Hi John, To subscribe to Gen Trivia send an email to: GEN-TRIVIA-ENG-L-request@rootsweb.com with the word Subscribe in the subject area and body. I'm sure they'll be happy to see you back there. Marg >From the Beautiful British Columbia Cariboo Region, Canada

Hello List, Margaret White b. 1913 Murray House, Chertsey Surrey, Is anyone else researching this person or have her on their Family Tree. Any info would be most welcome. Regards Barbara

thanks nivard and caroline it is as I feared I'll now have a trawl through st dunstans in the east and see if anything turns up kas ----- Original Message ----- From: "Nivard Ovington" <ovington1@sky.com> To: <eng-surrey@rootsweb.com> Sent: Saturday, September 26, 2009 6:37 PM Subject: Re: [SRY] ancestry marriage register query > Hi Kas > > It means they were *of* the Parish but not necessarily born there (but > they > *could* have been born there)

Hi Caroline, Thanks for your comments. I see that I will have to order a birth certificate for, Albert Frank Holland., and hope that the one I ask for is the right one. There seem to be two choices. His father, Alfred Holland, said that Albert 's date of birth was the , 29 th. Nov 1903 , but although Mick found this one which fits in with that date , it is for an, Albert Frederick Holland , not an Albert Frank Holland, so it might not be for the right person.. Births Dec 1903 Holland Albert Frederick Southwark 1d 25 Alternatively, here is the one you assume might be the right one. Births Mar 1904 Holland Albert Lambeth 1d 365 However, as you say, this March 1904 DOB implies that, " Somewhat unusually, Albert seems to have been baptised before his birth was registered .... " I wonder if it is also possible that for some unknown reason, the birth of, Albert Frank Holland , was never registered ? That would explain why it is not possible to find a match for the, Dec. 1903 DOB, for an Albert Frederick Holland , with a baptism in Feb 1904 for an Albert Holland. Thanks for your help. Patrick Holland. Caroline Bradford wrote: > Hi Patrick > > A couple of extra points, as a follow up to Nivard's answer: > > To be horribly picky, we are not talking about a "certificate" here, just an > entry in a baptism register. At this date, this is a pre-printed book, with > columns for: Date of Baptism, Christian name of child + "son" or > "daughter", Christian name of parents, surname of parents, abode, quality, > trade or profession (i.e. occupation), name of person performing the > ceremony. It was common practice in many churches for the vicar to add the > date of birth, either in the date of baptism box or on the extreme left of > the page. Unfortunately for you, this was not done in the register in > question. > > Somewhat unusually, Albert seems to have been baptised before his birth was > registered (on the assumption that the registration in Lambeth in the first > quarter of 1904 is him). By the 20th century the practice of not baptising > infants until around the 3-6 month mark was becoming much more the norm, so > I wonder if young Albert was a sickly child and dipping him early was > thought a wise precaution? Anyway, if you want the date and place of the > birth (and the latter is likely to be Pownall Terrace, but you never know) > you will need his birth certificate, which you can order from www.gro.gov.uk > for 7GBP. > > Hope this helps > > Caroline > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: eng-surrey-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:eng-surrey- >> bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of patrick holland >> Sent: 26 September 2009 09:36 >> To: eng-surrey@rootsweb.com >> Subject: [SRY] Baptisms Lambeth 1904. Albert Frank Holland. >> >> >> Hello, >> . >> Is it possible to look up the baptism details for an Albert Frank >> Holland who was baptised in Lambeth church on the 1st. Feb 1904. His >> father 's name was Alfred Holland and mother's name was Eliza Holland ( >> nee Segrott) of 5, Pownall Terrace, Kennington and would this >> certificate give the place and date of birth of the person being >> baptised ? >> >> Thank you. >> >> Patrick Holland. >> *************************************** >> 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 > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 8.5.409 / Virus Database: 270.13.113/2395 - Release Date: 09/25/09 17:52:00 > >

I have several premature babies in my line, some so premature they were born before the parents married at all :-) Nivard Ovington in Cornwall (UK) > Thank you very much for the replies to my query. I'm sure the baby in > question must have been very sick when he was born, and indeed as Jo > suggested could well have been premature - his parents had only been > married for four months when he was born!!! > Suzanne

Thank you very much for the replies to my query. I'm sure the baby in question must have been very sick when he was born, and indeed as Jo suggested could well have been premature - his parents had only been married for four months when he was born!!! Suzanne -- I am using the free version of SPAMfighter. We are a community of 6 million users fighting spam. SPAMfighter has removed 255 of my spam emails to date. Get the free SPAMfighter here: http://www.spamfighter.com/len The Professional version does not have this message

These are about the worst I have come across, many pages out of sequence, the scribe seems to have filled in some pages in an anti-clockwise fashion Good luck to you ! Unindexed Parish Registers pre 1813 Tooting Graveny Surrey 1556-1783 P1 Baptisms 1555 to 1653 (P1 to P19) P19 Marriages 1649 to 1658 (P19 to P21) P22 Baptisms 1653 P23 to P25 what appears to be a will P26 Marriages 1661 & 2 plus 1667 , Baptisms 1661 & 2, Burials 1662 P27 Mixed Baptisms and Burials 1664 to 1668 (P27 & P28) P29 Births 1654 P30 Births/Baptisms 1651 to 1657 (P30 to P31) P31 Marriages 1658 to 1660 (P31 to P33) P33 Baptisms 1657 P34 Some collections for Parishioners? P35 Marriages 1660 P35 Burials 1555 to 1641 (P35 to P46) P46 Baptisms? 1641 to 1652 (although they written as baptisms the dates follow the burials uninterupted to following page where burials resume, could they be burials not baptisms?) P47 Burials 1653 to 1661 (P47) P48 Marriages 1660 to 1661 (P48 & P49) P50 Christenings, Marriages & Burials 1670 (right of P50 missed but see P63) (P50& P51) P52 Burials and Baptisms 1676 to 1686 (P52 to P54) P55 Burials, Marriages & Baptisms 1687 to 1705 (P55 to P62) P63 looks to be repeat (but whole page) of P50 P64 Marriages & Baptisms 1669 to 1676 (repeat of earlier pages?) P65 Marriages, Burials & Baptisms 1676 to 1686 (repeats?) (P65 to P67) P68 Marriages, Burials & Baptisms 1686 to 1701 (repeats?) (P68 to P73) P74 Marriages, Burials & Baptisms 1700 to 1720 (P74 to P81) P82 Marriages, Burials & Baptisms 1720 to 1731 (P82 to P88) P89 Marriages, Burials & Baptisms 1732 to 1753 (P89 to P95) P96 Marriages, Burials & Baptisms 1753 to 1761 (P96 to P103) P103 Marriages, Burials & Baptisms 1761 to 1770/3 (P103 to P110) P111 Marriages, Burials & Baptisms 1770 to 1780 (P111 to P118) P118 Marriages, Burials & Baptisms 1781 to 1782 (P118 to P122) P123 Marriages 1685 P124 Marriages 1697 plus bequest 1712 Isaac BRAND to the Poor P125 Bequest 1721 Thomas MAN to Parish plus Bequest James BETEMAN 1726/7 for apprentices 1783-1798 4 pages Baptisms P1 (register page 12 & 13) 1787 P2 (register page 18 & 19) 1788 P3 (register page 26 & 27) 1790 P4 (register page 34 & 35 1792 to 1793 1783-1802 P1 Burials 1783 (P1 to P26) 1798-1812 P1 to 6 Baptisms 1800 (following refer to numbers on Register pages) P7&8 P8&9 P10&11 P36&37 P56&57 1811 P60&61 1812 (above are just odd pages) 1803-1812 16 pages all burials 1803 to 1812 Nivard Ovington in Cornwall (UK)

Thanks :) It's a long time since I looked at the search options, should have remembered. Anne Nivard Ovington wrote: > Hi Anne > > The + operator picks up any incidence of first or second name > > You can also use ** to pick up all incidences but used on its own (with no > surname) it usually times out > > The various search options are explained here > http://www.freebmd.org.uk/search-help.shtml > > The more complex searches are best performed at quiet times of the day as > they will often time out when its busy > > Nivard Ovington in Cornwall (UK)

Then possibly you need to look at a generation further back for a Sackville connection. Have you traced her back in the censuses ? OTOH, shades of Barbara Cartland, maybe she had a beau Sackville who died ??? Check neighbours in censuses..I discovered that my ggrandfather probably met my ggrandmother (they were born and lived on opposite sides of Somerset) when he visited his grandmother who lived next door to her parents. Anne Philip Blackley wrote: > > Thanks Anne, I hadn't thought of doing that search on Free BMD The time > frame? My great grandmother Sarah SEAR was born in Bucks at Bradwell, 19 > September 1853, married at St Johns, Walworth to Alfred BLACKLEY on 2 > August 1873. > Second marriage when widowed was to Alfred Edwin BOND at St Saviour > Southwark, Surrey, England in abt 1889 > They had, as far as I know, one son but not bearing the name Sackville. > Phil in WA > *************************************** > Send your List messages using **PLAIN TEXT** and always **TRIM AWAY** superfluous old messages in replies. > > List Admin can be contacted at: Eng-Surrey-admin@rootsweb.com. > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to ENG-SURREY-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message >

hello list I have found my edward TANNER marriage in the new ancestry records 1815 it reads his wife sarah WHARRAM of this parish ( st saviour southwark ) and edward of st dunstans in the east would this mean that edward TANNER was born in st dunstans in the east parish and sarah in st saviours southwark or would that be just where they were living at the time of the marriage thanks kas

OK, thanks, will remember that :) What's the difference, or don't I want to know ? Ah - does it pick up third/fourth names as well or am I totally off at a tangent ? Anne (technically challenged in South Australia) Nivard Ovington wrote: > Hi Anne > > Using *sackville (in the forename field) finds 236 on freebmd > > However using the operator +sackville gets 429 as it picks up all incidences > > 49 of those are in Surrey >

Hi Robert I got your response to this but I'm not finding any specific Rotherhithe records along the lines you've detailed. Can you send a link from the page direct to me, and I'll see if that works? Cheers Andy ----- Original Message ----- From: "Andy Hedgcock" <andy701@blueyonder.co.uk> To: <eng-surrey@rootsweb.com> Sent: Saturday, September 26, 2009 3:33 PM Subject: Re: [SRY] Rotherhithe Parish Registers Lookup "HOUGHTON" > Hi Robert > > Neither of your links worked and although I'm pretty good at deciphering > how > to work out the database I'm not having much luck here. Can you recheck > and > repost with perhaps a little more space between each entry then we can > have > another go? > > Cheers > > Andy > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "genealogy AprilWine" <genealogyaprilwine@gmail.com> > To: <MIDDLESEX_COUNTY_UK@rootsweb.com>; <ENG-SURREY@rootsweb.com> > Sent: Saturday, September 26, 2009 3:13 PM > Subject: [SRY] Rotherhithe Parish Registers Lookup "HOUGHTON" > > >> Can someone do a lookup for >> HOUGHTON<http://www.ancestry.com/facts/houghton-family-history.ashx>Marriages >> and Burials in the Rotherhithe >> Parish <http://www.ancestry.com/facts/parish-family-history.ashx> >> Registers, >> Marriages between 1750 - 1845 and Burials after 1800 to 1900. >> >> I can be contacted directly at ROBCRRLL@Gmail.com <//ROBCRRLL@Gmail.com> >> >> Robert >> *************************************** >> Send your List messages using **PLAIN TEXT** and always **TRIM AWAY** >> superfluous old messages in replies. >> >> List Admin can be contacted at: Eng-Surrey-admin@rootsweb.com. >> >> >> ------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to >> ENG-SURREY-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the >> quotes in the subject and the body of the message >> >> > > > > *************************************** > Send your List messages using **PLAIN TEXT** and always **TRIM AWAY** > superfluous old messages in replies. > > List Admin can be contacted at: Eng-Surrey-admin@rootsweb.com. > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > ENG-SURREY-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message > >

What time-frame ? Looking at FreeBMD for births "* sackville" (i.e. Sackville as a middle name) there are a surprising number, all over the country. Anne South Australia Philip Blackley wrote: > > My great grandmother who lived in Surrey asked her daughter to include the > name Sackville in the names of her children but didn't say why. My great > aunt had five boys and gave four of them the name Sackville as a middle > name. > Does any one know of a person or organisation that this might refer to - > perhaps a benefactor? My great grandparents lived in Peckham and > Newington. > Phil in Western Australia > *************************************** > 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 again Having a roam around the National Archives I came to http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/catalogue/displaycataloguedetails.asp?CATID=1805&CATLN=3&Highlight=&FullDetails=True Which lists BT334 as the most likely however I was under the impression that all Births, Marriages & Deaths that were reported (many were not) were included in the collection of GRO indexes known as the Overseas indexes I am happy to be informed otherwise On the National Archives there is a page detailing the periods covered <http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/familyhistory/guide/migrantancestors/overseas.htm> With a sample page of 1937 , I checked one of the names on that page and find it is included in the GRO overseas index Marine Deaths So will be interested to know if you do find anymore on your man in the registers you mention The ships sinking will no doubt have more on it, if you have not already done so I would suggest posting to the Mariners list, they may have more details on the sinking Nivard Ovington in Cornwall (UK) > Hi Nivard, > > Thank you for your reply, I am 99.9% certain of the date the ship went > down, > and as I like you had already checked GRO indexes, Overseas, Regiment/ > navy > etc registers, the only records I know off left to check are the deaths at > sea registers, hence I made request for the "Deaths at sea" to my > knowledge > these are not online and only now available at Kew [TNA]. > > Thanks anyway, > Heather

Hi Patrick I hadn't spotted the Albert Frederick birth, though now you have pointed it out I can see your dilemma, as neither registration is a 100% match. Albert Frederick has the "wrong" middle name and is registered in the "wrong" district (which is presumably why you were hoping for a place of birth on the baptism register - to see if he had been born elsewhere than at home?), but the date matches the baptism. Plain Albert matches the baptism in the sense of there being no middle name, and the registration is in the right RD, but the date is iffy, in terms of both the baptism and the enlistment papers. I wouldn't let the Frank part worry you, as it seems that the baptism at least is "yours" and there is no middle name mentioned in the register. But you could be right, and there are actually three Albert HOLLANDs born within a year or so of each other. It is not very likely that "yours" was not registered (this was relatively uncommon by this date, not least because you could be fined for not doing it), but there is a chance that the registration was "lost" between the desk of the registrar and the printed GRO index (a number of stages of copying, collating and onward transmission were involved in this and mistakes did happen). If you are absolutely 100% sure that Alfred (Albert's father) never used, or was known by, a different name, then you can reduce the cost of an incorrect first guess by using the GRO's reference checking service and specifying Alfred as the father's name. This will save you 4 of your 7 quid if the father's name is otherwise. Best of luck! Caroline > -----Original Message----- > From: eng-surrey-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:eng-surrey- > bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of patrick holland > Sent: 26 September 2009 14:20 > To: eng-surrey@rootsweb.com > Subject: Re: [SRY] Baptisms Lambeth 1904. Albert Frank Holland. > > > Hi Caroline, > > Thanks for your comments. I see that I will have to order a birth > certificate for, Albert Frank Holland., and hope that the one I ask > for is the right one. There seem to be two choices. > > His father, Alfred Holland, said that Albert 's date of birth was the > , 29 th. Nov 1903 , but although Mick found this one which fits in > with that date , it is for an, Albert Frederick Holland , not an > Albert Frank Holland, so it might not be for the right person.. > > Births Dec 1903 > Holland Albert Frederick Southwark 1d 25 > > Alternatively, here is the one you assume might be the right one. > > Births Mar 1904 > Holland Albert Lambeth 1d 365 > > However, as you say, this March 1904 DOB implies that, > > " Somewhat unusually, Albert seems to have been baptised before his > birth was registered .... " > > I wonder if it is also possible that for some unknown reason, the birth > of, Albert Frank Holland , was never registered ? That would explain > why it is not possible to find a match for the, Dec. 1903 DOB, for an > Albert Frederick Holland , with a baptism in Feb 1904 for an Albert > Holland. > > Thanks for your help. > > Patrick Holland. > > > > > > > Caroline Bradford wrote: > > Hi Patrick > > > > A couple of extra points, as a follow up to Nivard's answer: > > > > To be horribly picky, we are not talking about a "certificate" here, > just an > > entry in a baptism register. At this date, this is a pre-printed > book, with > > columns for: Date of Baptism, Christian name of child + "son" or > > "daughter", Christian name of parents, surname of parents, abode, > quality, > > trade or profession (i.e. occupation), name of person performing the > > ceremony. It was common practice in many churches for the vicar to > add the > > date of birth, either in the date of baptism box or on the extreme > left of > > the page. Unfortunately for you, this was not done in the register > in > > question. > > > > Somewhat unusually, Albert seems to have been baptised before his > birth was > > registered (on the assumption that the registration in Lambeth in the > first > > quarter of 1904 is him). By the 20th century the practice of not > baptising > > infants until around the 3-6 month mark was becoming much more the > norm, so > > I wonder if young Albert was a sickly child and dipping him early was > > thought a wise precaution? Anyway, if you want the date and place of > the > > birth (and the latter is likely to be Pownall Terrace, but you never > know) > > you will need his birth certificate, which you can order from > www.gro.gov.uk > > for 7GBP. > > > > Hope this helps > > > > Caroline > > > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: eng-surrey-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:eng-surrey- > >> bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of patrick holland > >> Sent: 26 September 2009 09:36 > >> To: eng-surrey@rootsweb.com > >> Subject: [SRY] Baptisms Lambeth 1904. Albert Frank Holland. > >> > >> > >> Hello, > >> . > >> Is it possible to look up the baptism details for an Albert Frank > >> Holland who was baptised in Lambeth church on the 1st. Feb 1904. His > >> father 's name was Alfred Holland and mother's name was Eliza > Holland ( > >> nee Segrott) of 5, Pownall Terrace, Kennington and would this > >> certificate give the place and date of birth of the person being > >> baptised ? > >> > >> Thank you. > >> > >> Patrick Holland. > >> *************************************** > >> 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 > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > --- > > > > > > No virus found in this incoming message. > > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > > Version: 8.5.409 / Virus Database: 270.13.113/2395 - Release Date: > 09/25/09 17:52:00 > > > > > > *************************************** > 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 Nivard, Thank you for your reply, I am 99.9% certain of the date the ship went down, and as I like you had already checked GRO indexes, Overseas, Regiment/ navy etc registers, the only records I know off left to check are the deaths at sea registers, hence I made request for the "Deaths at sea" to my knowledge these are not online and only now available at Kew [TNA]. Thanks anyway, Heather

Thanks Anne, I hadn't thought of doing that search on Free BMD The time frame? My great grandmother Sarah SEAR was born in Bucks at Bradwell, 19 September 1853, married at St Johns, Walworth to Alfred BLACKLEY on 2 August 1873. Second marriage when widowed was to Alfred Edwin BOND at St Saviour Southwark, Surrey, England in abt 1889 They had, as far as I know, one son but not bearing the name Sackville. Phil in WA

Hello, . Is it possible to look up the baptism details for an Albert Frank Holland who was baptised in Lambeth church on the 1st. Feb 1904. His father 's name was Alfred Holland and mother's name was Eliza Holland ( nee Segrott) of 5, Pownall Terrace, Kennington and would this certificate give the place and date of birth of the person being baptised ? Thank you. Patrick Holland.

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

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 ******************************************