other ones I cannot even remember but I > get the odd email from! > > > > > > Just get your info out there and someone will come up with an answer! > > > > > > > > > > From: lawrencepearse@msn.com > > > > To: eng-surrey@rootsweb.com > > > > Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2012 22:01:30 +0000 > > > > Subject: Re: [SRY] BOOKER James and Elizabeth > > > > > > > > > > > > Norma - one really great, and free, way to find other people > researching the same people as you is to use the Lost Cousins website. This > operates through people entering 1841/1881/1911 census data, and then > matching people who have entered the same data. It is thus a pretty > foolproof way of matching 'cousins'. Clearly the more data you enter the > better your chance of getting a match - and it also pays to enter data not > just for your direct ancestors but for their siblings and descendants too. I > have found many cousins over the years in this way, from all over the world, > and they have all enabled me to further my research, and better still > provide photos, memories etc. > > > > > > > > You ought to be able to find 1841 census data for James and Elizabeth > - it would also pay to look in the 1881 (and indeed 1871) census for other > relatives of theirs (and enter their data on to LC). That might give you > clues about James and Elizabeth. > > > > > > > > You do not have to pay a subscription - though it costs only £10 a > year to do so. The benefit of paying a sub is that you not only get told > that other people have entered the same data as you but are also enabled to > contact them securely through the LC site. > > > > > > > > I am getting the LC site to send you an invitation - you don't have to > take it up, but from my experience you should certainly benefit if you do. > > > > > > > > Lawrence > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Is there anyone researching BOOKER. > > > > > > > > > > I have the marriage of James BOOKER to Elizabeth ANDREW on 14th > September 1864 St Mary Magdalene Burmondsey, Surrey. > > > > > James aged 30 bachelor father Edward Booker > > > > > Elizabeth aged 33 a widow, father John Drew Colebrook. > > > > > > > > > > I just cannot find them after this. I have tried the 1871 census > with no success. > > > > > There are some possible deaths, but I just cannot narrow it down. > > > > > I am particularly following Elizabeth and have all the census', her > first marriage details etc but nothing after her wedding to James. > > > > > > > > > > Any help much appreciated, > > > > > Norma Johnson in N.Z. > > > > > > > > *************************************** > > > Send your List messages using **PLAIN TEXT** and always **TRIM AWAY** > superfluous old messages in replies. > > > > > > List Admin can be contacted at: Eng-Surrey-admin@rootsweb.com. > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------- > > > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > ENG-SURREY-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > > > *************************************** > > Send your List messages using **PLAIN TEXT** and always **TRIM AWAY** > superfluous old messages in replies. > > > > List Admin can be contacted at: Eng-Surrey-admin@rootsweb.com. > > > > > > ------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > ENG-SURREY-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > *************************************** > Send your List messages using **PLAIN TEXT** and always **TRIM AWAY** > superfluous old messages in replies. > > List Admin can be contacted at: Eng-Surrey-admin@rootsweb.com. > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > ENG-SURREY-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > > > *************************************** > Send your List messages using **PLAIN TEXT** and always **TRIM AWAY** > superfluous old messages in replies. > > List Admin can be contacted at: Eng-Surrey-admin@rootsweb.com. > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > ENG-SURREY-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message > *************************************** > Send your List messages using **PLAIN TEXT** and always **TRIM AWAY** > superfluous old messages in replies. > > List Admin can be contacted at: Eng-Surrey-admin@rootsweb.com. > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > ENG-SURREY-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > > > *************************************** > Send your List messages using **PLAIN TEXT** and always **TRIM AWAY** superfluous old messages in replies. > > List Admin can be contacted at: Eng-Surrey-admin@rootsweb.com. > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to ENG-SURREY-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

The danger of sharing ones information has been with us for longer than we have accessed Ancestry data. I sent my tree details to a one-namer before the web became the norm. All my information turned up on someone else's tree some years later. I then discovered that, without permission from me, the original one-namer had passed a complete gedcom to another researcher who had then published everything. The original one-namer's attitude was that it was important to share with everybody, and he saw no reason to contact the individuals who had provided him with their information. Part of the reason being, I guess, that he'd had a lot of data donations over the years and probably couldn't remember or work out who had given what. My grain of comfort is that one particular part of my tree details given to him is wrong - because I was using software with which I was unfamiliar and didn't enter it correctly. So I know who's pinched what! Doesn't help, and I cannot stop it. I also see details on other trees which have come from my tree on Ancestry - once or twice it has produced a bona fide relation, but mostly it hasn't. All I do is laugh - they have their trees wrong - I know mine is right. Hahahahah! JK

Hi all The simple answer to the problem is not to let Ancestry have your information. Why let a commercial site have all the info you have spent years and countless ££££ compiling for them to make free and easy of it on the net. where some idiot is going to pinch it and then make connections which don't exist. Once it's out there you have lost control. I am happy to share my info with bona fide connections, but on the express condition that they do not, under any circumstances give it to Ancestry. Perish the thought!!!! That's why they didn't reply. They couldn't care less. John ________________________________ From: Rita <tomsam18@yahoo.com> To: "eng-surrey@rootsweb.com" <eng-surrey@rootsweb.com> Sent: Saturday, 29 September 2012, 9:32 Subject: Re: [SRY] Family History Sites Hello I sent a email about that to Ancestry but they didn't answer. regards Rita ________________________________ From: Neil & Jan Hearn <neil.hearn3@bigpond.com> To: eng-surrey@rootsweb.com Sent: Saturday, 29 September 2012 7:40 AM Subject: [SRY] Family History Sites   I have found that looking at all the available sites along with newspapers available online gives the best and most accurate results when searching for ancestors. By far the most disappointing site I have found is the Ancestry Family Trees site where members are actually prompted to attach matches on their site.Someone will have spent countless hours and much money on compiling their tree only to have others attach, to their own tree, whole sections  that they haven't researched. It's very common to find that several or many researchers have copied the same information which often does not relate to their own family at all. It's so disheartening that this is happening on a site available from the one company which has done so much to promote genealogy. Jan ----- Original Message ----- From: "Anne Capewell" <alc_goytre@hotmail.com> To: <eng-surrey@rootsweb.com> Sent: Friday, September 28, 2012 10:01 PM Subject: Re: [SRY] BOOKER James and Elizabeth Hi Lawrence, I agree that Genes RU were annoying for a long time with 'hot matches' etc - but these seem to have stopped now so maybe it depends on how long you are with them? I also agree that Lost Cousins is a great simple idea - I should probably go back to it again and see if I can add anyone else to improve my chances. I'll keep doing the lottery as well though!! all the best, Anne > From: lawrencepearse@msn.com > To: eng-surrey@rootsweb.com > Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2012 08:24:59 +0000 > Subject: Re: [SRY] BOOKER James and Elizabeth > > > Yes, Anne, completely agree - diversification is key in trying to find one's ancestors, and I certainly didn't mean to imply that Lost Cousins is the only or the best site. But what I do like about it are its simplicity - it takes only a few minutes to add census data - and its being almost foolproof. I get fed up with the countless emails I get from Genes Reunited suggesting matches that are nothing like the details I have posted with them. I am sorry you have had no matches through LC - yet! The odds on you doing so are far far greater than a win on the Lottery! > > Lawrence > > > > From: alc_goytre@hotmail.com > > To: eng-surrey@rootsweb.com > > Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2012 14:02:31 +0100 > > Subject: Re: [SRY] BOOKER James and Elizabeth > > > > > > Hi Lawrence, > > > > I'm glad that you have found Lost Cousins useful but I think that it is good practice to post queries on as many sites as you can. I have entered a large number of ancestors and their cousins on Lost Cousins and have absolutely no matches whatsoever. However I am also subscribed to Genes Reunited, Romany &Travellers FHS and Sussex FHG and have linked up with several 'cousins' as well as receiving relevat information from people that I am not remotely related to. I'm also on this site and the Staffordshire one, Ancestry Aid and a couple of other ones I cannot even remember but I get the odd email from! > > > > Just get your info out there and someone will come up with an answer! > > > > > > > From: lawrencepearse@msn.com > > > To: eng-surrey@rootsweb.com > > > Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2012 22:01:30 +0000 > > > Subject: Re: [SRY] BOOKER James and Elizabeth > > > > > > > > > Norma - one really great, and free, way to find other people researching the same people as you is to use the Lost Cousins website. This operates through people entering 1841/1881/1911 census data, and then matching people who have entered the same data. It is thus a pretty foolproof way of matching 'cousins'. Clearly the more data you enter the better your chance of getting a match - and it also pays to enter data not just for your direct ancestors but for their siblings and descendants too. I have found many cousins over the years in this way, from all over the world, and they have all enabled me to further my research, and better still provide photos, memories etc. > > > > > > You ought to be able to find 1841 census data for James and Elizabeth - it would also pay to look in the 1881 (and indeed 1871) census for other relatives of theirs (and enter their data on to LC). That might give you clues about James and Elizabeth. > > > > > > You do not have to pay a subscription - though it costs only £10 a year to do so. The benefit of paying a sub is that you not only get told that other people have entered the same data as you but are also enabled to contact them securely through the LC site. > > > > > > I am getting the LC site to send you an invitation - you don't have to take it up, but from my experience you should certainly benefit if you do. > > > > > > Lawrence > > > > > >> > > > > > Is there anyone researching BOOKER. > > > > > > > > I have the marriage of James BOOKER to Elizabeth ANDREW on 14th September 1864 St Mary Magdalene Burmondsey, Surrey. > > > > James aged 30 bachelor father Edward Booker > > > > Elizabeth aged 33 a widow, father John Drew Colebrook. > > > > > > > > I just cannot find them after this. I have tried the 1871 census with no success. > > > > There are some possible deaths, but I just cannot narrow it down. > > > > I am particularly following Elizabeth and have all the census', her first marriage details etc but nothing after her wedding to James. > > > > > > > > Any help much appreciated, > > > > Norma Johnson in N.Z. > > > > > > *************************************** > > Send your List messages using **PLAIN TEXT** and always **TRIM AWAY** superfluous old messages in replies. > > > > List Admin can be contacted at: Eng-Surrey-admin@rootsweb.com. > > > > > > ------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to ENG-SURREY-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > *************************************** > Send your List messages using **PLAIN TEXT** and always **TRIM AWAY** superfluous old messages in replies. > > List Admin can be contacted at: Eng-Surrey-admin@rootsweb.com. > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to ENG-SURREY-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message       *************************************** Send your List messages using **PLAIN TEXT** and always **TRIM AWAY** superfluous old messages in replies. List Admin can be contacted at:  Eng-Surrey-admin@rootsweb.com.   ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to ENG-SURREY-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message *************************************** Send your List messages using **PLAIN TEXT** and always **TRIM AWAY** superfluous old messages in replies. List Admin can be contacted at:  Eng-Surrey-admin@rootsweb.com.   ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to ENG-SURREY-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message *************************************** Send your List messages using **PLAIN TEXT** and always **TRIM AWAY** superfluous old messages in replies. List Admin can be contacted at:  Eng-Surrey-admin@rootsweb.com.   ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to ENG-SURREY-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Hi Jan,Whilst I agree with you that the Ancestry trees can be inaccurate due to other people copying information, I would point out that all tree owners are given the option to make their tree private at any time.If they choose to remain public then all of their research can be copied over without the other person even bothering to make contact with them.By far the most sensible solution is to make your tree private. In this instance people only get the name of a person on your tree, not all the other facts. They then have to contact the tree owner to ask for permission to view the tree and then it is up to the tree owner to decide whether to share information or not. Lynda> From: neil.hearn3@bigpond.com > To: eng-surrey@rootsweb.com > Date: Sat, 29 Sep 2012 07:40:25 +1000 > Subject: [SRY] Family History Sites > > I have found that looking at all the available sites along with newspapers available online gives the best and most accurate results when searching for ancestors. By far the most disappointing site I have found is the Ancestry Family Trees site where members are actually prompted to attach matches on their site.Someone will have spent countless hours and much money on compiling their tree only to have others attach, to their own tree, whole sections that they haven't researched. It's very common to find that several or many researchers have copied the same information which often does not relate to their own family at all. It's so disheartening that this is happening on a site available from the one company which has done so much to promote genealogy. > > Jan > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Anne Capewell" <alc_goytre@hotmail.com> > To: <eng-surrey@rootsweb.com> > Sent: Friday, September 28, 2012 10:01 PM > Subject: Re: [SRY] BOOKER James and Elizabeth > > > > Hi Lawrence, > > I agree that Genes RU were annoying for a long time with 'hot matches' etc - but these seem to have stopped now so maybe it depends on how long you are with them? I also agree that Lost Cousins is a great simple idea - I should probably go back to it again and see if I can add anyone else to improve my chances. I'll keep doing the lottery as well though!! > > all the best, Anne > > > > From: lawrencepearse@msn.com > > To: eng-surrey@rootsweb.com > > Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2012 08:24:59 +0000 > > Subject: Re: [SRY] BOOKER James and Elizabeth > > > > > > Yes, Anne, completely agree - diversification is key in trying to find one's ancestors, and I certainly didn't mean to imply that Lost Cousins is the only or the best site. But what I do like about it are its simplicity - it takes only a few minutes to add census data - and its being almost foolproof. I get fed up with the countless emails I get from Genes Reunited suggesting matches that are nothing like the details I have posted with them. I am sorry you have had no matches through LC - yet! The odds on you doing so are far far greater than a win on the Lottery! > > > > Lawrence > > > > > > > From: alc_goytre@hotmail.com > > > To: eng-surrey@rootsweb.com > > > Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2012 14:02:31 +0100 > > > Subject: Re: [SRY] BOOKER James and Elizabeth > > > > > > > > > Hi Lawrence, > > > > > > I'm glad that you have found Lost Cousins useful but I think that it is good practice to post queries on as many sites as you can. I have entered a large number of ancestors and their cousins on Lost Cousins and have absolutely no matches whatsoever. However I am also subscribed to Genes Reunited, Romany &Travellers FHS and Sussex FHG and have linked up with several 'cousins' as well as receiving relevat information from people that I am not remotely related to. I'm also on this site and the Staffordshire one, Ancestry Aid and a couple of other ones I cannot even remember but I get the odd email from! > > > > > > Just get your info out there and someone will come up with an answer! > > > > > > > > > > From: lawrencepearse@msn.com > > > > To: eng-surrey@rootsweb.com > > > > Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2012 22:01:30 +0000 > > > > Subject: Re: [SRY] BOOKER James and Elizabeth > > > > > > > > > > > > Norma - one really great, and free, way to find other people researching the same people as you is to use the Lost Cousins website. This operates through people entering 1841/1881/1911 census data, and then matching people who have entered the same data. It is thus a pretty foolproof way of matching 'cousins'. Clearly the more data you enter the better your chance of getting a match - and it also pays to enter data not just for your direct ancestors but for their siblings and descendants too. I have found many cousins over the years in this way, from all over the world, and they have all enabled me to further my research, and better still provide photos, memories etc. > > > > > > > > You ought to be able to find 1841 census data for James and Elizabeth - it would also pay to look in the 1881 (and indeed 1871) census for other relatives of theirs (and enter their data on to LC). That might give you clues about James and Elizabeth. > > > > > > > > You do not have to pay a subscription - though it costs only £10 a year to do so. The benefit of paying a sub is that you not only get told that other people have entered the same data as you but are also enabled to contact them securely through the LC site. > > > > > > > > I am getting the LC site to send you an invitation - you don't have to take it up, but from my experience you should certainly benefit if you do. > > > > > > > > Lawrence > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Is there anyone researching BOOKER. > > > > > > > > > > I have the marriage of James BOOKER to Elizabeth ANDREW on 14th September 1864 St Mary Magdalene Burmondsey, Surrey. > > > > > James aged 30 bachelor father Edward Booker > > > > > Elizabeth aged 33 a widow, father John Drew Colebrook. > > > > > > > > > > I just cannot find them after this. I have tried the 1871 census with no success. > > > > > There are some possible deaths, but I just cannot narrow it down. > > > > > I am particularly following Elizabeth and have all the census', her first marriage details etc but nothing after her wedding to James. > > > > > > > > > > Any help much appreciated, > > > > > Norma Johnson in N.Z. > > > > > > > > *************************************** > > > Send your List messages using **PLAIN TEXT** and always **TRIM AWAY** superfluous old messages in replies. > > > > > > List Admin can be contacted at: Eng-Surrey-admin@rootsweb.com. > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------- > > > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to ENG-SURREY-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > > > *************************************** > > Send your List messages using **PLAIN TEXT** and always **TRIM AWAY** superfluous old messages in replies. > > > > List Admin can be contacted at: Eng-Surrey-admin@rootsweb.com. > > > > > > ------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to ENG-SURREY-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > *************************************** > Send your List messages using **PLAIN TEXT** and always **TRIM AWAY** superfluous old messages in replies. > > List Admin can be contacted at: Eng-Surrey-admin@rootsweb.com. > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to ENG-SURREY-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > > > *************************************** > Send your List messages using **PLAIN TEXT** and always **TRIM AWAY** superfluous old messages in replies. > > List Admin can be contacted at: Eng-Surrey-admin@rootsweb.com. > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to ENG-SURREY-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Details of this events are on the website of Lambeth Archives: http://www.lambeth.gov.uk/home.htm East Surrey FHS, and other organisations are planning to be there. Ann