Just a couple of strays I noticed whilst trolling through the Weeley PRs on SEAX: Married 1711 Nov 27 John WILLIAMS of Stoke Widower and Margaret HARVEY Single OTP Married 1713 Oct 29 Sam'l CRANE Widower of Tendring and Mary POWL Widow OTP Married 1715 November 29 William BOX and Sarah GOBY both of Wix ( both single persons) Also a Suffolk stray- Buried Sep 19 1762 John POULTER ( from Suffolk) Hope that helps someone. It always pays to search contiguous parishes for folk. Margaret Taylor (Toronto)

HI Bob, You wrote:- <<LDS library online for a place name search, you may just be surprised to discover the LDS have a particular parish's records on film or in document form. Only with a few exceptions apparently Hertfordshire was one, << Did you mean that Hertfordshire does not appear in the LDS library catalogue? If so then Hertfordshire parishes "are" in the Catalogue but, as with Yorkshire, you have to put the county as just Hertford and leave out the Shire part. Hertfordshire and Yorkshire become just Hertford and York in the LDS eyes and I suspect that some other shire Counties may also have the shire knocked off the end of their name, though not all I have found. If at first you get no result for your searches for parishes within a Shire county then try again leaving out the Shire part of the county name and see what happens. Faling that put in the parish name and England in the Part Of box. Also County Durham is always shows as just Durham by the LDS, or Durham County which is totally incorrect the proper name is County Durham. Some of the items on the new Record Search site of the familysearch site could be images of the BTs and not necessarily the actual PRs. You need to be aware of what exactly the record is, though the BTs should be an exact copy of the PR entries it is not always so, there can be differences between one and the other. Regards Jenny DeAngelis

Thank you to everyone who responded to my request about the PITTUCK family, it's given me a few new area to look into and the inspiration to keep digging. Cheers, Kim.

Regarding the 70 % of parishes which Lawrence advises are not on the IGI and for anyone on the this list who's ancestor's parish is not on the IGI, I suggest you first check out the LDS library online for a place name search, you may just be surprised to discover the LDS have a particular parish's records on film or in document form. Only with a few exceptions apparently Hertfordshire was one, most counties' parishes have not been indexed by the LDS to their IGI both old or later versions. A classic example was Norfolk where the the IGI is almost totally not represented yet the LDS have almost 100% of the C of E parishes on film, and now via their new website these film can now be browsed and records copied and printed for FREE online. For Essex parishes via the LDS library you can order in films if they are listed, browse them at one of the churches centres NEAR you, and order excellant photocopies from the LDS copying service which was discussed earlier on this message list. It doesn't cost an arm and leg or a sheep station either, cheers Bob in Brisbane ----- Original Message ----- From: "La Greenall" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Saturday, April 16, 2011 8:47 PM Subject: Re: [Ess] To Cornelia re Old IGI. >I remember some years ago doing a comparison on Essex and Hertfordshire > regarding IGI coverage. > > I compiled an exhaustive list of all (CofE) parishes in both counties > and found that the IGI covered about 90% of Herts parishes and about 30% > of Essex ones. > > I forget exactly what periods I looked at; probably all from c.1530 to > 1837. > > Lawrence > > > On 15/04/2011 23:02, geejay wrote: >> >> ORIGINAL MESSAGE.. >> it is said that many of the parish records for Essex are not in the >> IGI. those tend to be my ancestor's records. in fact, those tend to >> be a lot of people's ancestor's records. if we knew what the batch >> and film number was, we'd be able to trace our ancestry, but we can't >> because someone either didn't think that the specific church record >> should be in the IGI, or because at some point during an upgrade, >> FamilySearch dropped a number of records off the site-I can mention >> at least 5 records, but no-one (especially familysearch) will believe >> me because they aren't there anymore. perfect catch 22. >> >> Cornelia >> ------------------------------------------- >> I have found this problem, often. >> I work as a volunteer librarian at my local LDS FHC and we still have >> the older IGI on Cd's and also the extra old IGI on fiche. There are many >> entries missing from both files on the newer IGI on familysearch. >> If you'd like to send me your list that you can't find, I will have a >> look for you next time I'm there. >> my email is [email protected] >> Yours in Genealogy, >> Jan, >> in sunny QLD, Australia >> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >> Any problems, please contact the List Admin: [email protected] >> ------------------------------- >> 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 >> > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > Any problems, please contact the List Admin: [email protected] > ------------------------------- > 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 Mike, Thanks for this, I was under the impression it meant he was born there, I have learnt something new today. I'll keep searching and hopefully find that link one day. Regards, Kim. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Mike Fry" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, April 15, 2011 9:09 PM Subject: Re: [Ess] PITTUCK > On 2011/04/15 12:36, Gerry Newnham wrote: > >> "Of this parish" just meant that the they had lived in the parish for the >> required period before the marriage - can't remember how long it was but >> it >> might have been for just a few weeks. It is no clue as to where they were >> actually born. You will need to check all the adjoining parishes >> spreading >> outwards in every bigger circles - tedious but unless you have any other >> information that is really all you can do. If you can find them the books >> or >> lists of contiguous parishes are very useful for this purpose. > > A useful program for this is PARLOC. > > See <http://www.parloc.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/ParLocDL.html> > > This program can be used to 'draw' a map giving the parishes within a > given radius, closest to a named parish. And it will distinguish between > CofE and RC parishes. > > -- > Regards, > Mike Fry > Johannesburg > >

Thanks Alan, I will keep searching the parishes, Regards, Kim. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Alan Nelson" <[email protected]> To: "Kim Jones" <[email protected]> Cc: <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, April 15, 2011 9:04 PM Subject: Re: [Ess] PITTUCK > Always worth checking if banns were read in the weeks prior to te wedding > in adjoining parishes ie parishes of residence > Birthplaces can be obtained by checking census declarations > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Gerry Newnham" <[email protected]> > To: "Kim Jones" <[email protected]>; "Rootsweb Essex" > <[email protected]> > Sent: Friday, April 15, 2011 11:36 AM > Subject: Re: [Ess] PITTUCK > > >> Kim, >> >> "Of this parish" just meant that the they had lived in the parish for the >> required period before the marriage - can't remember how long it was but >> it might have been for just a few weeks. It is no clue as to where they >> were actually born. You will need to check all the adjoining parishes >> spreading outwards in every bigger circles - tedious but unless you have >> any other information that is really all you can do. If you can find them >> the books or lists of contiguous parishes are very useful for this >> purpose. >> >> Another line of enquiry is to see where the nearest market town was and >> look at the parishes between the parish where they met and the market >> town. >> >> Good luck, >> >> Gerry >> >> >> On 14 Apr 2011, at 08:36, Geo. wrote: >> >>> The marriage records say he was 'of this parish' but there is no >>> recording of any PITTUCK / ICK / OCK before John's first marriage. >>> >>> Happy hunting all, >>> Kim. >>> >> >> >> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >> Any problems, please contact the List Admin: [email protected] >> ------------------------------- >> 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 >> > > > >

I wondered aloud about this lack of coverage (Essex on the IGI) when I was home last and visiting the ERO and was told rather curtly that the Bishop didn't like the "idea" or more precisely "whose" idea it was and wouldn't allow it. It's really quite unfortunate because it would have saved them a bunch of money.... Sylvia ----- Original Message ----- From: "Robert Campbell" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Cc: <[email protected]> Sent: Saturday, April 16, 2011 4:13 PM Subject: Re: [Ess] Essex records at the LDS which are NOT in the IGI > Regarding the 70 % of parishes which Lawrence advises are not on the IGI > and > for anyone on the this list who's ancestor's parish is not on the IGI, I > suggest you first check out the LDS library online for a place name > search, > you may just be surprised to discover the LDS have a particular parish's > records on film or in document form. Only with a few exceptions apparently > Hertfordshire was one, most counties' parishes have not been indexed by > the > LDS to their IGI both old or later versions. > A classic example was Norfolk where the the IGI is almost totally not > represented yet the LDS have almost 100% of the C of E parishes on film, > and > now via their new website these film can now be browsed and records copied > and printed for FREE online. > For Essex parishes via the LDS library you can order in films if they are > listed, browse them at one of the churches centres NEAR you, and order > excellant photocopies from the LDS copying service which was discussed > earlier on this message list. > It doesn't cost an arm and leg or a sheep station either, > cheers > Bob in Brisbane > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "La Greenall" <[email protected]> > To: <[email protected]> > Sent: Saturday, April 16, 2011 8:47 PM > Subject: Re: [Ess] To Cornelia re Old IGI. > > >>I remember some years ago doing a comparison on Essex and Hertfordshire >> regarding IGI coverage. >> >> I compiled an exhaustive list of all (CofE) parishes in both counties >> and found that the IGI covered about 90% of Herts parishes and about 30% >> of Essex ones. >> >> I forget exactly what periods I looked at; probably all from c.1530 to >> 1837. >> >> Lawrence >> >> >> On 15/04/2011 23:02, geejay wrote: >>> >>> ORIGINAL MESSAGE.. >>> it is said that many of the parish records for Essex are not in the >>> IGI. those tend to be my ancestor's records. in fact, those tend to >>> be a lot of people's ancestor's records. if we knew what the batch >>> and film number was, we'd be able to trace our ancestry, but we can't >>> because someone either didn't think that the specific church record >>> should be in the IGI, or because at some point during an upgrade, >>> FamilySearch dropped a number of records off the site-I can mention >>> at least 5 records, but no-one (especially familysearch) will believe >>> me because they aren't there anymore. perfect catch 22. >>> >>> Cornelia >>> ------------------------------------------- >>> I have found this problem, often. >>> I work as a volunteer librarian at my local LDS FHC and we still have >>> the older IGI on Cd's and also the extra old IGI on fiche. There are >>> many >>> entries missing from both files on the newer IGI on familysearch. >>> If you'd like to send me your list that you can't find, I will have a >>> look for you next time I'm there. >>> my email is [email protected] >>> Yours in Genealogy, >>> Jan, >>> in sunny QLD, Australia >>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >>> Any problems, please contact the List Admin: [email protected] >>> ------------------------------- >>> 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 >>> >> >> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >> Any problems, please contact the List Admin: [email protected] >> ------------------------------- >> 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 > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > Any problems, please contact the List Admin: [email protected] > ------------------------------- > 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 >

I am researching the ancestors of Frederick Walter Burton the son of William Burton. William was born in Coggershall c1845. The 1861 census shows two William Burtons born about that time in Coggershall One is the son of William & Mary Burton & the other the son of James & Maria Burton. William's occupation would suggest that James & Maria would his parents but it is by no means clear cut. If anyone is researching this family I would appreciate their help Anne Elder

I remember some years ago doing a comparison on Essex and Hertfordshire regarding IGI coverage. I compiled an exhaustive list of all (CofE) parishes in both counties and found that the IGI covered about 90% of Herts parishes and about 30% of Essex ones. I forget exactly what periods I looked at; probably all from c.1530 to 1837. Lawrence On 15/04/2011 23:02, geejay wrote: > > ORIGINAL MESSAGE.. > it is said that many of the parish records for Essex are not in the > IGI. those tend to be my ancestor's records. in fact, those tend to > be a lot of people's ancestor's records. if we knew what the batch > and film number was, we'd be able to trace our ancestry, but we can't > because someone either didn't think that the specific church record > should be in the IGI, or because at some point during an upgrade, > FamilySearch dropped a number of records off the site-I can mention > at least 5 records, but no-one (especially familysearch) will believe > me because they aren't there anymore. perfect catch 22. > > Cornelia > ------------------------------------------- > I have found this problem, often. > I work as a volunteer librarian at my local LDS FHC and we still have the older IGI on Cd's and also the extra old IGI on fiche. There are many entries missing from both files on the newer IGI on familysearch. > If you'd like to send me your list that you can't find, I will have a look for you next time I'm there. > my email is [email protected] > Yours in Genealogy, > Jan, > in sunny QLD, Australia > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > Any problems, please contact the List Admin: [email protected] > ------------------------------- > 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 >

ORIGINAL MESSAGE.. it is said that many of the parish records for Essex are not in the IGI. those tend to be my ancestor's records. in fact, those tend to be a lot of people's ancestor's records. if we knew what the batch and film number was, we'd be able to trace our ancestry, but we can't because someone either didn't think that the specific church record should be in the IGI, or because at some point during an upgrade, FamilySearch dropped a number of records off the site-I can mention at least 5 records, but no-one (especially familysearch) will believe me because they aren't there anymore. perfect catch 22. Cornelia ------------------------------------------- I have found this problem, often. I work as a volunteer librarian at my local LDS FHC and we still have the older IGI on Cd's and also the extra old IGI on fiche. There are many entries missing from both files on the newer IGI on familysearch. If you'd like to send me your list that you can't find, I will have a look for you next time I'm there. my email is [email protected] Yours in Genealogy, Jan, in sunny QLD, Australia

Can someone email me off list for a reliable place to send someone to get photos scanned there - I'm in the US and will be paying from this end. Thx

Hi Dennis, I have Martha Galleyof Carleton, Cambs. She married (1) Robert Howard at Little Bradley, Suffolk, (2) John Hoy, in 1781, at Grt Bradley. Witnesses Hannah Galley & Benjamin Galley. The Galleys were a prominent, that is, established, family in Carleton. Might be a good place to research. Carleton and Great Bradley are adjacent parishes but divided by the county line. Hope this helps. --- On Fri, 15/4/11, Dennis Galley <[email protected]> wrote: From: Dennis Galley <[email protected]> Subject: [Ess] John GALLEY To: [email protected] Date: Friday, 15, April, 2011, 12:59 PM Good Morning:                         I apologize if this is a repeat, however, I am having a difficult time tracking the birth of John GALLEY, born @ Whitechapel, about 1868. I have tried joining the LONDON-L list and the Middlesex_County_UK-L lists, but am not receiving any responses to my "subscribe" e-mails. John GALLY appears on the 1871 census for Mile End, Old Town with an incorrect age, born @ Mile End, Old Town - parents John and Mary Ann GALLY. He appears on the 1881 census for Tower Hamlets as age 13, born @ Middlesex, Whitechapel - parents James and Mary Ann GULLEY. He appears on the 1891 census for Wanstead Layton as age 22, born @ Commercial Rd., London - living with wife Ellen and 1 son. He appears on the 1911 census for 8 Southwell Grove Road, Leytonstone, Essex as age 43, born @ London, Whitechapel. I am looking for a birth or baptism record for John GALLEY/GALLY born 1867 - 1869 @ Whitechapel with parents John or James and Mary Ann Any assistance would be most appreciated. Dennis Galley, Port Elgin, Ontario, Canada ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Any problems, please contact the List Admin: [email protected] ------------------------------- 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

On 2011/04/15 12:36, Gerry Newnham wrote: > "Of this parish" just meant that the they had lived in the parish for the > required period before the marriage - can't remember how long it was but it > might have been for just a few weeks. It is no clue as to where they were > actually born. You will need to check all the adjoining parishes spreading > outwards in every bigger circles - tedious but unless you have any other > information that is really all you can do. If you can find them the books or > lists of contiguous parishes are very useful for this purpose. A useful program for this is PARLOC. See <http://www.parloc.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/ParLocDL.html> This program can be used to 'draw' a map giving the parishes within a given radius, closest to a named parish. And it will distinguish between CofE and RC parishes. -- Regards, Mike Fry Johannesburg

Hi Dennis It really doesn't look like he or his siblings had their births registered, with the possible exception of his younger sister, named Aner? (1881) or Hannah (1891), who could be the Johanna Galley registered in Sep 1880 in Mile End. Having researched his father further - Silvester John Galli aka James Galley, married Mary Ann Hare, 12 Sep 1866, St Jude Whitechapel (recorded as James Kelly by the clerk, but amended in 1922 by Mary Ann) - it appears that he was not born in Rome (as stated in 1891 census), but in Whitechapel as Silvester John Gally in Mar q 1847, the son of Thomas Galli and Sophia Powell. His wife's maiden name was sometimes recorded as HARE, HEARES or AYRES - which links to the brother-in-law, Frederick Ayres, in their household in 1881 and 1891. Her father was born in Germany and her mother in Ireland. The Galli family were frame makers and looking glass makers in the East End and seem to be linked into the Italian community in the early part of the 19th century. The Italian and Irish connections suggest they could have been Catholics, hence the lack of baptisms in the LMA collection on Ancestry. Catholic registers usually remain with their churches. You could try contacting St Peter's Italian Church in Clerkenwell to see if they have any records for the GALLI / GALLY / GALLEY family. Alternatively there would presumably have been Catholic churches nearer to the Commercial Road. Best wishes Ruth On 15 April 2011 01:59, Dennis Galley <[email protected]> wrote: > Good Morning: > > I apologize if this is a repeat, however, I am > having a difficult time tracking the birth of John GALLEY, born @ > Whitechapel, about 1868. I have tried joining the LONDON-L list and the > Middlesex_County_UK-L lists, but am not receiving any responses to my > "subscribe" e-mails. > > > > John GALLY appears on the 1871 census for Mile End, Old Town with an > incorrect age, born @ Mile End, Old Town - parents John and Mary Ann GALLY. > He appears on the 1881 census for Tower Hamlets as age 13, born @ > Middlesex, > Whitechapel - parents James and Mary Ann GULLEY. He appears on the 1891 > census for Wanstead Layton as age 22, born @ Commercial Rd., London - > living > with wife Ellen and 1 son. He appears on the 1911 census for 8 Southwell > Grove Road, Leytonstone, Essex as age 43, born @ London, Whitechapel. > > > > I am looking for a birth or baptism record for John GALLEY/GALLY born 1867 > - > 1869 @ Whitechapel with parents John or James and Mary Ann > > > > Any assistance would be most appreciated. > > > > Dennis Galley, > > Port Elgin, Ontario, > > Canada > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > Any problems, please contact the List Admin: [email protected] > ------------------------------- > 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 >

Always worth checking if banns were read in the weeks prior to te wedding in adjoining parishes ie parishes of residence Birthplaces can be obtained by checking census declarations ----- Original Message ----- From: "Gerry Newnham" <[email protected]> To: "Kim Jones" <[email protected]>; "Rootsweb Essex" <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, April 15, 2011 11:36 AM Subject: Re: [Ess] PITTUCK > Kim, > > "Of this parish" just meant that the they had lived in the parish for the > required period before the marriage - can't remember how long it was but > it might have been for just a few weeks. It is no clue as to where they > were actually born. You will need to check all the adjoining parishes > spreading outwards in every bigger circles - tedious but unless you have > any other information that is really all you can do. If you can find them > the books or lists of contiguous parishes are very useful for this > purpose. > > Another line of enquiry is to see where the nearest market town was and > look at the parishes between the parish where they met and the market > town. > > Good luck, > > Gerry > > > On 14 Apr 2011, at 08:36, Geo. wrote: > >> The marriage records say he was 'of this parish' but there is no >> recording of any PITTUCK / ICK / OCK before John's first marriage. >> >> Happy hunting all, >> Kim. >> > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > Any problems, please contact the List Admin: [email protected] > ------------------------------- > 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 >

Thanks to all those who replied to my I.G.I. question, it all fits into place now. Checking other peoples Chambers and their relations family tree's on Ancestry most of the names on their tree, and not on mine, are 'about dates' I often wondered how people could have so many names in their tree I have seen some with up to 30,000, perhaps they collect names like other people collect stamps!! Regards, David

Kim, "Of this parish" just meant that the they had lived in the parish for the required period before the marriage - can't remember how long it was but it might have been for just a few weeks. It is no clue as to where they were actually born. You will need to check all the adjoining parishes spreading outwards in every bigger circles - tedious but unless you have any other information that is really all you can do. If you can find them the books or lists of contiguous parishes are very useful for this purpose. Another line of enquiry is to see where the nearest market town was and look at the parishes between the parish where they met and the market town. Good luck, Gerry On 14 Apr 2011, at 08:36, Geo. wrote: > The marriage records say he was 'of this parish' but there is no recording of any PITTUCK / ICK / OCK before John's first marriage. > > Happy hunting all, > Kim. >

The answer to both questions is, yes.   Back in the 18th century, it was usual for farms to bear names like, 'White Star Farm', so the farm could have been named after the fish. More likely however, the farm was named after a one-time owner. Hoy's Farm, Wixoe was so named as recently as 1921, though Hoy's had not farmed it since 1775. Today it is Hoy House. Louise died intestate and the estate passed to her heir, either her only surviving daughter Elizabeth, married to Brickmore, or a sister of that name. Hope this helps. --- On Fri, 15/4/11, Jenny <[email protected]> wrote: From: Jenny <[email protected]> Subject: [Ess] Louisa Cecilia KNAPP Index to Wills To: [email protected] Date: Friday, 15, April, 2011, 9:51 AM Hello Fellow Listers I have found a notice taken from the England & Wales, National Probate Calendar (Index of Wills and Administration) 1861-1941 recorded for Louise Cecilia KNAPP 1915. It reads KNAPP Louise Cecilia of Salmons Farm Great Bardfield near Braintree Essex widow died 26 November 1915. Administration (limited) London 20 December to Elizabeth Brickmore (wife of Herbert Bickmore). 390 pounds. I have two questions, would Salmons Farm be the name of the property or is it a farm belonging to a family by the name of Salmon also I am not clear on what information the rest of this entry means. Did she die without a will is that what Adminstration means. I look forward to any help and comments Thank you Jenny ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Any problems, please contact the List Admin: [email protected] ------------------------------- 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

Hoping to make a connection to anyone researching these three surnames and have them in their tree. Planning a trip to England and hoping to find this connection. Joan from Canada