Haven't gotten any emails for some time. Am I still on the list?

Good day to all. I thought some listers might be interested in the latest issue of my "Famous family trees" blog in which I research well-known celebrities for the Findmypast website. The main URL is in my signature below. My most recent subject, which went online only yesterday is TESS DALY, the co-presenter of Strictly Come Dancing. She was born in Derbyshire and her ancestors prior to that came from Ireland, Manchester, Salford and Stockport, Cheshire. However, I found she had a great-grandmother called ELIZABETH MANN who, according to the 1911 census, was born at Navestock. FreeBMD has her birth record in the last quarter of 1860 at Ongar registration district and she appears in the censuses of 1861 and 1871 In 1871 she is recorded as LIZZIE MANN, living with her parents JAMES and ELLEN MANN and four siblings at No. 2 Pratt's Cottage, Navestock. The entire family gave their birth place as Navestock except Ellen, the wife, who was born in Ireland. How she got to Essex I couldn't say! I couldn't find Elizabeth for certain in 1881 but she might have been the Elizabeth Mann who was in service as a cook/domestic at Brighton with an Indian Army colonel and his family called GEORGE SMART. However, if this was her she gave her birth place as Romford which I suppose she might have done. Elizabeth married William Joseph Daly at a Roman Catholic church in Sheffield in 1885. FreeBMD has the likely marriage in the third quarter of 1855 of James Mann and Ellen Driscoll and I found James with his parents, WILLIAM and RACHEL MANN, and five brothers in 1851 at Water Hales, Navestock. William and Rachel were Tess Daly's gt-gt-gt-grandparents and they're found in 1841 at Navestock Heath. The URL is.....http://blog.findmypast.co.uk/2012/12/famous-family-trees-tess-daly/ -- Roy Stockdill Genealogical researcher, writer & lecturer Famous family trees blog: http://blog.findmypast.co.uk/tag/roy-stockdill/ "There is only one thing in the world worse than being talked about, and that is not being talked about." OSCAR WILDE

I would like to learn more about my gr gr gr grandfather, Thomas Knight, who was born in Manuden in about 1807. His wife was named Isabelle and was born in Berden in about 1804. They had at least two children - daughters - Jane, born about 1828 and Emma, born about 1836. Jane married William Critchley in 1847 in Stepney. Bob McVicar

This is for Keith Elmo Eldridge, the listowner, who has research interests centered around Hatfield Peverel. Have you found any evidence of the Moss family in that area c1700's onwards? Dave Moss in Canada.

I am pleased to announce we now have a volunteer for the Online Parish Clerks site covering the parish of DUNMOW. Go to http://essex-opc.org.uk/ to visit our site and to view all the parishes we have a volunteer for. Please contact the relevant parish OPC via the site to make your enquiries. This service is free. Thanks to all who have visited our site, we hope we have helped you in some small way to further your research during 2012. Merry Christmas to all our Volunteers at Essex OPC and to Essex Rootsweb for their support since our inception in 2007. May all your brick walls come trumbling down in 2013. Kind regards, Shirley O'Donnell Essex OPC Coordinator

Anne wrote: > > I would guess you are unlikely to find any record. > I think this must vary from parish to parish. Having ancestors in the Coggeshall area, I discovered that some of the Coggeshall parish records are freely available online on the Coggeshall Museum website. (A wonderful resource for anyone else whose family was in Coggeshall!) There are many records of burials of stillborn children there, for example there were 97 in the period 1879-1916, which is roughly when we're talking about.  http://www.coggeshallmuseum.org.uk/Coggeshall%20Burial%20Register%201879%20-%201916.pdf One entry is for "Two stillborn children", who were buried together in one grave. As you said, it's so sad. I know this is not the parish that was asked about, but it does indicate that the information is sometimes available. Regards, Jan

Ah, thankyou Mike. That would also explain why at the start of this register (1653) the parish clerk is given the title of Parish Register - it did seem a bit odd! Cheers, Lawrence On 09/12/2012 08:03, Mike Fry wrote: > On 2012/12/09 07:24, La Greenall wrote: > >> But why would births be entered in a register and not baptisms? If it >> was due to some law or enactment then surely there would have been some >> sort of note made in the register, but there isn't. > This is where you need to know your English History. Look at the data. 1653. > This is during the Commonwealth when there was an interregnum. England was > virtually a republic and there was the start of a form of Civil Registration. > The established church lost a lot of its powers, including responsibility for > baptisms which were regarded as being 'Popish'. Instead, responsibility was > taken from the Parish and given to Registers; often these were the old parish > clerks who carried on recording everything but according to new rules. >

On 2012/12/09 07:24, La Greenall wrote: > But why would births be entered in a register and not baptisms? If it > was due to some law or enactment then surely there would have been some > sort of note made in the register, but there isn't. This is where you need to know your English History. Look at the data. 1653. This is during the Commonwealth when there was an interregnum. England was virtually a republic and there was the start of a form of Civil Registration. The established church lost a lot of its powers, including responsibility for baptisms which were regarded as being 'Popish'. Instead, responsibility was taken from the Parish and given to Registers; often these were the old parish clerks who carried on recording everything but according to new rules. -- Regards, Mike Fry Johannesburg

Adrian has just sent us all a fascinating piece on the records of stillborn children in burial registers. I have found one recorded in a 'baptism' register: Waltham Holy Cross, Essex (the parish which includes the town of Waltham Abbey): 12th November 1654 - [no first name] "The still=bourne daughter to [Tho.?] and Alice Anneley." If anyone with an Ess Anc sub wants to see for themselves, look up D/P 75/1/5 image 5. However, note that I put the word baptism in single quote marks above - this parish's baptism registers changed without warning or explanation from recording baptisms to recording births, according to its headings, from the commencement of this register in October 1653, until about a third of the way through it when the births entered for June 1662 are followed without any explanation by baptisms for July 1662, on the same page (image 28), and onwards. I initially thought that the clerk put 'births' as a heading in the new register by accident and really meant baptisms, but this stillborn entry seem to show that it really was births being recorded. Also, this register's first birth is dated 3 days prior to the earlier register's last recorded baptism, adding weight to this being the case. But why would births be entered in a register and not baptisms? If it was due to some law or enactment then surely there would have been some sort of note made in the register, but there isn't. If anyone has some insight into this I'd love to know! I did wonder if the start and end dates of this group of birth records (1653-1662) were significant - the start roughly coincides with the Protectorate, more closely with the Barebones Parliament, and the end seems to tie in with the Act of Uniformity, or perhaps more accurately the Clarendon Code (see Wikipedia for all of these). Adding a bit of weight to this, the church of the above parish has the Royal Arms of Charles II hanging on one of its walls, which curiously do not bear the date of his coronation, 1660, but the date 1662. I always thought it had something to do with celebrating the Act of Uniformity; if so, then perhaps the reversion to baptisms in the registers in the same year was related somehow? But the fact still stands that we have a stillborn baby entered into the 'baptism' records of our parish's church! By the way, we at WA Hist Soc are in the process of transcribing & indexing the entire parish registers from 1563 to 1912, and with the church PCC's collaboration up to 2009; the first stage, initial transcription, is complete, though the entries now need to be double-checked. A few initial statistics for anyone interested: christenings/births 1563-1812: 14,537 christenings 1813-1912: 11,031 marriages 1563-1812: 3,527 marriages 1813-1893: 1,506 burials 1563-1812: 17,370 burials 1813-1900: 6,739 Note that these figures refer to entry lines in our spreadsheets, which may be slightly different to actual numbers of events. It may come as a bit of a surprise to learn that all these entries were transcribed by only one person, over the last three years. That's dedication! Still, as a retired GP he is very well qualified to decipher poor handwriting! If we were to publish these in the same format as we have already done for small extracts, which is one entry per line and about 50 lines to an A4 page, the resulting publication would have over a thousand pages! I think we might be going digital with this one... Cheers, Lawrence

Ingrid, There was no requirement for the church to record burials of stillborn children - I have documentary evidence on either side of your date of several occurences where they were almost certainly buried in the churchyard in a coffin ordered from the village carpenter & undertaker, who was also the Parish Clerk, so although they were being buried in the churchyard with the full knowledge of the church authorities, there is no record in the burial registers. Similarly, though rather earlier, at Debden the coffins of two stillborn children can be seen in the patron's vault, but they do not appear in the records. In the situation I cite above, the undertaker's records record the making of coffins, making it clear that they are for still-born children, and at least one also records burial fees at the churchyard rate. So you may well find evidence in undertakers records - if you can find them, as they tend to be elusive. In this case, there probably wasn't a "spare" coffin handy to place the infant in with a "surrogate" mother (though I've spoken to an academic who remembers it happening in her childhood, so it did occur), but in a busier area with more burials taking place it might be more likely? Or perhaps it was more likely when "the authorities"(I'll let you decide what that nebulous body includes!) were involved? My father's sister died aged 6 months in 1942 at the far end of the county in a hospital and, although her eldest sister registered the death, no-one knows what then happened, and I've been utterly unable to find any record of what happened to her body. I wonder if the poor lass is in a jar on a shelf somewhere. If so, I hope she's helping train pathologists (speaking as someone who's had a small hand in just that lately). Hope that helps, Adrian During some research we have found a family member born in 1906 whom we understand to be one of triplets. Only two were born alive and one was stillborn and they were born at home. We have checked birth and burial records which show the two, but we know that the other baby would not be in there. We have looked for the burial records but there is nothing that shows. I know that sometimes a stillborn baby was slipped into an adults coffin (usually female) so not causing any further burials or fees. My question is would there be any records ie at a local undertakers of this?

Hi Gordon I have just been in contact with a Woolmore second or third cousin (I have trouble sorting out the relationships, his gfather and my gfather were brothers) in South Africa. He tells me that he met a William Woolmer in Toronto who believes he may be connected to us. It occurred to me that the connection may be closer to Shirley's family than ours. Any chance you could locate him? Regards Berenice

Thank you Heather. Mystery solved by Jane Jones. Regards, David ----- Original Message ----- From: "Heather Feather" <heather@feather1.demon.co.uk> To: "'David Lindsell'" <trained@tiscali.co.uk>; <Essex-UK@rootsweb.com> Cc: <MI-ENGLAND@rootsweb.com>; <UK-CEMETERIES@rootsweb.com> Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2012 9:22 AM Subject: RE: [Ess] GEORGE LINDSELL > It may have depended where his family were living. According to the deaths > register for Rochford House, as it was in the 1920s when he died there, > the > "burials" column for my great-grandfather says "By friends". It took me > years to find out that he was buried in Kent, which is where he spent most > of his life. Puzzled as to why he was in Southend, I only found out a > couple > of years ago, from a "new" second cousin, that he had been living here > with > a daughter. > > Heather > > -----Original Message----- > From: David Lindsell [mailto:trained@tiscali.co.uk] > Sent: 03 December 2012 10:58 > To: Essex-UK@rootsweb.com > Cc: MI-ENGLAND@rootsweb.com; UK-CEMETERIES@rootsweb.com > Subject: [Ess] GEORGE LINDSELL > > Hello, > My 3 x Great Uncle, George LINDSELL, was a pauper inmate at the Workhouse > in > > West Street, Rochford when he died in 1886. > Would he have been buried in the local St Andrews Churchyard? > Regards, > David > > >

Thank you Jane. As he died on the 2 May, I would guess the 5th 0r 6th would be correct. Regards, David ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jane Jones" <janiej@waitrose.com> To: "'David Lindsell'" <trained@tiscali.co.uk>; "'G Morris'" <gr.morris@btinternet.com>; <Essex-UK@rootsweb.com> Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2012 9:08 AM Subject: RE: [Ess] GEORGE LINDSELL Hi David There is an entry in St Andrews burial register for George Lindsell, It is May 1886 but the actual date is smudged. It could be 1st, 5th or 6th. He was 64 years old. His place of abode is simply "Rochford" Kind regards Jane -----Original Message----- From: David Lindsell [mailto:trained@tiscali.co.uk] Sent: 03 December 2012 18:50 To: G Morris; Essex-UK@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [Ess] GEORGE LINDSELL Thank you Glyn. The search fee is now £20. Regards, David ----- Original Message ----- From: "G Morris" <gr.morris@btinternet.com> To: "David Lindsell" <trained@tiscali.co.uk>; <Essex-UK@rootsweb.com> Sent: Monday, December 03, 2012 11:39 AM Subject: GEORGE LINDSELL > Hello David, > > The local cemetery opened in 1881 and as the churchyards were probably > full he is probably buried there. Rochford burials finished in 1905 but > Prittlewell finished in 1852. > > The contact is The Lodge, Sutton Road Cemetery, Sutton Road, Southend on > Sea, Essex SS5 2PX. > > A search fee was £8 per name or used to be, could be more now. You can > make an appointment to view the registers if you are nearby. > > Hope this helps, > Glyn > > -----Original Message----- > > > Hello, > My 3 x Great Uncle, George LINDSELL, was a pauper inmate at the Workhouse > in > West Street, Rochford when he died in 1886. > Would he have been buried in the local St Andrews Churchyard? > Regards, > David >

Hi Ingrid, In the early 20th century attitudes to still-born babies were very different from nowadays. Even up to the 1970's, when my sister had a stillborn child, it was felt better if the mother never saw or held her dad baby and it was simply taken away. My sister only knew about the burial when she got the bill for it some weeks later - it was all arranged by the hospital. This would have been even more the case where this mother had two other (probably quite small and frail babies) to look after. In all probability the dead baby was taken away by the midwife or doctor who attended the birth, and as you surmised, buried in another cofffin. Since at that time there was no record of stillbirths, there would have been no requirement to record the fact. I would guess you are unlikely to find any record. Sad, isn't it. Anne On 5 Dec 2012, at 12:18, Ingrid billings wrote: > Hello > > During some research we have found a family member born in 1906 whom we > understand to be one of triplets. Only two were born alive and one was > stillborn and they were born at home. We have checked birth and burial > records which show the two, but we know that the other baby would not be in > there. We have looked for the burial records but there is nothing that > shows. I know that sometimes a stillborn baby was slipped into an adults > coffin (usually female) so not causing any further burials or fees. > > My question is would there be any records ie at a local undertakers of this? > > > All involved have now passed on and only the son of one of the surviving > children is alive and knows nothing further. > > Ingrid Billings >

Hello During some research we have found a family member born in 1906 whom we understand to be one of triplets. Only two were born alive and one was stillborn and they were born at home. We have checked birth and burial records which show the two, but we know that the other baby would not be in there. We have looked for the burial records but there is nothing that shows. I know that sometimes a stillborn baby was slipped into an adults coffin (usually female) so not causing any further burials or fees. My question is would there be any records ie at a local undertakers of this? All involved have now passed on and only the son of one of the surviving children is alive and knows nothing further. Ingrid Billings

It may have depended where his family were living. According to the deaths register for Rochford House, as it was in the 1920s when he died there, the "burials" column for my great-grandfather says "By friends". It took me years to find out that he was buried in Kent, which is where he spent most of his life. Puzzled as to why he was in Southend, I only found out a couple of years ago, from a "new" second cousin, that he had been living here with a daughter. Heather -----Original Message----- From: David Lindsell [mailto:trained@tiscali.co.uk] Sent: 03 December 2012 10:58 To: Essex-UK@rootsweb.com Cc: MI-ENGLAND@rootsweb.com; UK-CEMETERIES@rootsweb.com Subject: [Ess] GEORGE LINDSELL Hello, My 3 x Great Uncle, George LINDSELL, was a pauper inmate at the Workhouse in West Street, Rochford when he died in 1886. Would he have been buried in the local St Andrews Churchyard? Regards, David

Hi David There is an entry in St Andrews burial register for George Lindsell, It is May 1886 but the actual date is smudged. It could be 1st, 5th or 6th. He was 64 years old. His place of abode is simply "Rochford" Kind regards Jane -----Original Message----- From: David Lindsell [mailto:trained@tiscali.co.uk] Sent: 03 December 2012 18:50 To: G Morris; Essex-UK@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [Ess] GEORGE LINDSELL Thank you Glyn. The search fee is now £20. Regards, David ----- Original Message ----- From: "G Morris" <gr.morris@btinternet.com> To: "David Lindsell" <trained@tiscali.co.uk>; <Essex-UK@rootsweb.com> Sent: Monday, December 03, 2012 11:39 AM Subject: GEORGE LINDSELL > Hello David, > > The local cemetery opened in 1881 and as the churchyards were probably > full he is probably buried there. Rochford burials finished in 1905 but > Prittlewell finished in 1852. > > The contact is The Lodge, Sutton Road Cemetery, Sutton Road, Southend on > Sea, Essex SS5 2PX. > > A search fee was £8 per name or used to be, could be more now. You can > make an appointment to view the registers if you are nearby. > > Hope this helps, > Glyn > > -----Original Message----- > > > Hello, > My 3 x Great Uncle, George LINDSELL, was a pauper inmate at the Workhouse > in > West Street, Rochford when he died in 1886. > Would he have been buried in the local St Andrews Churchyard? > Regards, > David >

Thank you Glyn. The search fee is now £20. Regards, David ----- Original Message ----- From: "G Morris" <gr.morris@btinternet.com> To: "David Lindsell" <trained@tiscali.co.uk>; <Essex-UK@rootsweb.com> Sent: Monday, December 03, 2012 11:39 AM Subject: GEORGE LINDSELL > Hello David, > > The local cemetery opened in 1881 and as the churchyards were probably > full he is probably buried there. Rochford burials finished in 1905 but > Prittlewell finished in 1852. > > The contact is The Lodge, Sutton Road Cemetery, Sutton Road, Southend on > Sea, Essex SS5 2PX. > > A search fee was £8 per name or used to be, could be more now. You can > make an appointment to view the registers if you are nearby. > > Hope this helps, > Glyn > > -----Original Message----- > > > Hello, > My 3 x Great Uncle, George LINDSELL, was a pauper inmate at the Workhouse > in > West Street, Rochford when he died in 1886. > Would he have been buried in the local St Andrews Churchyard? > Regards, > David >

Hello David, The local cemetery opened in 1881 and as the churchyards were probably full he is probably buried there. Rochford burials finished in 1905 but Prittlewell finished in 1852. The contact is The Lodge, Sutton Road Cemetery, Sutton Road, Southend on Sea, Essex SS5 2PX. A search fee was £8 per name or used to be, could be more now. You can make an appointment to view the registers if you are nearby. Hope this helps, Glyn -----Original Message----- Hello, My 3 x Great Uncle, George LINDSELL, was a pauper inmate at the Workhouse in West Street, Rochford when he died in 1886. Would he have been buried in the local St Andrews Churchyard? Regards, David

Hello, My 3 x Great Uncle, George LINDSELL, was a pauper inmate at the Workhouse in West Street, Rochford when he died in 1886. Would he have been buried in the local St Andrews Churchyard? Regards, David