Hello Janet, If and when a small village church was closed the next nearest village church was used for BMD, this is noted in the Parish Register that the church was closed. The first recorded church in Hambledon was in 1291. The nearest church to Hambledon church is Chiddingfold, just along the road from Hambledon. The West Surrey Family History Society sells two small book on Hambledon, one at £2 and another at £5 small but full of pictures showing our ancestors. Kind regards Barbara Lewis Mallyon Basingstoke, Hants. UK BarbaraMallyon@lewmal.co.uk ----- Original Message ----- From: <ji.kelsey@xtra.co.nz> To: <eng-surrey@rootsweb.com> Sent: Monday, September 28, 2009 12:58 AM Subject: [SRY] OLD ST PETER'S CHURCH, HAMBLEDON > 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

I guess I could have added a bit more information to make this a little clearer. Whilst the church of St Peter was subject to re-building in the nineteenth century, it still has some of the original building at its core. So it is still fundamentally the same place, and not a completely new and separate church. The registers remained with the church throughout and as said earlier are at SHC. The IGI includes baptisms at St Peter's between 1756 and 1876 and Marriages 1774 to 1875 (although the registers cover much earlier and later events). Ann ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ann Sargeant" <ann.sargeant@ntlworld.com> To: <eng-surrey@rootsweb.com> Sent: Monday, September 28, 2009 8:01 AM Subject: Re: [SRY] OLD ST PETER'S CHURCH, HAMBLEDON > Hello Janet > > The ancient parish of St Peter's Hambledon Surrey is still going strong > and the parish Registers of Baptisms 1617-1966, Marriages 1617-1993; and > Burials 1617-1915 at St Peter's church are held at Surrey History Centre. > So the answer to your question is that the baptisms between 1835 and 1851 > are available at SHC, which isn't much consolation to you in NZ. > > The good news is that baptisms for the period 1835 are covered by the IGI > and so the LDS film will include the baptisms. Hopefully the film can be > ordered into your nearest LDS family history centre in Auckland. Opening > times, phone number etc: > http://www.familysearch.org/Eng/Library/FHC/FHC_Results.asp?FHCCountry=New+Zealand > > Ann > PS - there is another Hambledon in nearby Hampshire with church dedicated > to St Peter and St Paul. > > > From: <ji.kelsey@xtra.co.nz> >> 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 >

Hello Jan >From early November direct from WSFHS or online via Genfair - see: http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/ENG-SURREY/2009-09/1254042645 Kind regards Ann From: "Neil & Jan Hearn" <neil.hearn3@bigpond.com> > Hi Cliff, > How can we obtain the cd you mentioned please? > From: "Webb, Cliff" <cwebb@rmluk.com> >> Dear Nivard >> Once again thank you for listing this parish's Streatham occurrences on >> Ancestry's London pre-1812 section. As part of our ongoing project to >> index these parish registers, Streatham baptisms 1754-69 will be on the >> new edition of the West Surrey FHS CD 'Surrey Baptisms not in the IGI' >> to be issued in November this year. 1769-99 is in an advanced stage and >> only needs some final checks so should be in the 2010 edition. >> Regards >> Cliff Webb

Hello Janet The ancient parish of St Peter's Hambledon Surrey is still going strong and the parish Registers of Baptisms 1617-1966, Marriages 1617-1993; and Burials 1617-1915 at St Peter's church are held at Surrey History Centre. So the answer to your question is that the baptisms between 1835 and 1851 are available at SHC, which isn't much consolation to you in NZ. The good news is that baptisms for the period 1835 are covered by the IGI and so the LDS film will include the baptisms. Hopefully the film can be ordered into your nearest LDS family history centre in Auckland. Opening times, phone number etc: http://www.familysearch.org/Eng/Library/FHC/FHC_Results.asp?FHCCountry=New+Zealand Ann PS - there is another Hambledon in nearby Hampshire with church dedicated to St Peter and St Paul. From: <ji.kelsey@xtra.co.nz> > 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

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.

Dear List, Could anyone with access to WITLEY parish marriages check the following marriage please: Thomas JENNER m Hannah c1807. I have no other details unfortunately. Many Thanks. George Rainham, Kent.

Richard M Brown wrote: Snip > OK. End of story. My questions are:- > 1. How common were out-of-wedlock births to soldiers? Probably very common judging by contemporary accounts and given that human nature hasn't changed ! eric.stamen.com/ww1/.../02.War%20Wives%20and%20Immorality.doc deals with Germany but I am sure Britain was much the same. I had relations in the London Gunners in WW1 so this website was particularly apposite http://www.hertfordshire-genealogy.co.uk/data/projects/londongunners/lg-fair-sex.htm (I wonder how many unkonwn cousins I have ?) > 2. What was the attitude towards illegitimacy - and was there any particular stigma attached to military offspring? Illegitimacy was definitely a social stigma but illegitimate military offspring were no more stigmatised than others. There were 'good' girls and 'bad' girls ('lucky' and 'unlucky' would probably be more accurate) - the male was not likely to suffer unduly. > 3. How would the parents of a family treat the illegitimate child? Depends on the social status...the very poor probably accepted the child as a way of life, the very rich concealed it, the lower/upper middle class were horrified and would go to great lengths to conceal it, to the extent that parents often took upon the raising of an elder daughter's illegitimate progeny as if it was their own - again, judging by contemporary accounts. > 4. Would social standing - real or perceived - affect how the family would deal with the situation? yes, see above > > My relatives and I have good ideas as to how these situations were dealt with. Pre WW1 attitudes would have been prim ans strict with such affairs covered up. I think even Queen Victoria's family had an illegitimate child somewhere. I also think that within a family the mother of an illegitimate child would be hidden, or sent away in the latter stages of her pregnancy - to maintain the shell of decency. > > Certainly Canadian and UK attitudes would have differed, A war 'widow' arriving with a child in Canada with a plausible story would have no problems. Who could prove otherwise ? although today the saying is that modern Canadians are more British than the British. > > Any way help an comments would be much appreciated, you wonderful lot. > Richard Brown > Bromley > Kent > U.K. > > > > > > *************************************** > 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 There appears to be no such marriage, at least in rural Surrey. (West Surrey FHS Surrey Marriage Index 2007 edition). The nearest fit is a century earlier (1709) -Thomas Jenner to Ann White at Cranleigh (nearby). This index is stated to be complete for rural Surrey, and certainly contains Witley records. My only slight worry is that there may be some ingeneous spelling of Jenner. The last GENNER in the index is in 1768. Chris Willis in Yateley, Hants -----Original Message----- From: George Pickering <member@gpickering.freeserve.co.uk> To: ENG-SURREY@rootsweb.com <ENG-SURREY@rootsweb.com> Date: 27 September 2009 13:11 Subject: [SRY] PARISH RECORDS - WITLEY > > >Dear List, > >Could anyone with access to WITLEY parish marriages check the following marriage please: > >Thomas JENNER m Hannah c1807. > >I have no other details unfortunately. > >Many Thanks. > >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

Hi Cliff, How can we obtain the cd you mentioned please? Jan in sunny Queensland ----- Original Message ----- From: "Webb, Cliff" <cwebb@rmluk.com> To: <eng-surrey@rootsweb.com> Sent: Sunday, September 27, 2009 5:46 PM Subject: Re: [SRY] St Leonards Streatham unindexed PRs pre 1813 > Dear Nivard > Once again thank you for listing this parish's Streatham occurrences on > Ancestry's London pre-1812 section. As part of our ongoing project to > index these parish registers, Streatham baptisms 1754-69 will be on the > new edition of the West Surrey FHS CD 'Surrey Baptisms not in the IGI' > to be issued in November this year. 1769-99 is in an advanced stage and > only needs some final checks so should be in the 2010 edition. > 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 >

Dear List, Could anyone with access to WITLEY parish marriages check the following marriage please: Thomas JENNER m Hannah c1807. I have no other details unfortunately. Many Thanks. George Rainham, Kent.

trivviessite ? Do you mean GEN-TRIVIA-ENG-L ? Anne South Australia john clark wrote: > hi every one i must a pologize first for putting this on the list but im desperate i need help to find the [trivviessite] have known it was disbanded but beleave it was started again thanks for help jonnie adelaide > *************************************** > 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 >

When it came to the names of fathers (or indeed any names), there was no requirement for proof of identity and if they parties to the marriage were unknown to the officiating clergyman, they could say anything they liked. Obviously, if the vicar knew the family, the information given would usually be accurate. Anne South Australia Anne mary jacob wrote: > 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 > Mostly Surrey/Greater London names: Banks, Downing, Eldridge, Fisher, Jaggs, King, Ohlson, Pillow, Pettengill, Spratt, Webber,

hi every one i must a pologize first for putting this on the list but im desperate i need help to find the [trivviessite] have known it was disbanded but beleave it was started again thanks for help jonnie adelaide

Evelyn, Bill's Ann Brown was a spinster when she married John Dalton. If Dalton had died and she remarried, she'd have married as Ann Dalton, widow. Ann Brown will be a very popular name. I've had a look at the on-line records available at this moment on time, and no Hercules Bacon or Bac* or Bar* is popping up. This doesn't mean he didn't live in the area but it is possible he came from further afield or that the register containing your couple hasn't been digitised or indexed yet. Have you looked to see if the Surrey cd's cover your area and period in case they've been indexed by the East SRY FHS team? http://www.eastsurreyfhs.org.uk/publications/publics1.htm le durachd Fionnghal > From: Evelyn Watson <famchaser@sbcglobal.net> > Bill: I have been reading about the > search for Banns concerning a marriage > between an Ann BROWN and a Mr. DALTON at St.Brides Fleet > Street. >   I am searching for information on my Ancestor, Ann > BROWN b. 1776 and m. to a Hercules BACORN/BACON. >   They came to America and their children were chr. in > N.J.  Could I have found another marriage for my Ann?? > They were supposed to have been in Dorking or Wandsworth, Surrey. according to Dutch Church Records.

All Saints, Laleham 1643-92 another challenging few pages from Laleham register :-) le durachd Fionnghal ------------------------- Memorandum p.5 Oct 1663 Memorandum re William Gareeton, Edward __, Thomas Coulders?, Thos Saundars, Thos Gats possibly Laleham church wardens or clerks ------------------------- Burials p.1 1643 possibly, doesn't say p.2-4 1645-58 p.5-6 1662-76 p.7 1688-90 largely unreadable p.8 1682; 1684-92 unreadable in parts ------------------------ Marriages p.9-10 1682-1683 ------------------------

Anne, Many thanks for the lin and your answers to my questions. With best wishes  Richard Brown Bromley Kent U.K. ----- Original Message ---- From: Anne Chambers <anne.chambers@bigpond.com> To: eng-surrey@rootsweb.com Sent: Sunday, 27 September, 2009 10:14:38 Subject: Re: [SRY] A Question about Society in the early 1900's Richard M Brown wrote: Snip > OK.  End of story.  My questions are:- > 1.  How common were out-of-wedlock births to soldiers? Probably very common judging by contemporary accounts and given that human nature hasn't changed ! eric.stamen.com/ww1/.../02.War%20Wives%20and%20Immorality.doc deals with Germany but I am sure Britain was much the same. I had relations in the London Gunners in WW1 so this website was particularly apposite http://www.hertfordshire-genealogy.co.uk/data/projects/londongunners/lg-fair-sex.htm (I wonder how many unkonwn cousins I have ?) > 2.  What was the attitude towards illegitimacy - and was there any particular stigma attached to military offspring? Illegitimacy was definitely a social stigma but illegitimate military offspring were no more stigmatised than others. There were 'good' girls and 'bad' girls ('lucky' and 'unlucky' would probably be more accurate) - the male was not likely to suffer unduly. > 3.  How would the parents of a family treat the illegitimate child? Depends on the social status...the very poor probably accepted the child as a way of life, the very rich concealed it, the lower/upper middle class were horrified and would go to great lengths to conceal it, to the extent that parents often took upon the raising of an elder daughter's illegitimate progeny as if it was their own - again, judging by contemporary accounts. > 4.  Would social standing - real or perceived - affect how the family would deal with the situation? yes, see above > > My relatives and I have good ideas as to how these situations were dealt with.  Pre WW1 attitudes would have been prim ans strict with such affairs covered up.  I think even Queen Victoria's family had an illegitimate child somewhere.  I also think that within a family the mother of an illegitimate child would be hidden, or sent away in the latter stages of her pregnancy - to maintain the shell of decency. > > Certainly Canadian and UK attitudes would have differed, A war 'widow' arriving with a child in Canada with a plausible story would  have no problems.  Who could prove otherwise ?   although today the saying is that modern Canadians are more British than the British. > > Any way help an comments would be much appreciated, you wonderful lot. >  Richard Brown > Bromley > Kent > U.K. > > > > > > *************************************** > 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

All Saints, Laleham 1538-1690 - at the foot The variably untidy, faded, old-fashioned and inkblotted writing, which, for added fun frequently resorts to Latin, found in this register will prove an interesting challenge to researchers, but then, that's what we love about this hobby, isn't it?  :-) I've tried to get it as accurate as possible but some of the Anno Dominis & Virisimos &c were buried amongst the scribbles or even sliding out the side of the page so i may have missed an item or two. I don't think there should be any fear that these digitised images of Ancestry's will in any way make the fantastic work that Cliff Webb and his team are doing redundant. Even for those who have access to Ancestry, the areas the SRY cd's so far cover have all the names &c indexed which these don't; they also make it much easier to bring together the members of each family. I visualise that the cd's and these non-indexed files could be used in conjunction with each other for those who like to see the original docs. For the rest, the cd's save a considerable amount of browsing & searching and are still a very needy resource for those without Ancestry subs and who have been to date, largely dependant on the IGIs. Cliff and his team's aim is to fill the great gaps in the Surrey IGIs which leave so many of us researchers frustrated. le durachd Fionnghal ------------------------------------------ All Saints, Laleham 1538-1690 Baptisms: p.1-39/1: 1538-1688 [not been checked for breaks in dates] ------------------------------------------ Marriages: p39/2-42: 1539-45; 1547-Feb 56; Jly 1563-69       p.43:     1569; 1570; 1572-73; 1575-77; 1580-84 p.44-45:  1585-89; 1594-96; 1598-1600; 1602-03; 1605; 1611-12; 1614-19 p.46-49: 1619-20; 1622; 1624; 1626-29; 1632-51; 1653; 1657-59; 1663-70 p.50/1:  1670-71; 1673-76;   p.50/2:  almost unreadable 1676-1677; 1679-82 p.64/2:  1682 upside down  p.65:    1680-81 [largely unreadable] p.66:    1681-82 ------------------------------------------- Burials: p.51-53:   1538-55 p.53/2-57: 1562-78; 1584-89; 1597; 1599-1605; 1607/8; 1612-15 p.58-64/1: 1616-43 ------------------------------------------- p.66: final page Church accounts & jottings of some description. heading unreadable, however there are also references to marriages mixed in it so maybe some kind of banns or late entries eg:  A Breef [Broof?] (a brief?) published & collortal for ?Jack / Ffark? anmo & John _odulphus zollar dilligats of ___ August the 14 the some of _ shillings eg: Alexander Dawkins [Hawkins?] of Stornos[?] and Mary [no surname] were married ____ 15 Day of May 1682 odd references to places outside London

To follow Nivard's examples and Cliff's suggestion, here is a rough guide for St Paul Deptford - the dates given by Ancestry don't reflect what is actually there. 1730-1788 pp 1-2 burials - ?? mainly of past incumbents pp 3-169 baptisms - 1730-June 1788 pp 170-180 marriages 1730-March 1754 pp 181-365 burials 1730-June 1788 pp 366-539 baptisms July 1788-1812 Alison :-) Sydney Australia

I should possibly have mentioned that Richard was married to Charlotte Harding. Thank you Margaret for the response. Maud > Message: 2 > Date: Sat, 26 Sep 2009 14:59:04 -0700 > From: "Margaret Cambridge" <talktomarg@shaw.ca> > Subject: Re: [SRY] Advice Please - Cook family > To: <eng-surrey@rootsweb.com> > Message-ID: <9A3C38745A5F47FDBBE255A84CF0A5B9@margaret78c408> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > > Possibly found in 1901. Image sent. > > Marg >>From the Beautiful British Columbia Cariboo Region, Canada > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "maud" <charzum@telkomsa.net> > To: <eng-surrey@rootsweb.com> > Sent: Saturday, September 26, 2009 7:32 AM > Subject: [SRY] Advice Please - Cook family > > > My grandfather Richard Cook, born in Bethnal Green in 1839 does not appear > on the 1891 or 1901 census. The family were residing in Croydon, Surrey > at > the time. > > According to the census, my grandmother is not shown as the "head", but as > married. On checking on freebmd, the only death I can find of a Richard > Cook in the correct age category is in 1908 in Croydon. > > Could Richard possibly have been hospitalised or in an institution? > > Any assistance will be much appreciated. > Maud > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 3 > Date: Sat, 26 Sep 2009 15:15:20 -0700 > From: Bill Dalton <rnbill@centurytel.net> > Subject: [SRY] Banns from St. Brides Fleet Street > To: eng-surrey@rootsweb.com > Message-ID: <4ABE9278.3070507@centurytel.net> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed > > Hi Fionnghal > > Thanks for the offer to look at the Banns for John Dalton and Ann/Anne > Brown. > > According to the information that I was given, the banns were called on > 5, 12 and 19 May 1805. However, my source did not tell me if there was > any other information recorded in that document. > > Also, do you know of any maps (online hopefully) showing the boundaries > of the different parishes in the London area in 1805? I have been told > that St. Brides was located in Middlesex and I was wondering what were > the other adjacent parishes on the assumption that my John was not > actually a resident of the St. Brides parish. If I take that route then > I would have to know which were the closest parishes and work through > the records of them looking for a Dalton. > > Bill Dalton > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 4 > Date: Sat, 26 Sep 2009 22:25:23 +0000 (GMT) > From: Fionnghal <fionnghalnicphadraig@yahoo.co.uk> > Subject: Re: [SRY] Banns from St. Brides Fleet Street > To: eng-surrey@rootsweb.com > Message-ID: <551606.55567.qm@web24608.mail.ird.yahoo.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 > > you want to go to Mapco, Bill.? it is brilliant.? Choose the London maps > link and have a good browse.? If the maps don't show parishes, usually > there is a helpful hover feature showing the parish the square roughly > covers.? The Stanford's 1877 map is the best for parishes and may hep a > wee bit of used in conjunction with older maps though f course there will > have been many more added. > > http://archivemaps.com/mapco/index.htm > > i'll get back to you with your couple - hopefully with a result > > le durachd > > Fionnghal > > > > Also, do you know of any maps (online hopefully) showing the boundaries > of the different parishes in the London area in 1805?? I have been told > that St. Brides was located in Middlesex and I was wondering what were > the other adjacent parishes on the assumption that my John was not > actually a resident of the St. Brides parish.? If I take that route then > I would have to know which were the closest parishes and work through > the records of them looking for a Dalton. > > Bill Dalton > *************************************** > 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: 5 > Date: Sat, 26 Sep 2009 22:48:50 +0000 (GMT) > From: Fionnghal <fionnghalnicphadraig@yahoo.co.uk> > Subject: Re: [SRY] Banns from St. Brides Fleet Street > To: eng-surrey@rootsweb.com > Message-ID: <276118.7174.qm@web24611.mail.ird.yahoo.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 > > hi Bill, no banns showing yet, though they may just not be up yet.? > However, their marriage lines show them both to be from the Parish of St > Brides Fleet Street though how long they'd been staying there is unknown.? > > I tried to contact you off-list to send you the full details but it > bounced.? if you e-mail me direct i'll fill you in. > > le durachd > > Fionnghal > Thanks for the offer to look at the Banns for John Dalton and Ann/Anne > Brown. > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 6 > Date: Sat, 26 Sep 2009 23:55:09 +0100 > From: "Nivard Ovington" <ovington1@sky.com> > Subject: Re: [SRY] Banns from St. Brides Fleet Street > To: <eng-surrey@rootsweb.com> > Message-ID: <FE555E094BBD4925B27EFBD471D664B7@claireac3e9bca> > Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; > reply-type=original > > Try > http://maps.familysearch.org/ > > Nivard Ovington in Cornwall (UK) > > >> Also, do you know of any maps (online hopefully) showing the boundaries >> of the different parishes in the London area in 1805? I have been told >> that St. Brides was located in Middlesex and I was wondering what were >> the other adjacent parishes on the assumption that my John was not >> actually a resident of the St. Brides parish. If I take that route then >> I would have to know which were the closest parishes and work through >> the records of them looking for a Dalton. >> >> Bill Dalton > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 7 > Date: Sun, 27 Sep 2009 12:46:57 +1000 > From: Alison <wadingbird@bigpond.com> > Subject: [SRY] Parish Registers on Ancestry - St Paul Deptford > To: SURREY <ENG-SURREY-L@rootsweb.com> > Message-ID: <4ABED220.7090800@bigpond.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed > > > To follow Nivard's examples and Cliff's suggestion, here is a rough > guide for St Paul Deptford - the dates given by Ancestry don't reflect > what is actually there. > > 1730-1788 > pp 1-2 burials - ?? mainly of past incumbents > pp 3-169 baptisms - 1730-June 1788 > pp 170-180 marriages 1730-March 1754 > pp 181-365 burials 1730-June 1788 > pp 366-539 baptisms July 1788-1812 > > > Alison :-) > Sydney Australia > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 8 > Date: Sat, 26 Sep 2009 16:10:15 -0700 (PDT) > From: mary jacob <mdhwrites@verizon.net> > Subject: Re: [SRY] Evidence of identity for marriage, re bannsRe: > ENG-SURREY Digest, Vol 4, Issue 246 > To: eng-surrey@rootsweb.com > Message-ID: <292339.32892.qm@web84004.mail.mud.yahoo.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 > > 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 > Mostly Surrey/Greater London names: Banks, Downing, Eldridge, Fisher, > Jaggs, King,?Ohlson, Pillow,?Pettengill, Spratt, Webber,? > --- On Wed, 9/23/09, eng-surrey-request@rootsweb.com > <eng-surrey-request@rootsweb.com> wrote: > > From: eng-surrey-request@rootsweb.com <eng-surrey-request@rootsweb.com> > Subject: ENG-SURREY Digest, Vol 4, Issue 246 > To: eng-surrey@rootsweb.com > Date: Wednesday, September 23, 2009, 10:42 AM > > > > 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: Evidence of identity for marriage, re banns (Pam Hillier) > ???2. Re: Evidence of identity for marriage? (Chew G) > ???3. Re: Evidence of identity for marriage, re banns (Fionnghal) > ???4. 50 years between banns and marriage (Penny Parker) > ???5. Re: 50 years between banns and marriage (Nivard Ovington) > ???6. Re: 50 years between banns and marriage (Caroline Bradford) > ???7. Re: 50 years between banns and marriage (Fionnghal) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2009 14:22:50 +0930 > From: "Pam Hillier" <pamhillier24@virginbroadband.com.au> > Subject: Re: [SRY] Evidence of identity for marriage, re banns > To: <eng-surrey@rootsweb.com> > Message-ID: <863F7ABDD8FD468C91A139703203B65D@GENHILLIER> > Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; > ??? reply-type=original > > Hi? Wayne > perhaps not........One of my family married in Richmond Surrrey and lived > in > Twickenham, and census data was Twickenham for the most part......turns > out > they both worked for a family in Richmond where they first met.....and > possibly married in the area as it was easier from work. When people are > in > service, time off is limited. He was the Butler and she was the cook.... > BUT > That being said, I have had one that married elsewhere because they had > children.....we may never know why they didn't marry at or before the > first > child was born, but it seems they married just before the eldest child was > due to marry, some 20 years later....and yes we got the certs and it is > them. They were together in all the census data too. We think he lied to > get > into the army, was too young to marry her when she fell pregnant, and then > it all got way too hard and they never bothered. But guilt might have set > in > when they had to appear in church for their children....whatever the > reason......we can make suppositions but in some cases the truth is > probably > somewhere in between and died with them > Cheers Pam from Adelaide Australia > > > > >> >> Hi all, >> >> I also have a problem with incorrect/ falsehoods with my great >> grandparents. My great >> grandmother Anne Bashford, was, as was the rest of her family members of >> and were baptised >> in the local? Coulsdon church. In fact both of her parents were buried >> there. However she >> chose to marry in the Croydon Parish church under banns in 1870. The man >> she married gave >> his name as William Bride (the registrar confirmed he wrote his name as >> "Bride" on >> the certificate) The next year has them in Coulsdon under the name >> 'McBride' in the >> 1871 census and subsequent children were baptised back in the Coulsdon >> church. The Croydon >> church never figured again in any family matters.There has obviously been >> some deception >> somewhere which leads me to question other parts of the certificate such >> as William's >> father's name & occupation. Also is my surname Bride or McBride? >> >> kindest regards >> >> Wayne (Mc)Bride >> *************************************** >> 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: 2 > Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2009 15:09:57 +0100 > From: "Chew G" <G.Chew@rhul.ac.uk> > Subject: Re: [SRY] Evidence of identity for marriage? > To: <eng-surrey@rootsweb.com> > Message-ID: > ??? <E5F8E4518B68AA439EE1BDFCF08ABE7103638D83@EXCH-DB-02.cc.rhul.local> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > > My impression is that the approval of the "father", real or surrogate, who > bore the surname seems to have been implied when the illegitimate > offspring changed from the mother's surname.? But not officially, of > course.? A typical example - my ancestor Joseph Chew, b. 1777, > illegitimate, was called Joseph French after his mother at baptism, was > called Joseph Chew French at his marriage, and once the likely father > Thomas Chew had approved of him to the extent of naming him "Joseph Chew" > in his will (early 19th century), he called himself Joseph Chew. But I > don't have the impression he would have dared to do so in that village > community unless he'd had Thomas's approval. > > Geoff > > Geoffrey Chew > g.chew@rhul.ac.uk > > ________________________________ > > From: eng-surrey-bounces@rootsweb.com on behalf of > rodfreeman27@talktalk.net > Sent: Tue 22.9.09 14:03 > To: eng-surrey@rootsweb.com > Subject: [SRY] Evidence of identity for marriage? > > > > > I'd appreciate Lister's thoughts on this situation: > > > > My paternal g-grandmother had an illegitimate daughter, born 1871, no > father's name on the birth cert., before she 'co-habited'? (ie. never > married) with with my g-grandfather in 1873.?This daughter carried her > mother's surname (PADDICK)?at the 1881 Census. Then, mother struck up a > relationship with another partner (George BAILEY),?and married him in > Lambeth in 1892; aforesaid daughter is shown with this man's surname in > the 1891 Census. When the daughter married in Islington in?1898 she gave > her surname as 'BAILEY' and her father as George BAILEY. > > I know that under English Common Law you can call yourself whatever you > like, but when it comes to officialdom,?documentrary evidence has to be > provided. I doubt whether these humble folk would have have known about, > or have been able to afford,?name change by Deed Poll?, so what proof, if > any, would she had to have provided as to her identity prior to marriage? > > > > Rod. > > In cool and dull Notting Hill, West London. > *************************************** > 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: Wed, 23 Sep 2009 08:35:01 +0000 (GMT) > From: Fionnghal <fionnghalnicphadraig@yahoo.co.uk> > Subject: Re: [SRY] Evidence of identity for marriage, re banns > To: eng-surrey@rootsweb.com > Message-ID: <835033.65451.qm@web24607.mail.ird.yahoo.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 > > hya, it's not uncommon for names starting with Mac/Mc to have the Mc's > dropped either deliberately or accidentally.? I have lots of Mc's in my > family and it was forever happening - even within the one batch of > children. There was also a period when the British Government was > desperately trying to Anglicise all things, languages and names and many > Irish & Scottish names underwent a spelling change to meet this > requirement. Some registering clerks, teachers, ministers &c were very > assiduous in carrying this out while others were more relaxed hence > perhaps spelling varying from region to region.? Some names survived more > successfully than others.? In some cases it may be that the clerk was > unfamiliar with this Scottish/Irish influence on names and just didn't > include it; it may be that the Mc was so clipped in speech that it wasn't > recognised.? A not uncommon situation concerned the individual becoming > aware of a local anti-Irish/anti-Scottish feeling > in > his adopted community, and voluntarily dropping the Mc/Mac in an attempt > to integrate.? ? The name McBride has Gaelic origins, found both in > Scotland and Ireland which fits with any of the above scenarios. > > We have to bear in mind too, that there were still a lot of illiterate > folk in the 1870s and they simply didn't know how to spell their names or > didn't appreciate the relevance of spelling so wouldn't recognise a > mispelling on their marriage/birth lines &c. or if they did, may not have > had the courage to face an apparent scholar to point out the mistake > > If the Mc appears on his name, it is more likely than not that it was his > original name as the Mc is more often dropped than adopted. > > I suspect that if someone is seriously trying to deceive by altering > his/her name, the alias would be more different than a mere dropping or > adoption of a Mc.??? > > happy digging :-) > > le durachd > > Fionnghal > > > h church under banns in 1870. The man she married gave >> his name as William Bride (the registrar confirmed he wrote >> his name as "Bride" on >> the certificate) The next year has them in Coulsdon under >> the name 'McBride' in the > .......There has obviously been some deception >> somewhere which leads me to question other parts of the >> certificate such as William's >> father's name & occupation. Also is my surname Bride or >> McBride? > > > > ? ? ? > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 4 > Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2009 10:27:40 +0100 > From: Penny Parker <pitstop67@hotmail.com> > Subject: [SRY] 50 years between banns and marriage > To: <eng-surrey@rootsweb.com> > Message-ID: <COL109-W62FA9F473425088CC37DBCBBDB0@phx.gbl> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > > > Hi > > > > Thank you for the replies to my previous post. I now know that there can > be no more than 3 months between banns and marriage. > > > > Can anyone give me any help with the following please: > > > > The banns were published as follows: > > > Name: Margaret Merthens > > Age: 21 Estimated Birth Year: abt 1845? living at 24 Heath Street > > Spouse Name: Thomas Smith Spouse Age: 22? living at 22 Silver Street > > Record Type: Banns? Event Date: 23 Sep 1866 > > Parish: Saint Dunstan And All Saints County: Middlesex Borough: Tower > Hamlets > > > > There is no record of a marriage even though I have searched for years. I > know they were living in Morgan Street, St George in the East when their > first child was born in September 1867. > > > By 1889 they had moved to Sydenham (Lewisham) and remained there the rest > of their lives. However they did not marry until 1917 as follows: > > > > Name: Margaret Merton Age: 69 > > Estimated Birth Year: abt 1848 > > Spouse Name: Thomas Smith Spouse Age: 72 > > Record Type: Marriage Event Date: 7 May 1917 > > Parish: Christ Church County: Middlesex Borough: Southwark > > Father Name: Albert Merton Spouse Father Name: George Smith > > Both declared they were living at 40 Broadwall > > > > All these details are absolutely correct even her date of birth which was > wrongly stated in the banns. Her surname was spelt differently on many > documents - the spelling is correct on the Banns but by 1917 it could have > been anglicised in this way. > > > > My question is how did they marry in Southwark when they lived in Lewisham > and who did live at 40 Broadwall? > > > > Any help would be most appreciated. > > > > Penny > > ??? ???????? ?????? ??? ? > _________________________________________________________________ > Get the best of MSN on your mobile > http://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/147991039/direct/01/ > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 5 > Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2009 11:13:24 +0100 > From: "Nivard Ovington" <ovington1@sky.com> > Subject: Re: [SRY] 50 years between banns and marriage > To: <eng-surrey@rootsweb.com> > Message-ID: <028611B15AF940D79AA7827778D1B08F@claireac3e9bca> > Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; > ??? reply-type=original > > > Hi Penny > >>From what I can see they called the banns but then did not marry, there > could have been many reasons for that and you may never know the exact one > but perhaps Margaret was ill and they could not marry during the Banns > period of three months > > Or they went to marry on the appointed day and the Banns were found to be > incorrect in some way (age, name etc) they would have to have the Banns > called again and perhaps for reasons unknown did not want to follow it > through, you can imagine going to marry and having to return home and > perhaps not wanting to say they hadn't been through the ceremony > > It may be significant that Margaret could not write her name when they > married in 1917, therefore did not know the spelling of something (her > name > perhaps) was incorrect until the day of the marriage > > Although the spelling of surnames was very much a floating affair in > earlier > years, it could have been said on the day it was not spelled that way and > the Vicar would have to have canceled the wedding if he were the pedantic > type > > I have seen several Banns with that very reason annotated and therefore > wedding canceled (i.e. incorrect spelling of surname) > > Was it significant that it was 50 years after they had originally intended > to marry? perhaps, it might also have been a factor that they realised > that > Margaret may not have got a pension as a single lady > > Broadwall appears to still exist and is in Camberwell, if you contact the > nearest library or local studies if there is one they may be able to help > with the occupants in 1918 which I think would be the nearest electoral > roll > > It would only need them to be believed that they were resident at that > address for three weeks to be eligible to marry there, if they had lived > as > man and wife all those years they may have wanted to marry away from home > to > keep it a quiet affair, were either of the witnesses their children or > known > friends (perhaps the occupants of the mystery address?) > > Nivard Ovington in Cornwall (UK) > > >> Thank you for the replies to my previous post. I now know that there can >> be no more than 3 months between banns and marriage. >> Can anyone give me any help with the following please: >> The banns were published as follows: >> Name: Margaret Merthens >> Age: 21 Estimated Birth Year: abt 1845? living at 24 Heath Street >> Spouse Name: Thomas Smith Spouse Age: 22? living at 22 Silver Street >> Record Type: Banns? Event Date: 23 Sep 1866 >> Parish: Saint Dunstan And All Saints County: Middlesex Borough: Tower >> Hamlets > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 6 > Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2009 11:45:21 +0100 > From: "Caroline Bradford" <caroline.bradford@btinternet.com> > Subject: Re: [SRY] 50 years between banns and marriage > To: <eng-surrey@rootsweb.com> > Message-ID: <002801ca3c3a$f396b370$dac41a50$@bradford@btinternet.com> > Content-Type: text/plain;??? charset="us-ascii" > > Hi Penny > > My best guess would be that this pair had every intention of marrying in > 1845, but something prevented the wedding from taking place.? It could be > that Margaret was a wee bit younger than the 21 years she declared and > that > her father put a stop to it at the last minute.? Or it could be that one > of > them was ill.? They probably intended to try again in the near future.? > But, > given the birth date of their first child (was this actually in September, > or in the quarter ending in September?), it looks like they may have > "jumped > the gun" a bit.? So rather than admit to having a child out of wedlock, > they > pretended to be married (this was very common).? > > This lack of a legal marriage and the white lie they had been living for > so > many years may have preyed on their minds, so they "did the right thing" > in > their twilight years.? Or perhaps, more practically, the decision was > related to the recently introduced Old Age Pension scheme.? Married > couples > received more than single people and Thomas may have been nervous of being > asked for his marriage certificate when he applied for his pension at aged > 70.? It is possible that they married a little way from home out of > embarrassment and a desire for secrecy.? But you are right to try and > investigate the inhabitants of the address they both gave, as it would > probably be at least a friend, if not a relative.? Who were the witnesses > at > the wedding?? I wonder whether their children ever knew that their parents > had been living in sin all those years? > > Best wishes > > Caroline > >> >> Can anyone give me any help with the following please: >> >> >> >> The banns were published as follows: >> >> >> Name: Margaret Merthens >> >> Age: 21 Estimated Birth Year: abt 1845? living at 24 Heath Street >> >> Spouse Name: Thomas Smith Spouse Age: 22? living at 22 Silver Street >> >> Record Type: Banns? Event Date: 23 Sep 1866 >> >> Parish: Saint Dunstan And All Saints County: Middlesex Borough: Tower >> Hamlets >> >> >> >> There is no record of a marriage even though I have searched for years. >> I know they were living in Morgan Street, St George in the East when >> their first child was born in September 1867. >> >> >> By 1889 they had moved to Sydenham (Lewisham) and remained there the >> rest of their lives. However they did not marry until 1917 as follows: >> >> >> >> Name: Margaret Merton Age: 69 >> >> Estimated Birth Year: abt 1848 >> >> Spouse Name: Thomas Smith Spouse Age: 72 >> >> Record Type: Marriage Event Date: 7 May 1917 >> >> Parish: Christ Church County: Middlesex Borough: Southwark >> >> Father Name: Albert Merton Spouse Father Name: George Smith >> >> Both declared they were living at 40 Broadwall >> >> >> All these details are absolutely correct even her date of birth which >> was wrongly stated in the banns. Her surname was spelt differently on >> many documents - the spelling is correct on the Banns but by 1917 it >> could have been anglicised in this way. >> >> My question is how did they marry in Southwark when they lived in >> Lewisham and who did live at 40 Broadwall? >> >> Any help would be most appreciated. >> >> Penny >> >> >> _________________________________________________________________ > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 7 > Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2009 14:35:14 +0000 (GMT) > From: Fionnghal <fionnghalnicphadraig@yahoo.co.uk> > Subject: Re: [SRY] 50 years between banns and marriage > To: eng-surrey@rootsweb.com > Message-ID: <714620.57825.qm@web24602.mail.ird.yahoo.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 > > I believe it wasn't uncommon for folk to start living together as man & > wife after banns but without necessarily going as far as marrying.? > Perhaps cost was a limiting factor or, it may be they thought banns was > sufficient..? A bit like parents going for either baptism or > registration.? I think a significant number of folk thought either/or was > sufficient.? > > Could they simply just have been renewing their vows in 1917?? It's not > that uncommon.? It is possible, in spite of your not having found an > earlier marriage record, that your couple were married or truly believed > they were.? > > Also, not all the London records are on-line yet.? you might come on it > yet, or, pages or records may be missing > > le durachd > fionnghal > >> The banns were published as follows: >> >> Record Type: Banns? Event Date: 23 Sep 1866 >> Parish: Saint Dunstan And All Saints County: Middlesex >> Borough: Tower Hamlets > >> Record Type: Marriage Event Date: 7 May 1917 >> Parish: Christ Church County: Middlesex Borough: Southwark > > > > ? ? ? > > > > ------------------------------ > > 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 4, Issue 246 > ****************************************** > > > ------------------------------ > > 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 4, Issue 258 > ****************************************** -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 8.5.409 / Virus Database: 270.13.113/2396 - Release Date: 09/26/09 05:51:00

Hello Ian, If I am correct the Workhouse was at Hambledon near Chiddingfold, the record were all destroyed according to the Surrey History Centre, I am also interested in the Workhouse records. There was also the Pest House for infectious diseases, again no records have survived. Kind regards Barbara Lewis Mallyon Basingstoke, Hants. UK BarbaraMallyon@lewmal.co.uk ----- Original Message ----- From: "I Thompson" <joscyn@hotmail.com> To: <eng-surrey@rootsweb.com> Sent: Sunday, September 27, 2009 10:51 AM Subject: [SRY] Godalming Workhouse > > Dear list, > > I am interested to know whether there are admission records for > Godalming Workhouse in Surrey History Centre in the 1820s as they > don't appear to be on either a2a or the History Centre's own > website. > > Does anyone have any experience of using these records and do they > contain useful biographical information as I think they might? > > Yours,> > Ian Thompson > > Bromley> > S London >