I am sure that is the one we seek as the age is about right to be listed as 'cousin' in the 1843 will of Capt. John Miller's [b. 1759-d. 1843 Somerset] And again in Major Gen'l James Miller, older brother of Capt. John [b. 1757-d-1810] - [Both older brothers to our direct line Jane Duncan Miller + Pierce [Axminster/New Park-Devon Co] That could very well a son in the 1851 census - age about right. As to the wills: The Elizabeth we have as a sister to the parents - [our 1st James Miller/m to Jane Duncan /London was married to William Shipley Royal Soc. Of Agricultural/now Arts [Capt John d. Brislington/Somerset] is listed as 'nephew' in Society of Arts articles which began this hunt. I am going to send for the will of Anne as listed as 'wife' / Ruled out Helena/aka Elinor as she shown as 'Widow; at her death in 1810 [according to both wills he named in he was alive in 1843] We are basically hoping to find his parents. [for starters - VBG] That could very well a son in the 1851 census - age about right. [b. ca. 1797] But you have definitely given me several solid leads w/place of birth as Dorking] [If this George a brother of our 1st James as cousin to Capt. John, no doubt b. London area] Leaving your response in place for this reply - as others may pick up on the combined information - I can't thank you enough as the mystery deepened when this George Miller named in two wills - [Capt John and Maj. Gen. James] Mimi **************************************************************************** Hi Mimi According to one of my books on Farnham, George Miller was resident at Castle Hill House in 1836 which is quite a prestigious address - and co-incides with the directory entry you have found. This George Miller played a part in local affairs and is mentioned as a town rate payer when he signed an application for a meeting about street lighting for the town in August 1830, in 1836 he was elected Chairman of the (then) new board 'for superintendence of the Highways of the Parish', and he is mentioned again when in 1837 he was a signatory witness to a contract with the directors of the Farnham Gas Company. I don't have ready access to further information about any of these three documents but Surrey History Centre may have. Can you be a little more specific as to what you are hoping to find. For example, have you looked at census and parish records? Have you looked for George's Will? TNA's documents online site lists three wills for surname Miller in Farnham, Surrey, each available to download at £3.50 - but obviously there can be no advance guarantee they will be found to be connected with George: Will of Elizabeth Hooks Miller, Spinster of Farnham , Surrey 26 January 1853 PROB 11/2165 Will of Ann Miller, Wife of Farnham , Surrey 28 April 1838 PROB 11/1894 Will of Helena otherwise Elinor Miller, Widow of Farnham , Surrey 16 January 1810 PROB 11/1507 1851 census index has a George Miller at Farnham aged 66 years born Dorking - but is he yours? Piece 1595 folio 234 Ann Surrey Admin -- I am using the free version of SPAMfighter. We are a community of 6 million users fighting spam. SPAMfighter has removed 2546 of my spam emails to date. Get the free SPAMfighter here: http://www.spamfighter.com/len The Professional version does not have this message

Hi Chris, According to the Surrey Marriages Cd - there is no other information unfortunately. I noticed that Headley and Leatherhead are only 2.8 miles from each other. I have an Emily Edwards Pullen that was born in Leatherhead - I believe her parents to be William PULLEN and Jane EDWARDS. She married Isaac SEAGRAVE in St martins in the Fields, Westminster in 1844. This is only from the IGI however. In the 1861 census they have a visitor with them in Kensington - Harriett S PULLEN I don't have much on Emily (but would like to find a home for her) but I have the SEAGRAVES back hundreds of years. Does she come from your PULLEN family? I have never been able to find her.......I would love a lead and sharing information goes without saying of course. Cheers Pam from Adelaide Australia > Hi, > > The Surrey Marriage Index shows my Great(x6) Grandfather Thomas PULLEN > marriage to Rosamund ???????? on the 17th July 1705 Headley. I've probably > hit the end of the line here but does anybody have the PR's for Headley in > the hope I can find Rosamund's surname. I doubt the Marriage Entry will > show > it but I'm hoping with such an unusual name that there might be a baptism > or > something that might give me a lead.

They all make mistakes; grandfather was "baptised" on a different continent according to 'an extracted' record on LDS IGI Philip Maddocks ----- Original Message ----- From: "J K gen" <gen2mail@googlemail.com> To: <eng-surrey@rootsweb.com> Sent: Sunday, January 03, 2010 6:06 PM Subject: Re: [SRY] LONDON MARRIAGES & BANNS 1754-1921 > Abslutely right of course. But one needs to use the A2A catalogue as > the LMA's own "London Generations" only quotes X numbers NOT P > numbers. > For example, one I happen to be chasing now is a William Levens marriage > in 1872 > > This is on Ancestry, and the source citation is > > London Metropolitan Archives, Saint Martin, Kentish Town, Register of > marriages, P90/MTN, Item 013 > > The London Generations catalogue gives: > > [All boroughs] 1871 Dec - 1875 Dec X089/185 > SAINT MARTIN, KENTISH TOWN, VICARS ROAD, CAMDEN > Register of marriages > > The National Archives has changed its website (AGAIN......!!!!) and > the tabbed link to A2A has disappeared, the front page for A2A has > also changed so as a quick exercise the following comes up for Martin > Kentish Town > > Reference P90/MTN > Covering dates 1865 - 1989 > Held by London Metropolitan Archives > Extent 69 Files > > There's a very useful paragraph about the church - nice added extra. > > Nevertheless whilst the source citation at Ancestry and TNA will be > the same, the one on London Generations won't be. Hugely annoying. > Let's hope LMA get their act together soon as well as Ancestry sorting > out their even more irritating errors. > 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

> My thanks to everyone who posts links they have found, I don't know how > many I have bookmarked and used with great results. Jacqui (Tasmania) > >A Great Site: > > > > http://www2.richmond.gov.uk/burials/regenq.asp > > > > Found a couple of my relatives in minutes - what a wonderful service. > > > > Jim Robbens > > > > > > *************************************** > > 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 >

Abslutely right of course. But one needs to use the A2A catalogue as the LMA's own "London Generations" only quotes X numbers NOT P numbers. For example, one I happen to be chasing now is a William Levens marriage in 1872 This is on Ancestry, and the source citation is London Metropolitan Archives, Saint Martin, Kentish Town, Register of marriages, P90/MTN, Item 013 The London Generations catalogue gives: [All boroughs] 1871 Dec - 1875 Dec X089/185 SAINT MARTIN, KENTISH TOWN, VICARS ROAD, CAMDEN Register of marriages The National Archives has changed its website (AGAIN......!!!!) and the tabbed link to A2A has disappeared, the front page for A2A has also changed so as a quick exercise the following comes up for Martin Kentish Town Reference P90/MTN Covering dates 1865 - 1989 Held by London Metropolitan Archives Extent 69 Files There's a very useful paragraph about the church - nice added extra. Nevertheless whilst the source citation at Ancestry and TNA will be the same, the one on London Generations won't be. Hugely annoying. Let's hope LMA get their act together soon as well as Ancestry sorting out their even more irritating errors. JK

Hi, The Surrey Marriage Index shows my Great(x6) Grandfather Thomas PULLEN marriage to Rosamund ???????? on the 17th July 1705 Headley. I've probably hit the end of the line here but does anybody have the PR's for Headley in the hope I can find Rosamund's surname. I doubt the Marriage Entry will show it but I'm hoping with such an unusual name that there might be a baptism or something that might give me a lead. Many thanks Chris

JK, While I take your point, I think you're letting Ancestry off the hook here. As far as I can see, the marriage registers for these particular Marylebone parishes are all on different films at the LMA. This is only one example among several where registers from different parishes have been incorrectly "merged" by Ancestry. It is vital for users to look at what is written at the top of the image, and not rely on Ancestry's labelling. For transcribed entries (baptisms/burials after 1813, marriages after 1754) the LMA call-mark is included in the Source Citation at the foot of each transcription. Should there still be any doubt, this number can be checked against the LMA catalogue to identify the correct parish. As for the earlier (untranscribed) registers for both Surrey and Middlesex, a substantial number have been wrongly described by Ancestry, as Cliff Webb has already shown. Any list members who missed this discussion last year might want to look at the Surrey and Middlesex List archives (around the end of September 09). Judy London, UK -----Original Message----- From: eng-surrey-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:eng-surrey-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of J K gen Unfortunately this may be due partly to the way a small proportion of the microfilms in use at LMA have been put together. The same X reference number in the indexes at LMA often contains more than one register from one parish: but users are sometimes confused by the presence on the same film (and therefore with the same X reference number) of a book from a completely different parish.

Thanks for that info Pam Barbara -----Original Message----- From: eng-surrey-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:eng-surrey-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Pam Hillier Sent: Sunday, 3 January 2010 4:21 PM To: eng-surrey@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [SRY] SEBINA COWDRY Hi Barbara I am pretty sure that "A dissenting minister" is Dissenting from the Church of England, therefore Protestant, Baptist, Weslyan etc were dissenting from the C of E....someone will enlighten you further I am sure, as there are much more knowledgable persons that I.... Cheers pam from Adelaide Australia > > On Sebina's marriage certificate, her father's occupation was given as > "Dissenting Minister"-what does this imply? > > *************************************** 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 folks, Happy New Year to you all and hope you have lots of researching success throughout 2010. If you're trying to find ST ANDREW'S LAMBETH baptisms, there is a good chance that they're hidden in amongst ALL SAINTS LALEHAM, SRY! I'm not sure how long this oversight extends, but i've been all the way through the 1860s and all files are affected. I'll list the dates i came below If you look up Lambeth records in the right hand window of their London Births & Baptisms, 1813-1906 search page, Ancestry would have you believe that they only have St Andrews Lambeth bapt images for 1899-1906 when in fact they have far more. If you key in a bapt which comes up as in Laleham All Saints, scroll down to the foot of the window and you may well see: London Metropolitan Archives, St Andrew, Coin Street, Register of baptisms, P85/AND2, Item 1. If this is the case, when you open the file, the top of the register page reassures you that Ancestry had indexed them wrongly as Laleham. Unfortunately, one or two pages don't have the church filled in so you have to juke back and forth between pages to be sure where you are. Here they are for the 1860s under All Saints Laleham You'll notice that some years include widely ranging dates ie: 1860 includes some 1866 [the page also turns up under 1866 because i found an unindexed child there :-) and that was a nice surprise. 1870 includes many odd register pages up until 1880. I haven't checked to see if they are also included under their own year. All Saints, Laleham SRY 1860 electronic page [register page] p.1 [1] All S, L'lham May 13, 1860 - Nov.11 1860; p.2/3 [98-100] All S, L'lham May 6 1859 - May 6, 1860 p.4/6 [12-17] St Andrew Lambeth Aug 28, 1859 - May 10, 1861 p.7 [64-65] St Andrew Lambeth Aug 5, 1866 - Oct 2, 1866 All Saints, Laleham SRY 1861 electronic page [register page] p.1/2 [2-5] All S, L'lham January 27, 1861 - Dec 28, 1862 p.3/5 [16-21] St Andrew Lambeth Oct 17, 1860 - Jan 29, 1862 All Saints, Laleham SRY 1862 electronic page [register page] p.1/2 [4-7] All S, L'lham Oct 24, 1861 - Sep 6, 1863 p.3/7 [20-29] St Andrew Lambeth Oct 3, 1861 - Mar 8, 1863 All Saints, Laleham SRY 1863 electronic page [register page] p.1/2 [6-9] All S, L'lham Dec 28, 1862 - Apr 17, 1864 p.3/7 [28-37] St Andrew Lambeth Dec 21, 1862 - Feb 28, 1864 All Saints, Laleham SRY 1864 p.1/2 [8-11] All S, L'lham Oct 11, 1863 - Aug 6, 1865 p.3/9 [36-49] St Andrew Lambeth Nov 18, 1863 - Feb 19, 1865 All Saints, Laleham SRY 1865 electronic page [register page] p.1/2 [10-13] All S, L'lham May 1, 1864 - Jly 22, 1866 p.3/7 [48-57] St Andrew Lambeth Nov 13, 1864 - Dec 24 1865 All Saints, Laleham SRY 1866 electronic page [register page] p.1/2 [10-13] All S, L'lham Sep 17, 1864 - June 30, 1867 p.3/8 [58-69] St Andrew Lambeth Jan 21, 1866 - Jan 27, 1867 my wee Alice Beavis is to be found here also, dig.p.6 :-) though doesn't appear in the search index. All Saints, Laleham SRY 1867 electronic page [register page] p.1/2 [14-17] All S, L'lham Jly 22, 1866 - May 24, 1868 p.3/10 [68-83] St Andrew Lambeth Nov 25, 1866 - Feb 19, 1868 All Saints, Laleham SRY 1868 electronic page [register page] p.1/2 [16-19] All S, L'lham Oct 6, 1867 - Jly 7, 1869 p.3/11 [82-99] St Andrew Lambeth Dec 29, 1867 - Feb 21, 1869 All Saints, Laleham SRY 1869 electronic page [register page] p.1/2 [18-21] All S, L'lham Jly 19, 1868 - Mar 6, 1870 p.3/12 [98-117] St Andrew Lambeth Dec 20, 1868 - Jan 1, 1870 All Saints, Laleham SRY 1870 electronic page [register page] p.1/2 [20-23] All S, L'lham Jly 25, 1869 - Feb 26, 1871 p.3/20 [116-219] St Andrew Lambeth Dec 5, 1869 - Jan 7,1871 p6 [pps.122/3] untitled but in right order to be St Andrew Lambeth p.16 [106-107] St Andrew Lambeth Sep 20, 1876 - Oct 15, 1876 p. 17 [148-149] St Andrew Lambeth Apr 28, 1878 - May 26 1878 p.18/20 [202-219] St Andrew Lambeth Jan 18, 1880 - Sep 5, 1880 That's it folks for the time being folks :-) le durachd Fionnghal

Unfortunately this may be due partly to the way a small proportion of the microfilms in use at LMA have been put together. The same X reference number in the indexes at LMA often contains more than one register from one parish: but users are sometimes confused by the presence on the same film (and therefore with the same X reference number) of a book from a completely different parish. Whilst it is clearly Ancestry's responsibility to index and identify records they are publishing on their own website, it must make their life a tad more difficult if LMA sources have tied together a Surrey parish with a Middlesex one! The question is how to solve the problem and who should solve it. JK

There is another problem within the Marylebone area. There is a gap on Ancestry for St Mary Bryanstone Square 1885 is filmed (part) then it starts again in 1892. Maybe when this set was filmed the originals were in conservation? If indeed the originals are at LMA. Is there some kind of "rule" whereby Ancestry only film LMA/Guildhall records where they hold the originals (as well as microfilm) rather than just microfilm? You could try tracking the career of your curate to see precisely which parish he was working in 1888? JK > > > I know this is not a "SURREY" subject but on looking for a marriage > > entry in the St Marylebone Parish Church register for 15th January 1888 > > I expected to see my grandparents' entry, however, it's not there. > > > > The pages are consecutively numbered and none appear to be missing. > > > > I have a copy of their marriage certificate from the St Marylebone > > Register Office with clearly written dates etc. > > > > Is there an explanation why a civil copy exists and not a parish one? > > > > George > > Rainham, Kent. >

Thank you Caroline and Nivard for the information you posted for Sebina. I was puzzled as to why I couldn't find Baptisms for any members of the Cowdry family-thank you for enlightening me re the Baptism policies of the Baptist Church. On Sebina's marriage certificate, her father's occupation was given as "Dissenting Minister"-what does this imply? I have also found the following entry for Ulrica Eleanora Clayton, christened 25 November 1823, St Mary's, Lambeth, Surrey, on the IGI., Her mother was Catherine Anastasia Clayton-the baptism doesn't appear on ancestry.who should I contact regarding the possibility of finding further information being recorded in the Baptism Register? Barbara Australia

Hi Barbara I am pretty sure that "A dissenting minister" is Dissenting from the Church of England, therefore Protestant, Baptist, Weslyan etc were dissenting from the C of E....someone will enlighten you further I am sure, as there are much more knowledgable persons that I.... Cheers pam from Adelaide Australia > > On Sebina's marriage certificate, her father's occupation was given as > "Dissenting Minister"-what does this imply? > >

hm! stand up the real St Marylebone Parish Register! And if you're trying to find St Andrew's Lambeth, it's hidden in amongst All Saints Laleham SRY! I'm not sure how long this oversight extends, but i've been all the way through the 1860s and all files are affected. Ancestry would have you believe that they only have St Andrews Lambeth bapt images for 1899-1906 when in fact they have far more. If you key in a bapt which comes up as in Laleham All Saints, scroll down to the foot of the window and you may well see St Andrew's Coin St, Lambeth. If this is the case, when you open the file, the top of the register page reassures you that Ancestry have indexed them wrongly. . I'll post the notes i made, under a new subject heading, in the hope that it helps someone's research le durachd Fionnghal > This is an Ancestry issue, ...They have made > a complete dogs dinner of their indexing of the Marylebone > parishes.  If you > look carefully at the images of the register which > *purport* to be that of > St Marylebone Parish Church (i.e. the parent church for the > ancient parish) > for the year in question, they are actually images of the > registers of St > Mark's, St Barnabas and St Mary (Bryanston Square)!

And images of Christ Church, Stafford Street, as well -- all under the same tab! Judy London, UK -----Original Message----- From: eng-surrey-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:eng-surrey-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Caroline Bradford This is an Ancestry issue, and, alas, not the only example. They have made a complete dogs dinner of their indexing of the Marylebone parishes. If you look carefully at the images of the register which *purport* to be that of St Marylebone Parish Church (i.e. the parent church for the ancient parish) for the year in question, they are actually images of the registers of St Mark's, St Barnabas and St Mary (Bryanston Square)! I am guessing that, as the marriage in question is not thrown up by a name search, the relevant pages for St Marylebone have not been scanned. All that being said, it is highly unlikely that there will be any difference at all between the church register entry and the copy you already have (other than the former having original signatures). Best wishes Caroline > > I know this is not a "SURREY" subject but on looking for a marriage > entry in the St Marylebone Parish Church register for 15th January 1888 > I expected to see my grandparents' entry, however, it's not there. > > The pages are consecutively numbered and none appear to be missing. > > I have a copy of their marriage certificate from the St Marylebone > Register Office with clearly written dates etc. > > Is there an explanation why a civil copy exists and not a parish one? > > George > Rainham, Kent.

Could be, I've checked the on-line parish records several weeks either side of the marriage date to no avail. Thank you for your response. George Rainham, Kent From: "Philip Maddocks" To: "George Pickering" , eng-surrey@rootsweb.com Cc: Subject: Re: [SRY] LONDON MARRIAGES & BANNS 1754-1921 Human error? Philip From: "George Pickering" To: Sent: Sunday, January 03, 2010 2:03 PM Subject: Re: [SRY] LONDON MARRIAGES & BANNS 1754-1921 > Philip. > > Yes it does, extract as follows; > > 1888. Marriage solemnized at "the Parish Church, Parish of St. Marylebone > in the County of Middlesex". > > 15th January 1888 between Herbert PICKERING and Hannah Elizabeth WOOLLEY > > Signed by G E Thomas, Curate. > > > I cannot understand why the entry is not in the parish records. > > George > Rainham, Kent. > >

Philip. Yes it does, extract as follows; 1888. Marriage solemnized at "the Parish Church, Parish of St. Marylebone in the County of Middlesex". 15th January 1888 between Herbert PICKERING and Hannah Elizabeth WOOLLEY Signed by G E Thomas, Curate. I cannot understand why the entry is not in the parish records. George Rainham, Kent. ======================================== Message Received: Jan 03 2010, 01:10 PM From: "Philip Maddocks" To: eng-surrey@rootsweb.com Cc: Subject: Re: [SRY] LONDON MARRIAGES & BANNS 1754-1921 George Does the certificate say that they were married in church? Philip Maddocks ----- Original Message ----- From: "George Pickering" To: "SURREY" Sent: Sunday, January 03, 2010 12:11 PM Subject: [SRY] LONDON MARRIAGES & BANNS 1754-1921 > Dear List, > > I know this is not a "SURREY" subject but on looking for a marriage entry > in the St Marylebone Parish Church register for 15th January 1888 I > expected to see my grandparents' entry, however, it's not there. > > The pages are consecutively numbered and none appear to be missing. > > I have a copy of their marriage certificate from the St Marylebone > Register Office with clearly written dates etc. > > Is there an explanation why a civil copy exists and not a parish one? > > George > Rainham, 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 *************************************** 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 George This is an Ancestry issue, and, alas, not the only example. They have made a complete dogs dinner of their indexing of the Marylebone parishes. If you look carefully at the images of the register which *purport* to be that of St Marylebone Parish Church (i.e. the parent church for the ancient parish) for the year in question, they are actually images of the registers of St Mark's, St Barnabas and St Mary (Bryanston Square)! I am guessing that, as the marriage in question is not thrown up by a name search, the relevant pages for St Marylebone have not been scanned. All that being said, it is highly unlikely that there will be any difference at all between the church register entry and the copy you already have (other than the former having original signatures). Best wishes Caroline > > I know this is not a "SURREY" subject but on looking for a marriage > entry in the St Marylebone Parish Church register for 15th January 1888 > I expected to see my grandparents' entry, however, it's not there. > > The pages are consecutively numbered and none appear to be missing. > > I have a copy of their marriage certificate from the St Marylebone > Register Office with clearly written dates etc. > > Is there an explanation why a civil copy exists and not a parish one? > > George > Rainham, 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

Listers, The recent emails about PULLEN, have prompted me to ad some information about the surname. In Southwark, there was a PULLEN family, plumbers by trade and developers. They built an estate of flats with workshop courtyards to the rear of several of the blocks. Southwark Council set about demolishing the estate, but were stopped by residents in a number of the blocks towards the North end of the estate. The remains of the estate still stand and are known locally as the Pullens. The blocks are around Amelia Street, and Crampton Street. The flats are extremely cramped with the frint doors set at 45 degrees to the access staircases - tro save space. The access stairsd contain unusual Victorian tiles. The Pullens went ahead to patent some lead dip type drainage traps. Southwark's Local Studies Library near Borough Tube Station holds a lot of information about the estate and how part was saved by the residents. PULLEN is pretty uncommon surname, so the chances are there are connections in there with the various interests posted. Richard Brown Bromley, Kent U.K. ----- Original Message ---- From: "eng-surrey-request@rootsweb.com" <eng-surrey-request@rootsweb.com> To: eng-surrey@rootsweb.com Sent: Sun, 3 January, 2010 14:03:45 Subject: ENG-SURREY Digest, Vol 5, Issue 6 If you'd like your Digest format changed, please don't hesitate to contact me, Ann, at the Surrey List Admin address: Eng-Surrey-admin@rootsweb.com To send a reply, or a new message to the List send it to Eng-Surrey@rootsweb.com When replying to an earlier message please change the Subject line to reflect the content, and trim away unnecessary parts of earlier postings. Always use Plain Text for List Messages - if unsure contact List Admin for help. Today's Topics: 1. Re: Cemetery Surrey (Julie Goucher) 2. Re: Cemetery Surrey (Deborah Tiley) 3. Thomas PULLEN, Headley - leatherhead married SEAGRAVES (Pam Hillier) 4. Re: Cemetery Surrey (Julie Goucher) 5. Re: Marriage : Thomas PULLEN, Headley(Surrey) 1705 (Ann Sargeant) 6. LONDON MARRIAGES & BANNS 1754-1921 (George Pickering) 7. Re: LONDON MARRIAGES & BANNS 1754-1921 (Deborah Tiley) 8. Re: LONDON MARRIAGES & BANNS 1754-1921 (Philip Maddocks) 9. Re: LONDON MARRIAGES & BANNS 1754-1921 (George Pickering) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message: 1 Date: Sun, 3 Jan 2010 11:08:04 -0000 From: "Julie Goucher" <anglers.rest@virgin.net> Subject: Re: [SRY] Cemetery Surrey To: <eng-surrey@rootsweb.com> Message-ID: <15309B0DA8ED4700A762EADCC55B4CBF@AnglersRest> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=original > http://www2.kingston.gov.uk/GraveRecords/ > > Which is both Kingston and Surbiton cemeteries - you can view and save > the actual burial register entries > Debbie Thanks so much for passing this site on. I now have the name of the undertaker who dealt with the funeral of my Great Great Aunt Eliza PARSLOW nee ELSTONE. --- Regards, Julie Goucher anglers.rest@virgin.net http://www.anglers-rest.net ------------------------------ Message: 2 Date: Sun, 03 Jan 2010 11:34:14 +0000 From: Deborah Tiley <deborah_tiley@yahoo.co.uk> Subject: Re: [SRY] Cemetery Surrey To: eng-surrey@rootsweb.com Message-ID: <4B4080B6.9090007@yahoo.co.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Hi Julie I forgot to mention that when you have found a relative, go back to the search page and enter just the Cemetery and grave no - this will give you everyone else in the grave. Debbie Julie Goucher wrote: >> http://www2.kingston.gov.uk/GraveRecords/ >> >> Which is both Kingston and Surbiton cemeteries - you can view and save >> the actual burial register entries >> Debbie >> > > Thanks so much for passing this site on. I now have the name of the undertaker > who dealt with the funeral of my Great Great Aunt Eliza PARSLOW nee ELSTONE. > > --- > Regards, > Julie Goucher > anglers.rest@virgin.net > http://www.anglers-rest.net > > *************************************** > 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 > > ------------------------------ Message: 3 Date: Sun, 3 Jan 2010 22:26:30 +1030 From: "Pam Hillier" <pamhillier24@virginbroadband.com.au> Subject: [SRY] Thomas PULLEN, Headley - leatherhead married SEAGRAVES To: <eng-surrey@rootsweb.com> Message-ID: <3864D64670E94DB880CE177526C9DEA0@GENHILLIER> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=original Hi Chris, According to the Surrey Marriages Cd - there is no other information unfortunately. I noticed that Headley and Leatherhead are only 2.8 miles from each other. I have an Emily Edwards Pullen that was born in Leatherhead - I believe her parents to be William PULLEN and Jane EDWARDS. She married Isaac SEAGRAVE in St martins in the Fields, Westminster in 1844. This is only from the IGI however. In the 1861 census they have a visitor with them in Kensington - Harriett S PULLEN I don't have much on Emily (but would like to find a home for her) but I have the SEAGRAVES back hundreds of years. Does she come from your PULLEN family? I have never been able to find her.......I would love a lead and sharing information goes without saying of course. Cheers Pam from Adelaide Australia > Hi, > > The Surrey Marriage Index shows my Great(x6) Grandfather Thomas PULLEN > marriage to Rosamund ???????? on the 17th July 1705 Headley. I've probably > hit the end of the line here but does anybody have the PR's for Headley in > the hope I can find Rosamund's surname. I doubt the Marriage Entry will > show > it but I'm hoping with such an unusual name that there might be a baptism > or > something that might give me a lead. ------------------------------ Message: 4 Date: Sun, 3 Jan 2010 12:06:51 -0000 From: "Julie Goucher" <anglers.rest@virgin.net> Subject: Re: [SRY] Cemetery Surrey To: "Deborah Tiley" <deborah_tiley@yahoo.co.uk>, <eng-surrey@rootsweb.com> Message-ID: <7609A97B1E74437A87B6A61BEEC03D68@AnglersRest> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=response > I forgot to mention that when you have found a relative, go back to the > search page and enter just the Cemetery and grave no - this will give > you everyone else in the grave. > http://www2.kingston.gov.uk/GraveRecords/ Thanks for that. It actually confirmed for me when Eliza's husband died in 1955 aged 91 years. The grave was reopened when Joseph died and had originally been purchased in 1897 when their son Richard H died aged just two years. Thanks once again --- Regards, Julie Goucher anglers.rest@virgin.net http://www.anglers-rest.net ------------------------------ Message: 5 Date: Sun, 3 Jan 2010 12:15:07 -0000 From: "Ann Sargeant" <ann.sargeant@ntlworld.com> Subject: Re: [SRY] Marriage : Thomas PULLEN, Headley(Surrey) 1705 To: <eng-surrey@rootsweb.com> Message-ID: <38B3A5B13CD044B093C493E70F03FFDF@HomePC> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=original Chris When a surname is missing from the WSFHS Surrey Marriage Index, the reason will be either that the surname was missing or that it was completely illegible. In these circumstances is it just possible that Surrey History Centre may be able to help as they have access to the original register. The staff there are incredibly helpful so it could be worth your while emailing them. It would also be worth seeing whether LMA have Bishops Transcripts (I haven't checked), as there is always the hope of additional or even different information therein. Ann From: "Chris Wake" <chris.eintracht@bigpond.com> > The Surrey Marriage Index shows my Great(x6) Grandfather Thomas PULLEN > marriage to Rosamund ???????? on the 17th July 1705 Headley. I've probably > hit the end of the line here but does anybody have the PR's for Headley in > the hope I can find Rosamund's surname. I doubt the Marriage Entry will > show > it but I'm hoping with such an unusual name that there might be a baptism > or > something that might give me a lead. ------------------------------ Message: 6 Date: Sun, 3 Jan 2010 13:11:01 +0100 (CET) From: George Pickering <member@gpickering.freeserve.co.uk> Subject: [SRY] LONDON MARRIAGES & BANNS 1754-1921 To: SURREY <ENG-SURREY@rootsweb.com> Message-ID: <1030325.925181262520661614.JavaMail.www@wwinf3711> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Dear List, I know this is not a "SURREY" subject but on looking for a marriage entry in the St Marylebone Parish Church register for 15th January 1888 I expected to see my grandparents' entry, however, it's not there. The pages are consecutively numbered and none appear to be missing. I have a copy of their marriage certificate from the St Marylebone Register Office with clearly written dates etc. Is there an explanation why a civil copy exists and not a parish one? George Rainham, Kent. ------------------------------ Message: 7 Date: Sun, 03 Jan 2010 13:08:16 +0000 From: Deborah Tiley <deborah_tiley@yahoo.co.uk> Subject: Re: [SRY] LONDON MARRIAGES & BANNS 1754-1921 To: George Pickering <member@gpickering.freeserve.co.uk>, eng-surrey@rootsweb.com Message-ID: <4B4096C0.3080604@yahoo.co.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Hi George Are you sure that they were not married in the Register Office itself or maybe one of the other Churches in the parish? If they were married in the Register Office then there would be no Parish entry - the certificate that you have should have the register number on it - does this tie in with the on-line register Debbie George Pickering wrote: > Dear List, > > I know this is not a "SURREY" subject but on looking for a marriage entry in the St Marylebone Parish Church register for 15th January 1888 I expected to see my grandparents' entry, however, it's not there. > > The pages are consecutively numbered and none appear to be missing. > > I have a copy of their marriage certificate from the St Marylebone Register Office with clearly written dates etc. > > Is there an explanation why a civil copy exists and not a parish one? > > George > Rainham, 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 > > ------------------------------ Message: 8 Date: Sun, 3 Jan 2010 13:10:44 -0000 From: "Philip Maddocks" <listenat@talktalk.net> Subject: Re: [SRY] LONDON MARRIAGES & BANNS 1754-1921 To: <eng-surrey@rootsweb.com> Message-ID: <10827231169B4F6C872BD39C2AE412DD@philips> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=original George Does the certificate say that they were married in church? Philip Maddocks ----- Original Message ----- From: "George Pickering" <member@gpickering.freeserve.co.uk> To: "SURREY" <ENG-SURREY@rootsweb.com> Sent: Sunday, January 03, 2010 12:11 PM Subject: [SRY] LONDON MARRIAGES & BANNS 1754-1921 > Dear List, > > I know this is not a "SURREY" subject but on looking for a marriage entry > in the St Marylebone Parish Church register for 15th January 1888 I > expected to see my grandparents' entry, however, it's not there. > > The pages are consecutively numbered and none appear to be missing. > > I have a copy of their marriage certificate from the St Marylebone > Register Office with clearly written dates etc. > > Is there an explanation why a civil copy exists and not a parish one? > > George > Rainham, 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 ------------------------------ Message: 9 Date: Sun, 3 Jan 2010 15:03:36 +0100 (CET) From: George Pickering <member@gpickering.freeserve.co.uk> Subject: Re: [SRY] LONDON MARRIAGES & BANNS 1754-1921 To: eng-surrey@rootsweb.com Message-ID: <11948619.898651262527416066.JavaMail.www@wwinf3715> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Philip. Yes it does, extract as follows; 1888. Marriage solemnized at "the Parish Church, Parish of St. Marylebone in the County of Middlesex". 15th January 1888 between Herbert PICKERING and Hannah Elizabeth WOOLLEY Signed by G E Thomas, Curate. I cannot understand why the entry is not in the parish records. George Rainham, Kent. ======================================== Message Received: Jan 03 2010, 01:10 PM From: "Philip Maddocks" To: eng-surrey@rootsweb.com Cc: Subject: Re: [SRY] LONDON MARRIAGES & BANNS 1754-1921 George Does the certificate say that they were married in church? Philip Maddocks ----- Original Message ----- From: "George Pickering" To: "SURREY" Sent: Sunday, January 03, 2010 12:11 PM Subject: [SRY] LONDON MARRIAGES & BANNS 1754-1921 > Dear List, > > I know this is not a "SURREY" subject but on looking for a marriage entry > in the St Marylebone Parish Church register for 15th January 1888 I > expected to see my grandparents' entry, however, it's not there. > > The pages are consecutively numbered and none appear to be missing. > > I have a copy of their marriage certificate from the St Marylebone > Register Office with clearly written dates etc. > > Is there an explanation why a civil copy exists and not a parish one? > > George > Rainham, 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 *************************************** 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 ------------------------------ To contact the ENG-SURREY list administrator, send an email to ENG-SURREY-admin@rootsweb.com. To post a message to the ENG-SURREY mailing list, send an email to ENG-SURREY@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 email with no additional text. End of ENG-SURREY Digest, Vol 5, Issue 6 ****************************************

Human error? Philip ----- Original Message ----- From: "George Pickering" <member@gpickering.freeserve.co.uk> To: <eng-surrey@rootsweb.com> Sent: Sunday, January 03, 2010 2:03 PM Subject: Re: [SRY] LONDON MARRIAGES & BANNS 1754-1921 > Philip. > > Yes it does, extract as follows; > > 1888. Marriage solemnized at "the Parish Church, Parish of St. Marylebone > in the County of Middlesex". > > 15th January 1888 between Herbert PICKERING and Hannah Elizabeth WOOLLEY > > Signed by G E Thomas, Curate. > > > I cannot understand why the entry is not in the parish records. > > George > Rainham, Kent. > > > > > > ======================================== > Message Received: Jan 03 2010, 01:10 PM > From: "Philip Maddocks" > To: eng-surrey@rootsweb.com > Cc: > Subject: Re: [SRY] LONDON MARRIAGES & BANNS 1754-1921 > > > George > > Does the certificate say that they were married in church? > > Philip Maddocks > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "George Pickering" > To: "SURREY" > Sent: Sunday, January 03, 2010 12:11 PM > Subject: [SRY] LONDON MARRIAGES & BANNS 1754-1921 > > >> Dear List, >> >> I know this is not a "SURREY" subject but on looking for a marriage entry >> in the St Marylebone Parish Church register for 15th January 1888 I >> expected to see my grandparents' entry, however, it's not there. >> >> The pages are consecutively numbered and none appear to be missing. >> >> I have a copy of their marriage certificate from the St Marylebone >> Register Office with clearly written dates etc. >> >> Is there an explanation why a civil copy exists and not a parish one? >> >> George >> Rainham, 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 > > *************************************** > 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