I think it is now called Thrale Street. Regards, Paul ----- Original Message ----- From: kotuku media To: eng-surrey@rootsweb.com Sent: Thursday, October 01, 2009 2:05 PM Subject: [SRY] Southwark streets Hi: I have a birth certificate for 1840 with person born at 72 Castle St, St Saviour. I can't find that. Has the road been renamed???? Regards Ross in New Zealand \ *************************************** 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 - I've Googled this and come up with a website which claims it is now Thrale Street. There is a reference in Charles Booth notebooks (http://booth.lse.ac.uk/) to Castle Street, Southwark, which contains an account of a visit to J. Spicer and Sons Envelope Factory, Castle Street, Southwark, 24 May 1894, (B102 pp 14-22), although this account is not accessible on-line. HTH Anne ----- Original Message ----- From: kotuku media To: eng-surrey@rootsweb.com Sent: Thursday, October 01, 2009 8:05 AM Subject: [SRY] Southwark streets Hi: I have a birth certificate for 1840 with person born at 72 Castle St, St Saviour. I can't find that. Has the road been renamed???? Regards Ross in New Zealand \

Not wishing to add to the problems, but the second register of this parish, covering the latter half of the 17th century strayed at some point and is now at the British Library Egerton Ms 2004. There is no copy at London Metropolitan Archives or online. I have ordered a copy on CD and will be adding it to our program of indexing and transcribing over the net. Oh well, it keeps me out of the pubs Regards Cliff Webb Cliff Webb Director Rattner Mackenzie Limited A subsidiary of HCC Insurance Holdings, Inc. Mailto:cwebb@rmluk.com Tel: +44 20 7480 5511 This e-mail contains confidential information, and may contain privileged information, which is the property of the sender, and is intended solely for the attention and use of the addressee. If you are not the named addressee, you must not disclose, copy or retransmit this transmission or take any other action in reliance upon this transmission, and you should notify us as soon as possible. Rattner Mackenzie Limited is authorized and regulated by the Financial Services Authority / registered in England & Wales No.: 02303498, with registered office: Walsingham House, 35 Seething Lane, London EC3N 4AH. ______________________________________________________________________ This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System. For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email ______________________________________________________________________

Thank you all for responding to my query about my great grandfather, William Alexander Downing.  You have given me much to think about and some new avenues to explore.  I will be in touch with you after I've thought about your opinions and suggestions. Who knows?  I may even solve the mystery of William's origins. Mary in Maryland

> Experence has shown me that marriage certificates can be > the work of the imagination of the parties involved .  > More so than census returns. yes, one of my grandparents declared on her marriage lines that both her parents were dead, when in fact they were both very much alive and kicking. one reason was she herself had left home in disgrace through being pregnant so when she met someone to marry, she didn't want her father informing him she was not quite the sweet girl he thought! also her mum had been admitted to an asylum - for having smallpox!! why? - and that was a shameful secret. by then she'd two shameful secrets to keep! > found out after her mother died that she had deducted 10 > years from her age about the time of the marriage and > maintained the deception to her death. That is a very common one, especially with women, i suspect more amongst those who have difficulty finding a husband before they reach in their mid-twenties. I've found it in various families amongst my forebears but one particularly, where, of the 6 daughters only 2 married. One spinster died leaving 3 and they could'nt give their truthful age if they tried. Which every census, they grew progressively younger compared to their peers, and when one did eventually marry she knocked 14yrs off her age! I always make plenty of allowance for age fabrication when it comes to certs and censuses le durachd Fionnghal Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com

Hi Mary. There is no requirement to prove parental identity in British Law. And until recently you did not have to prove who you were either, and I think if you marry by banns you still do not need to prove your identity. Add to the confusion when you give your name as a parent registering a birth, to get married or when registering a death you are supposed to use the name you are known by (and use) not what your loving parents registered you with at birth. Got told off when dealing with my father's estate, my mother registered my father's death using the spelling for his second name from his birth certicate, not the spelling he preferred to use when dealing with banks etc. The guy in the probate office had to write on the probate papers 'otherwise known as'. Experence has shown me that marriage certificates can be the work of the imagination of the parties involved . More so than census returns. My parent's is a classic...the name my father told the registar for his father's name is actually his grandfathers. As he had not seen his father since he was 8 this might be the reason why. Both of the ages are also incorrect. On my husband's side there is a marriage certificate where both fathers' names are incorrect. When my grt grandparents ran away to get married, both were underage so they added a few years. Someone I know found out after her mother died that she had deducted 10 years from her age about the time of the marriage and maintained the deception to her death. I have the original wedding certificate for the grandparents of someone I am currently writing a book about. She invented a very fancy middle name for the occasion, when it came to registering the birth of her children she went back to the one she was born with. Again occupations leave a lot to be desired. Hotel Proprietor - ran a hovel of a pub which he did not own. I have seen a divorcee declare himself a batchelor and in the 1800s one or two cases of bigamy. Plenty of people marrying their dead spouses brother or sister (illegal until @90 years ago) and one where my 3gt Uncle married my 2gt aunt (his niece). I trust a full set of census records for a couple more than any marriage certificate. But without them you may never find out who the father is. In your case I think William was a little ashamed of his background so has beefed it up a bit. People used the term gentleman to indicate he had investments and did not have to work for a living. To stretch a point had his father retired by then and had an anuity from a previous employer or savings, if so he could call himself a gentleman!! I would love a time machine. Good luck with your hunt... Dorri > I think I've read all the responses to the above query, but I didn't see anything about proof of identity. > I have no doubt about the bride and groom's name on my great grandparents' marriage certificate. William Alexander DOWNING, solicitor, married Ann JAGGS, daughter of William Jaggs, Master Mariner on 10 Sep 1860 at St Giles, Camberwell. My problem is the groom's father, George Downing, gentleman. As far as I can tell, the groom's father is Alexander Downing, servant, and his mother is Harriet (birth date 18 August 1823; baptism 17 January 1827, All Souls Church, Marylebone, Middlesex). On every census, W.A Downing's age and birthplace agree with the baptismal record. > Would a person be asked for proof of his father's name? Or was William free to give any name he liked? > My father told me his grandfather, the above W.A. Downing, was illegitimate, father unknown. It's my guess Alexander Downing was not W.A.'s father, explaining the gap between birth and baptism. Nor was his father George Downing, Gentleman as stated on the marriage cert. > Since I haven't been able to find a marriage for Alexander Downing and Harriet, I do not know Harriet's surname. I found a William Downing living with Harriet Downing, widow, on the 1841 census, but cannot find him on the 1851 census. From 1861, he appears on every census, right age, right birthplace. > Does anyone have any ideas? > Mary in Maryland _________________________________________________________________ Get the best of MSN on your mobile http://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/147991039/direct/01/

Hi Records of St Mary's Staines In brief London, England, Baptisms, Marriages and Burials, 1538-1812 Go into St Mary Staines 1692-1771 Burials only Complete - apparently no entries made between June 1723- and Nov 1727 Go into Surrey Then go into St Mary Staines 1538-1688 Ancestry page numbers 1-30 Baptisms 1529-1530, 1540-1688 with few records and virtually illegible ages in 1650-1660 period Ancestry page numbers 30-46 Marriages 1529-1530, 1540-1688 similarly problems in 1650s Ancestry page numbers 47-76 Burials 1528-1530, 1564-1688 1689-1771 Page 1 Children born and not christened 1696-1698, 1718 Page 2-63 Baptisms 1692-1750 Page 64-71 Marriages1688-1750 1772-1812 Page 2-46 Baptisms 1772-1812 Page 47-82 Burials 1772-1812 Bob

Not only Ancestry make errors! I managed to miss of the 'C' in CB 1744-88 under my correction to this parish - thanks to Fionnghal for pointing it out Regards Cliff Webb Cliff Webb Director Rattner Mackenzie Limited A subsidiary of HCC Insurance Holdings, Inc. Mailto:cwebb@rmluk.com Tel: +44 20 7480 5511 This e-mail contains confidential information, and may contain privileged information, which is the property of the sender, and is intended solely for the attention and use of the addressee. If you are not the named addressee, you must not disclose, copy or retransmit this transmission or take any other action in reliance upon this transmission, and you should notify us as soon as possible. Rattner Mackenzie Limited is authorized and regulated by the Financial Services Authority / registered in England & Wales No.: 02303498, with registered office: Walsingham House, 35 Seething Lane, London EC3N 4AH. ______________________________________________________________________ This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System. For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email ______________________________________________________________________

I have now completed my review of the Ancestry London 1538-1812 listings apart from the City of London, which may take some time. I would rather be doing transcribing etc. but felt this needed doing. I have found the following further listing errors: London Borough of Lambeth: Ancestry list says St Matthew Brixton actually Lambeth CB 1788-07 and Stockwell Chapel C 1789-97 London Borough of Lewisham: Ancestry list says St Peter, Lee - in addition to St Peter Lee, is Lewisham C 1801-09 Mole Valley, Reigate and Banstead these are Surrey districts not London Boroughs, as are Elmbridge and Waverley London Borough of Richmond: Sunbury is partially listed here, partially under Surrey, where it all should be. St Mary, Staines: Ancestry has separate heading here and one register, but most registers are under Surrey, where they should be London Borough of Southwark: Christ Church and Christ Church Southwark are the same, but on separate tabs London Borough of Southwark: Ancestry list says St John Horsleydown 1888-91 but it is actually St Mary Newington B 1780-86 (fee book) London Borough of Southwark: St Mary Magdalen, Bermondsey 1664-1717 tab this is actually St Mary Magdalen Old Fish Street in the City CB 1664-1717, M 1664-1712 London Borough of Southwark: St Mary Magdalen, Bermondsey 1767-88 tab this is actually Whitechapel B 1767-88 London Borough of Southwark: St Mary Magdalen, Bermondsey 1811-12 tab is actually St Mary Rotherhithe C 1811-12 London Borough of Southwark: St Mary Magdalene the three tabs here should all be subsumed under St Mary Magdalen, Bermondsey London Borough of Southwark: St Mary Newington 1888-91 tab is actually B 1779-1803 (fees) London Borough of Southwark: St Saviour some minor errors of coverage, the 1790 tab covers C 1790-93, the 1796 tab C 1796-99, the 1799 tab C 1799-1800 and the 1800 tab C 1800-02 London Borough of Southwark: Ancestry list St Saviour, Denmark Park actually this is St Saviour Southwark and should be subsumed under it as should all the entries under the "St Saviour" tab Stepney: not sure why separate tab for this, in any case Holy Trinity in the Minories should be under the City Surrey: All Saints, Laleham 1744-1843 tab contains B 1744-89 only Surrey: St Nicholas, Shepperton the 1538-1642 tab actually contains Streatham C 1539-1663, M 1538-1663, B 1538-1664 London Borough of Tower Hamlets: All Saints, Poplar Ancestry list 1823-29 but actually has C 1788-1805 (day books) and also St Mary Stratford le Bow C 1719-24, 1770-80, M 1719-25, B 1719-21 London Borough of Tower Hamlets: St Dunstan and All Saints tab 1568-1637 actually C 1608-38 London Borough of Tower Hamlets: a minor irritant, but St John has always been known as St John at Wapping, Ancestry lists as St John of Wapping, the 1707-40 tab contains C 1707-34, M 1707-33 only London Borough of Tower Hamlets: St Mary Stratford Bow the 1703-42 tab is actually C 1538-1637, B 1538-39 - the end of the register does not seem to have been digitized London Borough of Tower Hamlets: St Mary Whitechapel the 1664-63 [sic] tab contains C 1642-64, MB 1647-53, the 1678-1717 tab B 1678-87, the 1717-40 tab B 1717-31, the 1788-1812 tab B 1788-92 and the 1811-18 tab C 1811-12 London Borough of Wandsworth: All Saints Battersea 1800-01 tab is actually All Saints Wandsworth M 1801 I hope to put on West Surrey FHS website a listing of Ancestry's actual coverage shortly. Regards Cliff Webb Cliff Webb Director Rattner Mackenzie Limited A subsidiary of HCC Insurance Holdings, Inc. Mailto:cwebb@rmluk.com Tel: +44 20 7480 5511 This e-mail contains confidential information, and may contain privileged information, which is the property of the sender, and is intended solely for the attention and use of the addressee. If you are not the named addressee, you must not disclose, copy or retransmit this transmission or take any other action in reliance upon this transmission, and you should notify us as soon as possible. Rattner Mackenzie Limited is authorized and regulated by the Financial Services Authority / registered in England & Wales No.: 02303498, with registered office: Walsingham House, 35 Seething Lane, London EC3N 4AH. ______________________________________________________________________ This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System. For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email ______________________________________________________________________

Hallo All Adding to Bob's comments, some of the indexed St Mary's Staines registers have been classified as being in the City of London - presumably somebody confused them with St Mary Staining that is in the City. And one register is for a completely different church.(Sorry can't find my note for this.) The 1894 baptisms have been indexed as 1854. If anybody finds the real 1854 records I would be pleased to hear from you. And a note for possible assistance. Staines was in the ancient county of Middlesex, and previous Ancestry records are indexed under Middlesex. However, when numerous county boundaries were changed on April 1st 1974, Staines and a chunk of west Middlesex were transferred to the county of Surrey. The general policy amongst CROs and libraries has been to transfer records into the archives of their new local/county authority. How the LMA came to keep the Staines PRs instead of transferring them to Surrey I don't know, but as usual 'the exception proves the rule'. The LMA indexes all its records under boroughs, but because Staines is no longer within the metropolitan area its records are indexed under its new county authority - Surrey. Some of the search boxes in the historic documents section have a field for Borough, presumably because this section of the Ancestry data base is a joint project with the LMA whom one assumes are maintaining their Borough indexing system. I have not seen this explained anywhere on the Ancestry site although LMA users will be familiar with this arrangement. So for clarity, when searching for Staines at the 'Essential Ancestry' level, key in Middlesex. When searching at 'Premium Ancestry' co-project with the LMA, key in Surrey. Or just put Staines in the keyword field. I don't know how this works at worldwide subscription level. I tried to contact Ancestry via the feedback form but my attempt was rejected on the grounds of my email address not being valid .....? Maybe the better route to tackle the indexing problems is to contact the project officer at the LMA/Guildhall as the LMA seems to have got the hang of indexing things. Arguably they have had a bit more practice! Hilary > Message: 1> Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2009 08:45:54 +0100 > From: "Bob Douglas" <bob@cotswan.plus.com> > Subject: Re: [SRY] Ancestry.com and London Metropolitan > Archives >     recordscorrections > To: <eng-surrey@rootsweb.com> > Message-ID: <C001A38B7D174699BFA69C133D8FAC0C@NEW> > Content-Type: text/plain;    > charset="us-ascii" > > > A useful list Cliff > > Please note that St Mary's Staines records (in the > unindexed section) are in > two places > There is a St Mary's Staines in the main Menu, and if one > then clicks on > Surrey, there are some more. > > I hope to report here on the Laleham records too. > I am not on the Middlesex list but anything I post may be > forwarded to that > list if anyone wishes > Bob

Hi Dave When you find the transcription (View record on the left not view image on the right), to the left is an "add alternative information" For the census there is now a transcript under the census image (click down arrow at the bottom of the screen) where you can add changes / alternatives to names, place of birth and birth year In all cases the additions will be added to the searchable database usually in 1 to 4 weeks Nivard Ovington in Cornwall (UK) > Cliff > > I have been doing a blanket search of the marriages for the family > CHRISTOPHER. In 500 entries I have found 5% error where the real surname > has been omitted e.g. John Christopher Miller has been transcribed as > John > Christopher. > This is not a complaint, I have transcribed myself and know how difficult > the task can be, this is still a wonderful resource. > > What I would like to know is have you found a route for introducing > corrections? > > Regards > Dave

Hi Dave If you click on 'view record' rather than 'view image', there is an option on the left, 'add alternate information'. You are given a chance to alter ALL the same family at the same time which is brilliant - you used to have to do it individually. I've always corrected any that I find, even with families that aren't mine. HTH Andy ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Barber" <dav.barber@btinternet.com> To: <eng-surrey@rootsweb.com> Sent: Wednesday, September 30, 2009 11:44 AM Subject: Re: [SRY] Ancestry.com and London Metropolitan Archivesrecordscorrections > Cliff > > I have been doing a blanket search of the marriages for the family > CHRISTOPHER. In 500 entries I have found 5% error where the real surname > has been omitted e.g. John Christopher Miller has been transcribed as > John > Christopher. > This is not a complaint, I have transcribed myself and know how difficult > the task can be, this is still a wonderful resource. > > What I would like to know is have you found a route for introducing > corrections? > > Regards > Dave > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Webb, Cliff" <cwebb@rmluk.com> > To: <eng-surrey@rootsweb.com> > Sent: Tuesday, September 29, 2009 5:53 PM > Subject: [SRY] Ancestry.com and London Metropolitan Archives > recordscorrections > > >>I am posting this on both Middlesex and Surrey lists, as there is >> overlap. I have started analysing the Ancestry digital coverage of >> registers. At the moment I am working on the baptisms and burials to >> 1812 and marriages to 1754 section, i.e. the one they have not indexed. >> I will be asking West Surrey FHS to put my findings in some form on our >> website, so they may be of maximum utility. Frankly, it is incredible >> that Ancestry have not themselves done this analysis. There are, in what >> I have done so far, some serious errors of allocation, and I want to >> draw the attention of searchers to them. The material is organised by >> borough and then parish and I have followed this. I have used C = >> baptisms, M -= marriages and B = burials >> >> London Borough of Barnet: St Giles, South Mimms. Ancestry list says >> 1754-1812, it is actually CB 1558-1703 >> London Borough of Barnet: St Mary,Hendon Ancestry list says 1703-67, yes >> CB 1703-67, M 1703-30 but St Mary, Heston in London Borough of Hounslow >> London Borough of Bexley: St Michael, Welling Ancestry list says >> 1558-1653, yes CMB 1558-1653 but of St Michael Paternoster Royal in the >> City >> London Borough of Brent: St Mary, Willesden Ancestry list says 1569-74, >> actually C 1569-1741, M 1574-1738, B 1572-1741 >> London Borough of Camden: Ancestry list says Emmanuel, Hampstead >> actually St John at Hampstead >> London Borough of Camden: Ancestry list says Percy Chapel 1747-1808, >> actually Percy Chapel C 1776-1808, Middlesex Hospital C 1747-53 and >> Fitzroy Chapel C 1779-1805 >> London Borough of Camden: Ancestry list says St Pancras Parish Church >> 1793-96 actually B 1793-1812 >> London Borough of Ealing: The 'St Mary' tabs give a mixture of St Mary, >> Acton and St Mary, Ealing records >> London Borough of Ealing: St Mary Hanwell Ancestry list says 1570-1784 >> actually CB 1570-1719, M 1571-1722 >> London Borough of Ealing: St Mary Hanwell Ancestry list tabs 1717-24, >> 1724-60 and 1733-64 are actually St Mary Ealing >> London Borough of Greenwich: St Alfege tab '1893-1903' is actually C >> 1722-83, while '1903-13' is actually C 1784-1812 >> London Borough of Hackney has no obvious errors but Ancestry's failure >> to give C or M or B make the list of Shoreditch almost impossible to use >> London Borough of Haringey: St James, Muswell Hill; these are all of >> Northolt (in London Borough of Ealing), the 1560-1701 is roughly right, >> but 1700-01 also has B 1678-1724 and 1801-01 is just Banns >> London Borough of Haringey: St Mary, Hornsey the tab 1810-32 is actually >> Banns 1767-68 >> London Borough of Harrow; all the St Mary tabs are St Mary, Harrow >> London Borough of Hillingdon; all the St John the Baptist tabs refer to >> St John the Baptist, Hillingdon >> London Borough of Hillingdon Ancestry list says St Mary, Hayes >> 1792-1803, actually CB 1792-1812 >> London Borough of Hounslow: St Paul, Hounslow Heath is actually Holy >> Trinity, Hounslow >> London Borough of Islington: Christ Church, Islington is actually Christ >> Church Newgate Street in the City >> London Borough of Islington: St John the Baptist, Clerkenwell the >> 1742-84 tab is actually St James, Clerkenwell and digitised there as >> well >> London Borough of Islington: St Luke, Milwall is actually St Luke Old >> Street >> London Borough of Islington: St Mary is St Mary, Islington >> >> I have done the boroughs alphabetically to the end of Islington, except >> the City which I dread as there are so many parishes. However, I trust >> this will be useful to researchers. >> >> Regards >> Cliff Webb >> >> >> >> >> >> Cliff Webb >> >> Director >> Rattner Mackenzie Limited >> A subsidiary of HCC Insurance Holdings, Inc. >> >> Mailto:cwebb@rmluk.com >> Tel: +44 20 7480 5511 >> >> This e-mail contains confidential information, and may contain privileged >> information, which is the property of the sender, and is intended solely >> for the attention and use of the addressee. If you are not the named >> addressee, you must not disclose, copy or retransmit this transmission or >> take any other action in reliance upon this transmission, and you should >> notify us as soon as possible. Rattner Mackenzie Limited is authorized >> and regulated by the Financial Services Authority / registered in England >> & Wales No.: 02303498, with registered office: Walsingham House, 35 >> Seething Lane, London EC3N 4AH. >> >> ______________________________________________________________________ >> This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System. >> For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email >> ______________________________________________________________________ >> >> >> > > *************************************** > 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 > >

Cliff I have been doing a blanket search of the marriages for the family CHRISTOPHER. In 500 entries I have found 5% error where the real surname has been omitted e.g. John Christopher Miller has been transcribed as John Christopher. This is not a complaint, I have transcribed myself and know how difficult the task can be, this is still a wonderful resource. What I would like to know is have you found a route for introducing corrections? Regards Dave ----- Original Message ----- From: "Webb, Cliff" <cwebb@rmluk.com> To: <eng-surrey@rootsweb.com> Sent: Tuesday, September 29, 2009 5:53 PM Subject: [SRY] Ancestry.com and London Metropolitan Archives recordscorrections >I am posting this on both Middlesex and Surrey lists, as there is > overlap. I have started analysing the Ancestry digital coverage of > registers. At the moment I am working on the baptisms and burials to > 1812 and marriages to 1754 section, i.e. the one they have not indexed. > I will be asking West Surrey FHS to put my findings in some form on our > website, so they may be of maximum utility. Frankly, it is incredible > that Ancestry have not themselves done this analysis. There are, in what > I have done so far, some serious errors of allocation, and I want to > draw the attention of searchers to them. The material is organised by > borough and then parish and I have followed this. I have used C = > baptisms, M -= marriages and B = burials > > London Borough of Barnet: St Giles, South Mimms. Ancestry list says > 1754-1812, it is actually CB 1558-1703 > London Borough of Barnet: St Mary,Hendon Ancestry list says 1703-67, yes > CB 1703-67, M 1703-30 but St Mary, Heston in London Borough of Hounslow > London Borough of Bexley: St Michael, Welling Ancestry list says > 1558-1653, yes CMB 1558-1653 but of St Michael Paternoster Royal in the > City > London Borough of Brent: St Mary, Willesden Ancestry list says 1569-74, > actually C 1569-1741, M 1574-1738, B 1572-1741 > London Borough of Camden: Ancestry list says Emmanuel, Hampstead > actually St John at Hampstead > London Borough of Camden: Ancestry list says Percy Chapel 1747-1808, > actually Percy Chapel C 1776-1808, Middlesex Hospital C 1747-53 and > Fitzroy Chapel C 1779-1805 > London Borough of Camden: Ancestry list says St Pancras Parish Church > 1793-96 actually B 1793-1812 > London Borough of Ealing: The 'St Mary' tabs give a mixture of St Mary, > Acton and St Mary, Ealing records > London Borough of Ealing: St Mary Hanwell Ancestry list says 1570-1784 > actually CB 1570-1719, M 1571-1722 > London Borough of Ealing: St Mary Hanwell Ancestry list tabs 1717-24, > 1724-60 and 1733-64 are actually St Mary Ealing > London Borough of Greenwich: St Alfege tab '1893-1903' is actually C > 1722-83, while '1903-13' is actually C 1784-1812 > London Borough of Hackney has no obvious errors but Ancestry's failure > to give C or M or B make the list of Shoreditch almost impossible to use > London Borough of Haringey: St James, Muswell Hill; these are all of > Northolt (in London Borough of Ealing), the 1560-1701 is roughly right, > but 1700-01 also has B 1678-1724 and 1801-01 is just Banns > London Borough of Haringey: St Mary, Hornsey the tab 1810-32 is actually > Banns 1767-68 > London Borough of Harrow; all the St Mary tabs are St Mary, Harrow > London Borough of Hillingdon; all the St John the Baptist tabs refer to > St John the Baptist, Hillingdon > London Borough of Hillingdon Ancestry list says St Mary, Hayes > 1792-1803, actually CB 1792-1812 > London Borough of Hounslow: St Paul, Hounslow Heath is actually Holy > Trinity, Hounslow > London Borough of Islington: Christ Church, Islington is actually Christ > Church Newgate Street in the City > London Borough of Islington: St John the Baptist, Clerkenwell the > 1742-84 tab is actually St James, Clerkenwell and digitised there as > well > London Borough of Islington: St Luke, Milwall is actually St Luke Old > Street > London Borough of Islington: St Mary is St Mary, Islington > > I have done the boroughs alphabetically to the end of Islington, except > the City which I dread as there are so many parishes. However, I trust > this will be useful to researchers. > > Regards > Cliff Webb > > > > > > Cliff Webb > > Director > Rattner Mackenzie Limited > A subsidiary of HCC Insurance Holdings, Inc. > > Mailto:cwebb@rmluk.com > Tel: +44 20 7480 5511 > > This e-mail contains confidential information, and may contain privileged > information, which is the property of the sender, and is intended solely > for the attention and use of the addressee. If you are not the named > addressee, you must not disclose, copy or retransmit this transmission or > take any other action in reliance upon this transmission, and you should > notify us as soon as possible. Rattner Mackenzie Limited is authorized > and regulated by the Financial Services Authority / registered in England > & Wales No.: 02303498, with registered office: Walsingham House, 35 > Seething Lane, London EC3N 4AH. > > ______________________________________________________________________ > This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System. > For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email > ______________________________________________________________________ > > >

A useful list Cliff Please note that St Mary's Staines records (in the unindexed section) are in two places There is a St Mary's Staines in the main Menu, and if one then clicks on Surrey, there are some more. I hope to report here on the Laleham records too. I am not on the Middlesex list but anything I post may be forwarded to that list if anyone wishes

Ancestry has a built in way to make corrections. Annie in Minnesota In a message dated 9/30/2009 5:45:29 A.M. Central Daylight Time, dav.barber@btinternet.com writes: Cliff I have been doing a blanket search of the marriages for the family CHRISTOPHER. In 500 entries I have found 5% error where the real surname has been omitted e.g. John Christopher Miller has been transcribed as John Christopher. This is not a complaint, I have transcribed myself and know how difficult the task can be, this is still a wonderful resource. What I would like to know is have you found a route for introducing corrections? Regards Dave ----- Original Message ----- From: "Webb, Cliff" <cwebb@rmluk.com> To: <eng-surrey@rootsweb.com> Sent: Tuesday, September 29, 2009 5:53 PM Subject: [SRY] Ancestry.com and London Metropolitan Archives recordscorrections >I am posting this on both Middlesex and Surrey lists, as there is > overlap. I have started analysing the Ancestry digital coverage of > registers. At the moment I am working on the baptisms and burials to > 1812 and marriages to 1754 section, i.e. the one they have not indexed. > I will be asking West Surrey FHS to put my findings in some form on our > website, so they may be of maximum utility. Frankly, it is incredible > that Ancestry have not themselves done this analysis. There are, in what > I have done so far, some serious errors of allocation, and I want to > draw the attention of searchers to them. The material is organised by > borough and then parish and I have followed this. I have used C = > baptisms, M -= marriages and B = burials > > London Borough of Barnet: St Giles, South Mimms. Ancestry list says > 1754-1812, it is actually CB 1558-1703 > London Borough of Barnet: St Mary,Hendon Ancestry list says 1703-67, yes > CB 1703-67, M 1703-30 but St Mary, Heston in London Borough of Hounslow > London Borough of Bexley: St Michael, Welling Ancestry list says > 1558-1653, yes CMB 1558-1653 but of St Michael Paternoster Royal in the > City > London Borough of Brent: St Mary, Willesden Ancestry list says 1569-74, > actually C 1569-1741, M 1574-1738, B 1572-1741 > London Borough of Camden: Ancestry list says Emmanuel, Hampstead > actually St John at Hampstead > London Borough of Camden: Ancestry list says Percy Chapel 1747-1808, > actually Percy Chapel C 1776-1808, Middlesex Hospital C 1747-53 and > Fitzroy Chapel C 1779-1805 > London Borough of Camden: Ancestry list says St Pancras Parish Church > 1793-96 actually B 1793-1812 > London Borough of Ealing: The 'St Mary' tabs give a mixture of St Mary, > Acton and St Mary, Ealing records > London Borough of Ealing: St Mary Hanwell Ancestry list says 1570-1784 > actually CB 1570-1719, M 1571-1722 > London Borough of Ealing: St Mary Hanwell Ancestry list tabs 1717-24, > 1724-60 and 1733-64 are actually St Mary Ealing > London Borough of Greenwich: St Alfege tab '1893-1903' is actually C > 1722-83, while '1903-13' is actually C 1784-1812 > London Borough of Hackney has no obvious errors but Ancestry's failure > to give C or M or B make the list of Shoreditch almost impossible to use > London Borough of Haringey: St James, Muswell Hill; these are all of > Northolt (in London Borough of Ealing), the 1560-1701 is roughly right, > but 1700-01 also has B 1678-1724 and 1801-01 is just Banns > London Borough of Haringey: St Mary, Hornsey the tab 1810-32 is actually > Banns 1767-68 > London Borough of Harrow; all the St Mary tabs are St Mary, Harrow > London Borough of Hillingdon; all the St John the Baptist tabs refer to > St John the Baptist, Hillingdon > London Borough of Hillingdon Ancestry list says St Mary, Hayes > 1792-1803, actually CB 1792-1812 > London Borough of Hounslow: St Paul, Hounslow Heath is actually Holy > Trinity, Hounslow > London Borough of Islington: Christ Church, Islington is actually Christ > Church Newgate Street in the City > London Borough of Islington: St John the Baptist, Clerkenwell the > 1742-84 tab is actually St James, Clerkenwell and digitised there as > well > London Borough of Islington: St Luke, Milwall is actually St Luke Old > Street > London Borough of Islington: St Mary is St Mary, Islington > > I have done the boroughs alphabetically to the end of Islington, except > the City which I dread as there are so many parishes. However, I trust > this will be useful to researchers. > > Regards > Cliff Webb > > > > > > Cliff Webb > > Director > Rattner Mackenzie Limited > A subsidiary of HCC Insurance Holdings, Inc. > > Mailto:cwebb@rmluk.com > Tel: +44 20 7480 5511 > > This e-mail contains confidential information, and may contain privileged > information, which is the property of the sender, and is intended solely > for the attention and use of the addressee. If you are not the named > addressee, you must not disclose, copy or retransmit this transmission or > take any other action in reliance upon this transmission, and you should > notify us as soon as possible. Rattner Mackenzie Limited is authorized > and regulated by the Financial Services Authority / registered in England > & Wales No.: 02303498, with registered office: Walsingham House, 35 > Seething Lane, London EC3N 4AH. > > ______________________________________________________________________ > This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System. > For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email > ______________________________________________________________________ > > > *************************************** 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

Brilliant, Cliff. particularly for those of us who are far from familiar with the areas and the subtle differences in parish church names. :-) le durachd Fionnghal > I am posting this on both Middlesex and Surrey lists, as there is > overlap. I have started analysing the Ancestry digital > coverage of > registers. At the moment I am working on the baptisms and > burials to > 1812 and marriages to 1754 section, i.e. the one they have > not indexed. Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com

I'm working on Laleham too, Bob.  perhaps we could save each other some work by exchanging notes before posting them interested? Fionnghal I hope to report here on the Laleham records too.

I am posting this on both Middlesex and Surrey lists, as there is overlap. I have started analysing the Ancestry digital coverage of registers. At the moment I am working on the baptisms and burials to 1812 and marriages to 1754 section, i.e. the one they have not indexed. I will be asking West Surrey FHS to put my findings in some form on our website, so they may be of maximum utility. Frankly, it is incredible that Ancestry have not themselves done this analysis. There are, in what I have done so far, some serious errors of allocation, and I want to draw the attention of searchers to them. The material is organised by borough and then parish and I have followed this. I have used C = baptisms, M -= marriages and B = burials London Borough of Barnet: St Giles, South Mimms. Ancestry list says 1754-1812, it is actually CB 1558-1703 London Borough of Barnet: St Mary,Hendon Ancestry list says 1703-67, yes CB 1703-67, M 1703-30 but St Mary, Heston in London Borough of Hounslow London Borough of Bexley: St Michael, Welling Ancestry list says 1558-1653, yes CMB 1558-1653 but of St Michael Paternoster Royal in the City London Borough of Brent: St Mary, Willesden Ancestry list says 1569-74, actually C 1569-1741, M 1574-1738, B 1572-1741 London Borough of Camden: Ancestry list says Emmanuel, Hampstead actually St John at Hampstead London Borough of Camden: Ancestry list says Percy Chapel 1747-1808, actually Percy Chapel C 1776-1808, Middlesex Hospital C 1747-53 and Fitzroy Chapel C 1779-1805 London Borough of Camden: Ancestry list says St Pancras Parish Church 1793-96 actually B 1793-1812 London Borough of Ealing: The 'St Mary' tabs give a mixture of St Mary, Acton and St Mary, Ealing records London Borough of Ealing: St Mary Hanwell Ancestry list says 1570-1784 actually CB 1570-1719, M 1571-1722 London Borough of Ealing: St Mary Hanwell Ancestry list tabs 1717-24, 1724-60 and 1733-64 are actually St Mary Ealing London Borough of Greenwich: St Alfege tab '1893-1903' is actually C 1722-83, while '1903-13' is actually C 1784-1812 London Borough of Hackney has no obvious errors but Ancestry's failure to give C or M or B make the list of Shoreditch almost impossible to use London Borough of Haringey: St James, Muswell Hill; these are all of Northolt (in London Borough of Ealing), the 1560-1701 is roughly right, but 1700-01 also has B 1678-1724 and 1801-01 is just Banns London Borough of Haringey: St Mary, Hornsey the tab 1810-32 is actually Banns 1767-68 London Borough of Harrow; all the St Mary tabs are St Mary, Harrow London Borough of Hillingdon; all the St John the Baptist tabs refer to St John the Baptist, Hillingdon London Borough of Hillingdon Ancestry list says St Mary, Hayes 1792-1803, actually CB 1792-1812 London Borough of Hounslow: St Paul, Hounslow Heath is actually Holy Trinity, Hounslow London Borough of Islington: Christ Church, Islington is actually Christ Church Newgate Street in the City London Borough of Islington: St John the Baptist, Clerkenwell the 1742-84 tab is actually St James, Clerkenwell and digitised there as well London Borough of Islington: St Luke, Milwall is actually St Luke Old Street London Borough of Islington: St Mary is St Mary, Islington I have done the boroughs alphabetically to the end of Islington, except the City which I dread as there are so many parishes. However, I trust this will be useful to researchers. Regards Cliff Webb Cliff Webb Director Rattner Mackenzie Limited A subsidiary of HCC Insurance Holdings, Inc. Mailto:cwebb@rmluk.com Tel: +44 20 7480 5511 This e-mail contains confidential information, and may contain privileged information, which is the property of the sender, and is intended solely for the attention and use of the addressee. If you are not the named addressee, you must not disclose, copy or retransmit this transmission or take any other action in reliance upon this transmission, and you should notify us as soon as possible. Rattner Mackenzie Limited is authorized and regulated by the Financial Services Authority / registered in England & Wales No.: 02303498, with registered office: Walsingham House, 35 Seething Lane, London EC3N 4AH. ______________________________________________________________________ This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System. For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email ______________________________________________________________________

Andrew, Thanks for this information. I had completely forgotten that the mental hospitals were used to hide "embarrasments." Regards Richard  Brown Bromley Kent ----- Original Message ---- From: Andrew Cox <cxndrw@yahoo.com> To: Surrey list <ENG-SURREY-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Monday, 28 September, 2009 11:36:07 Subject: Re: [SRY] A Question about Society in the early 1900's Further to your query about attitudes towards single mothers etc. One possible way of hiding away an expectant single mother appears to have been to have them committed to a mental hospital. There were five such Hospitals in the Ewell area of Surrey, all built around 1900. It would seem that those unwanted by society somehow ended up in these establishments. People such as single mothers, epileptics, and victims of TB all seem to have been put away, some never to be let out! A.A Cox Ewell, Surrey.       *************************************** Send your List messages using **PLAIN TEXT** and always **TRIM AWAY** superfluous old messages in replies. List Admin can be contacted at:  Eng-Surrey-admin@rootsweb.com.   ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to ENG-SURREY-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Hi everyone, I wonder if sks can tell me when the old St Peter's Church in Hambledon ceased to be in operation. I know the new Church was opened in 1849, but I have some relatives who were born and said to be baptised in Hambledon from 1835 to 1851 and I am wondering where those before 1849 would have been baptised if the old church was already closed. I have e-mailed the vicar, but have had no response. TIA Janet Auckland, NZ ji.kelsey@xtra.co.nz