Surrey Heritage Celebration Free Open Day 6 October 2012 10am - 3.30pm at the Surrey History Centre . A day of free events at Surrey History Centre. Including children’s craft activities, a family history helpdesk, behind the scenes tours of the award winning archive* and much more. The day will also include the Surrey Heritage Annual Lecture: Surrey Heritage Annual Lecture - 'Valuing the Past: Why Heritage Matters in the Modern World ' 2pm – 3.30pm Drawing on his experiences working as a heritage professional around the globe, Dr Joe Flatman will explore the different values that societies place on heritage in the modern world. Using examples drawn from across Surrey, the UK and further afield. Places are limited, to book please ring 01483 518737. Free. The ‘behind the scenes’ tours will be at 10.30 am and 12.30pm. The tours last 1½ hours. Places are limited, to book please ring 01483 518737. Free. SHC is located at 130 Goldsworth Road, Woking, Surrey GU21 6ND *This year the Surrey History Centre was named archive of the year by Your Family History Magazine Enjoy! Ann

Hi All Just to add to Bills point on UK burial information:There are a couple of commercial websites with SOME cemeteries covered (but not many).There are a number of free sites sites specific to individual cemeteries.There are a couple of free sites with, again, some patchy info on various cemeteries - largely military/war deaths.A number of local authorities also provide a search service, often for a considerable charge however. I have been involved with the cemetery friends movement for 25 years now and it is fair to say that progress online of burial information has been slow. This is certainly not a short-cut to finding a death and often difficult even with specific death dates - especially for London. Local searches remain the best bet. regards IanFriends of Surrey Cemeteries > Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2012 15:26:02 -0700 > From: rnbill@centurytel.net > To: ENG-SURREY@rootsweb.com > Subject: [SRY] Burial questions > > Hi all > > Over time I have noted multiple requests for information concerning > burials in the London area. Just yesterday I found an article in Family > Tree Magazine, a US publication as far as I know, about that very topic > and actually includes information about all of the United Kingdom. > Besides Family Search and Find My Past there were some sources that I > have never seen. > > They are: > 1) Deceased Online www.deceasedonline.com which is touted to contain > data from both the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland. It > contains data from "some 3,000 burial authorities and nearly 250 > crematoria in the United Kingdom alone." > > 2) Internment.net www.internment.net/uk/eng which "...has many UK > cemetery transcriptions..." > > Bill in Gig Harbor > *************************************** > 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 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

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)

Hi all Like many others I am not happy about the hijacking of research that I have taken years to do. I shared information about ten years ago with someone who then posted it to Ancestry. Later I found an error that I had made. I sent an email to the person I had originally provided the info to but she did not want to amend the incorrect detail until I had supplied the corrections. Needless to say I have not provided the corrected details but the incorrect information is being copied time and time again and now appears on at least ten other trees to my knowledge. In addition to this error some of the information was discussed on a chat forum by this same person who disputed a divorce because she could not find the details herself and would appear not to be happy about divorce in the family (I had been to the National Archives and looked at the papers for this divorce so was 100% sure of the facts). Never again will I share info unless I can be 100% sure of where it is going. Penny -----Original Message----- From: John Phillips <denscanis@yahoo.co.uk> To: Rita <tomsam18@yahoo.com>; eng-surrey <eng-surrey@rootsweb.com> Sent: Sat, 29 Sep 2012 10:27 Subject: Re: [SRY] Family History Sites 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 *************************************** 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

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

Thanks for your help Lawrence, The only address I have for them in the 1860's is Burmondsey - the address they each gave on their marriage certificate 14 Sept.1864, probably not detailed enough? The possibilities I have are the Elizabeth Booker death you mentioned in St Olave 1865. OR two James BOOKER entry deaths 1865 in Camberwell - one first quarter and one last quarter and another James Booker death 1864 (not sure what quarter) in St.George in The East, London. If James died then Elizabeth may have remarried or else they both could have died. Thanks again, Norma

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

There are a number of James and Elizabeth BOOKER deaths in the timeframe in which I am looking - 1864 to 1871. Is there any way of getting more information on each one, so I can narrow them down, taking a chance and ordering a death certificate could prove expensive when there are so many. Many thanks, Norma

Hello Norma, There are BOOKER'S in Elstead, I have BOOKER on my family tree that married into my family from Dunsfold, Surrey. Villages south of Guildford, Surrey. The surname of COLEBROOK, they had a meat and poultry shop in Guildford High Street in the late 1900s. There was a COLEBROOK researcher a few years ago in this list. When I went to dance classes as a small child, my teacher was a Miss ANDREW'S in Guildford. Kind regards Barbara Lewis Mallyon Basingstoke, Hants. UK BarbaraMallyon@lewmal.co.uk ----- Original Message ----- From: <normil@xtra.co.nz> To: <ENG-SURREY@rootsweb.com> Sent: Wednesday, September 26, 2012 10:34 PM Subject: [SRY] BOOKER James and Elizabeth > > 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.

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

Personal search is free - not much use if you live in Australia. Their current search fee is £53 -----Original Message----- From: mal parr Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2012 5:16 PM To: ENG-SURREY@rootsweb.com Subject: [SRY] RE PUTNEY VALE CEMETERIES Perhaps I was misinformed, but I was told fairly recently that a personal search here is free; I understood that the high fee would be incurred if the cemetery authorities did it for you Perhaps someone can clarify this? Mal in W. Australia : Re: [SRY] Putney Vale lookup To: list surrey<eng-surrey@rootsweb.com> Message-ID:<BAY149-W52EA10B0F0F28983E1FBB5DB9D0@phx.gbl> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Unfortunately Putney Vale is one of the most expensive cemeteries when it comes to Burial Register Searching - they were charging ?35 at the last count. I am no longer in the area and do not know of any way round this charge.regardsIanFriends of Surrey Cemeteries > From:deekaa@bigpond.com > To:ENG-SURREY@rootsweb.com > Date: Sat, 22 Sep 2012 09:08:32 +1000 > Subject: [SRY] Putney Vale lookup > > > Would greatly appreciate SKS to do a lookup in Burial register at Putney > Vale Cemetery, Stag Lane, Putney. > I have date of death so simply need confirmation of Burial place, and if > there is a monument. > I am in Australia. Please reply todeekaa@bigpond.com > *************************************** *************************************** 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

Norma Do you have an address for either or both of them in any year in the 1860s? If so, you could apply to the GRO for a death cert without specifying a particular record. Simply say that the year of death was 1870 but that you don't know the actual record. That will take you to a page where you enter the names of the deceased, a date of death of (for example) 01/01/1870, and the place of death or the last known address. The GRO will then search for the complete years 1869, 1870, and 1871 in either the specified place or using the last known address and if they find a death that corresponds to the details you have provided, then you are lucky! If they don't, they will refund your £9.25. Equally you can enter a date of 01/01/1867 and they will look in the period 1866-1868. I have successfully used this type of unspecific query for births (where I have given a name and year and (say) the mother's maiden name), but have not tried it for deaths - so would be interested to hear how you get on if you try this. Good luck! Lawrence > From: normil@xtra.co.nz > To: ENG-SURREY@rootsweb.com > Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2012 08:43:55 +1200 > Subject: [SRY] BOOKER James and Elizabeth > > > There are a number of James and Elizabeth BOOKER deaths in the timeframe in which I am looking - 1864 to 1871. Is there any way of getting more information on each one, so I can narrow them down, taking a chance and ordering a death certificate could prove expensive when there are so many. > Many thanks, Norma > *************************************** > 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 Norma The age at death was added to the GRO index in 1866 so you may be able to rule some out by that added information Apart from that finding the burials is about your only other avenue I haven't been following the thread so am unsure what it was you were initially seeking Nivard Ovington in Cornwall (UK) On 27/09/2012 21:43, normil@xtra.co.nz wrote: > > There are a number of James and Elizabeth BOOKER deaths in the > timeframe in which I am looking - 1864 to 1871. Is there any way of > getting more information on each one, so I can narrow them down, > taking a chance and ordering a death certificate could prove > expensive when there are so many. Many thanks, Norma

I did the same as Anne when I first started and get emails from long forgotten postings. The only thing I would add is that if you ever reply to a posting on ANY site cut and paste the original message or at least give the website. I've had a few messages that I'd long forgotten I'd posted and I still can't find my original queries. I'd love to help but if I can't find the original source of information there's little I can do. Often these are side lines that I don't have in my main database or hard-copy folders. HTH Andy ----- Original Message ----- From: "Anne Capewell" <alc_goytre@hotmail.com> To: <eng-surrey@rootsweb.com> Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2012 2:02 PM 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

Hi all Over time I have noted multiple requests for information concerning burials in the London area. Just yesterday I found an article in Family Tree Magazine, a US publication as far as I know, about that very topic and actually includes information about all of the United Kingdom. Besides Family Search and Find My Past there were some sources that I have never seen. They are: 1) Deceased Online www.deceasedonline.com which is touted to contain data from both the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland. It contains data from "some 3,000 burial authorities and nearly 250 crematoria in the United Kingdom alone." 2) Internment.net www.internment.net/uk/eng which "...has many UK cemetery transcriptions..." Bill in Gig Harbor

Perhaps I was misinformed, but I was told fairly recently that a personal search here is free; I understood that the high fee would be incurred if the cemetery authorities did it for you Perhaps someone can clarify this? Mal in W. Australia : Re: [SRY] Putney Vale lookup To: list surrey<eng-surrey@rootsweb.com> Message-ID:<BAY149-W52EA10B0F0F28983E1FBB5DB9D0@phx.gbl> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Unfortunately Putney Vale is one of the most expensive cemeteries when it comes to Burial Register Searching - they were charging ?35 at the last count. I am no longer in the area and do not know of any way round this charge.regardsIanFriends of Surrey Cemeteries > From:deekaa@bigpond.com > To:ENG-SURREY@rootsweb.com > Date: Sat, 22 Sep 2012 09:08:32 +1000 > Subject: [SRY] Putney Vale lookup > > > Would greatly appreciate SKS to do a lookup in Burial register at Putney Vale Cemetery, Stag Lane, Putney. > I have date of death so simply need confirmation of Burial place, and if there is a monument. > I am in Australia. Please reply todeekaa@bigpond.com > ***************************************

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. > >

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.

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 > From: normil@xtra.co.nz > To: ENG-SURREY@rootsweb.com > Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2012 09:34:54 +1200 > Subject: [SRY] BOOKER James and Elizabeth > > > 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