Hi Roy, I didn't mean certificates to back then. Just that there are a lot of descendants from then 'til now, who night need certificates, post 1837. Mike On 12/01/2011 15:45, Roy Stockdill wrote: > On 12 Jan 2011 at 14:49, Mike YEGWART wrote: > >> The Thomas HANDS born around 1849 is my 3rd cousin 4 times removed. >> Buying certificates for a common descendant back to 1731 needs a >> bottomless wallet. All the HANDS in baptised, married and buried in >> Tardebigge from 1700-1800 are now mine, and probably Bromsgrove pre >> 1850. But probably isn't good enough. Although I do think it's >> likely this fellow is mine.> > You couldn't buy certificates back to 1731 even if you wanted to, since they only exist > from July 1 1837 when civil registration was introduced ! > > -- > Roy Stockdill > Genealogical researcher, writer& lecturer > Newbies' Guide to Genealogy& Family History: www.genuki.org.uk/gs/Newbie.html > > "There is only one thing in the world worse than being talked about, > and that is not being talked about." > OSCAR WILDE > > > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to ENG-WORCESTER-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message > >

On 12 Jan 2011 at 17:09, Mike YEGWART wrote: > Hi Roy, > > I didn't mean certificates to back then. Just that there are a lot of > descendants from then 'til now, who night need certificates, post > 1837. > > Mike > > > On 12/01/2011 15:45, Roy Stockdill wrote: > > On 12 Jan 2011 at 14:49, Mike YEGWART wrote: > > > >> The Thomas HANDS born around 1849 is my 3rd cousin 4 times removed. > >> Buying certificates for a common descendant back to 1731 needs a > >> bottomless wallet. All the HANDS in baptised, married and buried > >> in Tardebigge from 1700-1800 are now mine, and probably Bromsgrove > >> pre 1850. But probably isn't good enough. Although I do think > >> it's likely this fellow is mine.> > > You couldn't buy certificates back to 1731 even if you wanted to, > > since they only exist from July 1 1837 when civil registration was > > introduced ! > > I felt sure you knew, Mike. I was just testing (and teasing) you! Have you considered doing a one-name study of HANDS? The surname does not appear to be currently registered with the Guild. I edited the Journal of One-Name Studies for 10 years. A quick check with the British Surname Atlas CD (which creates splendid surname distribution maps from the 1881 census data) reveals that HANDS is overwhelmingly a Warwickshire surname - not Worcestershire but very much the adjoining county. In the 1881 census there were 3,004 people with the name, of which 1,119 - just over one-third - were resident in Warwickshire. The next highest concentration was in Middlesex (323) but way behind Warwickshire. Worcestershire came third with 171 entries. There were 43 people called HANDS in the Bromsgrove Poor Law Union. -- Roy Stockdill Genealogical researcher, writer & lecturer Newbies' Guide to Genealogy & Family History: www.genuki.org.uk/gs/Newbie.html "There is only one thing in the world worse than being talked about, and that is not being talked about." OSCAR WILDE