As part of my research on Wiltshire Osmans I came across a reference in the 1881 census for the Lafford family of Maisey Hampton (not Wiltshire I know!) in which the father and older son were described as Fa La & Private In The North Glost Militia I have checked google but could find no clue as to what Fa La meant. Can anyone throw any light on these abbreviations? Leonie Fretwell [email protected] Burra, South Australia

Abbreviation for Father-in-law. Common in census. Warmest regards, Terry Waters-Marsh FreeCEN Country Coordinator for ENGLAND FreeCEN County Coordinator for SOMERSET (1891), WILTSHIRE, BEDFORDSHIRE, BERKSHIRE, BUCKINGHAMSHIRE, CHESHIRE, DORSET, GLOUCESTERSHIRE, HERTFORDSHIRE, HUNTINGDONSHIRE, OXFORDSHIRE, WARWICKSHIRE, WORCESTERSHIRE. Visit the FreeCEN web site at http://www.freecen.org.uk Somerset web page http://freepages.genealogy.rootswseb.com/~somtcen Wiltshire web page http://www.pope-genealogy.me.uk/nwop.htm Warwickshire web page http://www.hunimex.com/warwick/freecens/1861/index_1861.html Worcestershire web page http://www.hunimex.com/warwick/wo-a-p.html OPC for Avebury, Wiltshire General census information http://www.british-genealogy.com/resources/census/index.htm "To forget one's ancestors is to be a brook without a source, a tree without a root." (Chinese Proverb) -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Leonie Fretwell Sent: Saturday, 3 January 2009 12:51 PM To: [email protected] Subject: [ENG-WILTSHIRE] Query on Militia As part of my research on Wiltshire Osmans I came across a reference in the 1881 census for the Lafford family of Maisey Hampton (not Wiltshire I know!) in which the father and older son were described as Fa La & Private In The North Glost Militia I have checked google but could find no clue as to what Fa La meant. Can anyone throw any light on these abbreviations? Leonie Fretwell [email protected] Burra, South Australia ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Joining this one late (missed the STAGG bit before, only read Subject line and first couple of sentences) I also had Staggs in this area of Wiltshire (Milton Lilbourne/Pewsey/Easton/Fyfield). Some of my names (father/son) are. John Stagg (c1720-) m Jane Burry John Stagg (c1744-1839) m. Mary Rutt John Stagg (c1778-1864) m Hester Tucker John Stagg (c1802-<1841) m Rosannah ? Thomas Stagg (1825-1871) m Julia Lambell - MOVED TO LONDON in 1840s Any connections? Donna -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of hazel magann Sent: Saturday, 3 January 2009 4:41 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [ENG-WILTSHIRE] SURNAMES Hi Leanie This might be my William's uncle maybe as my mum now 85 years old told me they came from outside Pewsey which is the registration area of the baptism of my William. Would you know anything more on your William or if any of the other surnames fit your family. My Stagg family had a paddock in the Savernack Forest I was very lucky as they appeared in a written work in the 1950 which I was sent a copy of and then on researching the settlement papers I located them with the help of a minister. Another two areas that are possibilty's are Burbage and Milton Lilborne where Eliza Faith, William's daughter ran in later years a public house named the "Three Horseshoes" on the Milton Rd. Eliza had three marriages 1st John Bristow Stagg, 2nd to Thomas Tucker, 3rd Alfred Gilford. Perhpas you have come across these details in you research one other strange fact is William and Eliza Watts daughter bears the name Betsy Wells Watts. Hope you find a connection. Warm Regards Hazel <snip> > Hi > Hope you all had a lovely festive season. I am reposting my surnames with > the hope someone may have come across a family connection as I do not have > much from my gxgrandparents back. > > I know my ggxgrandfather was William WATTS born 14 Sept 1834 Pewsey, > Wiltshire. His parents were John and Hannah WATTS I have not as yet > located > Hannha's surname. > > William married Eliza HEATH formerly WILD born circa 1841 I think I found > the registration of her birth as 1841 in Pewsey on the Freebdm site have > as > yet to confirm by sending for a certificate. > > My other surnames are: BRISTOW-STAGG-FISHLOCK if anyone might be > researching > these surnames I would like to hear from you. > > Warm Regards > Hazel in NSW

Hello I am seeking information on the Potter and Greenman families of the Dauntsey Area. Any information will be welcome. Bob

Bob, The link below has the Dauntsey and Brinkworth transcripts up to about 1810. There are both your names in the Dauntsey one. http://www.henly.f9.co.uk/wiltshire.html Hope that helps..............................................StU:

Hi Leonie, When I'm transcribing for FreeBMD, it is is short form for 'father-in-law'. Is that possible? Regards, Nancy Frey Newcastle, Ontario, CANADA OPC for Ansford & Castle Cary, Somerset Moderator of Yahoo! Catsash Group Moderator of Yahoo! FULFORD_North Devon Group Moderator of Yahoo! DAVIDGE Connections Group ----- Original Message ----- From: "Leonie Fretwell" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, January 02, 2009 9:51 PM Subject: [ENG-WILTSHIRE] Query on Militia > As part of my research on Wiltshire Osmans I came across a reference in > the > 1881 census for the Lafford family of Maisey Hampton (not Wiltshire I > know!) > in which the father and older son were described as Fa La & Private In The > North Glost Militia > > > > I have checked google but could find no clue as to what Fa La meant. Can > anyone throw any light on these abbreviations? > > > > Leonie Fretwell > > [email protected] > > Burra, South Australia > > > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Hi Judy Yes, I have Thomas' siblings that you have listed, thanks. I am trying to confirm that this Thomas baptized in Wootton Rivers is the same one born in Woodborough. Most of the Broomham/Bromham families in Wiltshire lived within about a 20 mile radius of each other. Cheers Lorraine -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of [email protected] Sent: Friday, 2 January 2009 1:44 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [ENG-WILTSHIRE] BROOMHAM/BROMHAM families Lorraine, Do you have possible siblings of Thomas, below? Judy BROMHAM, Mary Christening Gender: Female Birthplace: Wootton Rivers, Wilts, Eng Christening Date: 17 Aug 1768 Recorded in: Wootton Rivers, Wiltshire, England Father: John BROMHAM Mother: Elizabeth Source: FHL Film 1279365 Dates: 1728 - 1906 BROMHAM, John Christening Gender: Male Birthplace: Wootton Rivers, Wilts, Eng Christening Date: 25 Dec 1773 Recorded in: Wootton Rivers, Wiltshire, England Father: John BROMHAM Mother: Elizabeth Source: FHL Film 1279365 Dates: 1728 - 1906 BROMHAM, Elizabeth Christening Gender: Female Birthplace: Wootton Rivers, Wilts, Eng Christening Date: 12 Nov 1778 Recorded in: Wootton Rivers, Wiltshire, England Father: John BROMHAM Mother: Elizabeth Source: FHL Film 1279365 Dates: 1728 - 1906 BROMHAM, Charles Christening Gender: Male Birthplace: Wootton Rivers, Wilts, Eng Christening Date: 23 Dec 1781 Recorded in: Wootton Rivers, Wiltshire, England Father: John BROMHAM Mother: Elizabeth Source: FHL Film 1279365 Dates: 1728 - 1906 BROMHAM, Jeremiah Christening Gender: Male Birthplace: Wootton Rivers, Wilts, Eng Christening Date: 1 Jan 1787 Recorded in: Wootton Rivers, Wiltshire, England Father: John BROMHAM Mother: Elizabeth Source: FHL Film 1279365 Dates: 1728 - 1906 Sibling of John 1710 BRUMHAM, Anne Christening Gender: Female Christening Date: 9 Mar 1711 Recorded in: Upavon, Wiltshire, England Father: John BRUMHAM Mother: Sarah Source: FHL Film 1239309 Dates: 1687 - 1875 **************Stay up-to-date on the latest news - from fashion trends to celebrity break-ups and everything in between. (http://www.aol.com/?ncid=emlcntaolcom00000024) ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Hi all I am looking for information on the BROOMHAM/BROMHAM families from areas around Manningford Bruce, Woodborough, Wilcot, etc. In particular Thomas BROOMHAM born 23 April 1765 Woodborough (possibly bap. 20 April 1766 Wootton Rivers) married Anna RUDMAN 12 November 1789 Woodborough. I have the following on this Thomas but unconfirmed. Parents were John BROMHAM bap. 1 February 1740 Wootton Rivers and Elizabeth Lovelock Grandparents John BROMHAM bap. 8 December 1710 Upavon and Mary Unknown Great grandparents John BROMHAM born about 1685 Upavon and Sarah MOORE married 05 October 1710 Upavon Any information to help me confirm or otherwise greatly appreciated. Cheers Lorraine >From sunny Sydney

Lorraine, Do you have possible siblings of Thomas, below? Judy BROMHAM, Mary Christening Gender: Female Birthplace: Wootton Rivers, Wilts, Eng Christening Date: 17 Aug 1768 Recorded in: Wootton Rivers, Wiltshire, England Father: John BROMHAM Mother: Elizabeth Source: FHL Film 1279365 Dates: 1728 - 1906 BROMHAM, John Christening Gender: Male Birthplace: Wootton Rivers, Wilts, Eng Christening Date: 25 Dec 1773 Recorded in: Wootton Rivers, Wiltshire, England Father: John BROMHAM Mother: Elizabeth Source: FHL Film 1279365 Dates: 1728 - 1906 BROMHAM, Elizabeth Christening Gender: Female Birthplace: Wootton Rivers, Wilts, Eng Christening Date: 12 Nov 1778 Recorded in: Wootton Rivers, Wiltshire, England Father: John BROMHAM Mother: Elizabeth Source: FHL Film 1279365 Dates: 1728 - 1906 BROMHAM, Charles Christening Gender: Male Birthplace: Wootton Rivers, Wilts, Eng Christening Date: 23 Dec 1781 Recorded in: Wootton Rivers, Wiltshire, England Father: John BROMHAM Mother: Elizabeth Source: FHL Film 1279365 Dates: 1728 - 1906 BROMHAM, Jeremiah Christening Gender: Male Birthplace: Wootton Rivers, Wilts, Eng Christening Date: 1 Jan 1787 Recorded in: Wootton Rivers, Wiltshire, England Father: John BROMHAM Mother: Elizabeth Source: FHL Film 1279365 Dates: 1728 - 1906 Sibling of John 1710 BRUMHAM, Anne Christening Gender: Female Christening Date: 9 Mar 1711 Recorded in: Upavon, Wiltshire, England Father: John BRUMHAM Mother: Sarah Source: FHL Film 1239309 Dates: 1687 - 1875 **************Stay up-to-date on the latest news - from fashion trends to celebrity break-ups and everything in between. (http://www.aol.com/?ncid=emlcntaolcom00000024)

I am new to the list. I have a limited interest in Wiltshire to be honest. A distant relative Arthur Maddocks lived in darkest Hertfordshire but then showed up in Fittleton 1914 marrying a local girl; Bessie May Mundy. I am certain both have now died as Bessie, the younger of the two, was born in 1892. I assume that Arthur may have been in Wiltshire posted there by the army - his occupation "Groom". Could I ask if anyone has an interest in the family of Edwin Mundy, his wife Ellen Edwards....? Could anyone tell me where a resident of Fittleton would have been buried? I have tried the churchyard but no Mundys or Maddockses. Thank you Philip Maddocks Somerset UK

I have lost the address of where I can get a copy of the "Compton-Wynyates" book that was on the list awhile back does anyone still have where I can send for it? Thanks, Annette Compton Clark [email protected]

I am new to the list. I have a limited interest in Wiltshire to be honest. A distant relative Arthur Maddocks lived in darkest Hertfordshire but then showed up in Fittleton 1914 marrying a local girl; Bessie May Mundy. I am certain both have now died as Bessie, the younger of the two, was born in 1892. I assume that Arthur may have been in Wiltshire posted there by the army - his occupation "Groom". Could I ask if anyone has an interest in the family of Edwin Mundy, his wife Ellen Edwards....? Could anyone tell me where a resident of Fittleton would have been buried? I have tried the churchyard but no Mundys or Maddockses. Thank you Philip Maddocks Somerset UK

Hi Everyone. Could anyone advise on the wife of Robert DREW ,marrige June "Q" 1839 Aldbourne Wiltshire. Wife Elizabeth LUSH or SLADE ?. Many thanks Tony

After going to the site uninvited and registering, I have now received an invitation to continue doing so, along with news of the extended access. Lets be realistic here - they have worked out a way to make money out of the census before the exclusion period expires and they are very happily doing so! Anyone who really believes they are offering it to a select few invitees is not taking into account the fact that genealogy companies such as this make a LOT of money out of us, it is a major business. Val ----- Original Message ----- From: "Firebird" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, December 24, 2008 11:19 PM Subject: Re: [ENG-WILTSHIRE] 1911 Beta Extended > Bev Harsh wrote: > > > So who is going to have "action taken" against them: people who posted the > > link, or all the people who are then able to use the link?? The people who > > posted may not have got the link "legitimately", but are sharing it - yes of > > course they may get information from people who then use the link, but also > > they may not, and are just helping others! Are the people who got the link > > and used it, going to be asked where they got it - which in any case could > > be from a number of sources!!? > > 1911census and FMP know exactly who was given the Exclusive Invite and > who used the site uninvited. > > Blocking access is the easiest way to take action. Knowledge of the > source isn't necessary. > > > Once the census was online, access was going to happen. > > Yeah, along with bleats that certain counties aren't available by > people who don't understand about beta sites. > > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- Internal Virus Database is out of date. Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com Version: 8.0.176 / Virus Database: 270.9.19/1854 - Release Date: 17/12/2008 7:21 PM

For those researching any "Mc" names....there seems to be an indexing issue in that the Mc is not always indexed. I have already had a lot of my McLoughlin family indexed without the Mc....so if you cannot find a Mc then drop the Mc from the surname and search again. In all cases i have found in different counties, the original householder's schedule was filled in correctly but indexed incorrectly with the Mc part or even "M" added to the forename field. Guess there are not many Mc names in the Far East..... regards Anton McLoughlin > > E-mail message checked by Internet Security (6.0.0.386) Database version: 5.11410 http://www.pctools.com/uk/internet-security/

I'm not quite sure what all the fuss is about. I have NOT received an invitation, yet went onto the site and purchased some family research information. The site administrators did not send me an email rejecting my enquiry, nor rejecting my money spent purchasing credits which I then duly spent to their benefit !! If the administrators wanted a site to be tested 'by invitation only', surely they would have set it up in such a way that the 'invitees' were given a 'user password' therefore preventing Jo Public from entering the test site. "will be noted"........... and then what I wonder? Wishing everyone of the List a happy and safe holiday season. Sandra Auckland New Zealand > Firebird stated>>> No, it doesn't. > > It is strictly by invitation only........... FMP and 1911 know exactly who has and has not been > invited so anyone logging in who hasn't been invited.......> ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message >

Bev Harsh wrote: > So who is going to have "action taken" against them: people who posted the > link, or all the people who are then able to use the link?? The people who > posted may not have got the link "legitimately", but are sharing it - yes of > course they may get information from people who then use the link, but also > they may not, and are just helping others! Are the people who got the link > and used it, going to be asked where they got it - which in any case could > be from a number of sources!!? 1911census and FMP know exactly who was given the Exclusive Invite and who used the site uninvited. Blocking access is the easiest way to take action. Knowledge of the source isn't necessary. > Once the census was online, access was going to happen. Yeah, along with bleats that certain counties aren't available by people who don't understand about beta sites.

I never did like "exclusive clubs"...knowledge is to be shared not hoarded....obviously with a Beta they did not want immediate global access as when they did it with the 1901 census their infrastructure crashed and could not cope with the demand....this way the demand builds up gradually and helps them test the loads on their servers. Had it been "abused" then they would not have extended the Beta period....besides which the only way they could "police" the "uninvited" would be by barring the IP address and that would be a nightmare to set up and also very counterproductive. As per usual i have detected a transcription error on my surname and have reported it...since they only allow surname or address searches it took a while to "play" with the many variations and this time it was a new one...I am sure they will forgive my sins in return for the correction...after all it is the season of forgiveness.... -------- Original Message -------- > >> SOMERS wrote: >> >>> I'm not quite sure what all the fuss is about. I have NOT received an >>> invitation, yet went onto the site and purchased some family research >>> information. The site administrators did not send me an email rejecting >>> my enquiry, nor rejecting my money spent purchasing credits which I then >>> duly spent to their benefit !! >>> >>> If the administrators wanted a site to be tested 'by invitation only', >>> surely they would have set it up in such a way that the 'invitees' were >>> given a 'user password' therefore preventing Jo Public from entering the >>> test site. >>> >>> >>> "will be noted"........... >>> and then what I wonder? >>> >> They are taking action :)) >> >> It's a great pity people are impatient and have absolutely no respect >> for anyone or anything. It's the "me, me" society again. >> > > So who is going to have "action taken" against them: people who posted the > link, or all the people who are then able to use the link?? The people who > posted may not have got the link "legitimately", but are sharing it - yes of > course they may get information from people who then use the link, but also > they may not, and are just helping others! Are the people who got the link > and used it, going to be asked where they got it - which in any case could > be from a number of sources!!? > > Once the census was online, access was going to happen. I agree with SOMERS > that either the site be made a lot harder to access from the start, or it > should be happy to accept access and payments arising from access! Genies > and bottles!! > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > > > > E-mail message checked by Internet Security (6.0.0.386) > Database version: 5.11400 > http://www.pctools.com/uk/internet-security/ > > E-mail message checked by Internet Security (6.0.0.386) Database version: 5.11410 http://www.pctools.com/uk/internet-security/

> SOMERS wrote: >> I'm not quite sure what all the fuss is about. I have NOT received an >> invitation, yet went onto the site and purchased some family research >> information. The site administrators did not send me an email rejecting >> my enquiry, nor rejecting my money spent purchasing credits which I then >> duly spent to their benefit !! >> >> If the administrators wanted a site to be tested 'by invitation only', >> surely they would have set it up in such a way that the 'invitees' were >> given a 'user password' therefore preventing Jo Public from entering the >> test site. >> >> >> "will be noted"........... >> and then what I wonder? > > They are taking action :)) > > It's a great pity people are impatient and have absolutely no respect > for anyone or anything. It's the "me, me" society again. So who is going to have "action taken" against them: people who posted the link, or all the people who are then able to use the link?? The people who posted may not have got the link "legitimately", but are sharing it - yes of course they may get information from people who then use the link, but also they may not, and are just helping others! Are the people who got the link and used it, going to be asked where they got it - which in any case could be from a number of sources!!? Once the census was online, access was going to happen. I agree with SOMERS that either the site be made a lot harder to access from the start, or it should be happy to accept access and payments arising from access! Genies and bottles!!

SOMERS wrote: > I'm not quite sure what all the fuss is about. I have NOT received an > invitation, yet went onto the site and purchased some family research > information. The site administrators did not send me an email rejecting > my enquiry, nor rejecting my money spent purchasing credits which I then > duly spent to their benefit !! > > If the administrators wanted a site to be tested 'by invitation only', > surely they would have set it up in such a way that the 'invitees' were > given a 'user password' therefore preventing Jo Public from entering the > test site. > > > "will be noted"........... > and then what I wonder? They are taking action :)) It's a great pity people are impatient and have absolutely no respect for anyone or anything. It's the "me, me" society again.