Tony Pottrell wrote: > Just spotted this : > > http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_3085406.html That's an old story anonova's resurrected from a couple of years ago. > Does anyone know if its possible to "register" a claim/interest in a > grave to prevent this from happening? A plot is purchased, usually, for 100 years although that has been significantly shortened of recent years to as little as 10 in some places. If you found a family grave that was on the limit, you could repurchase it: costly business. You could let the relevant local council and/or local cemetery keeper know you have an interest in a particular plot. Crossposting removed.

Tony, This is really old news. I can remember discussions on various lists about it previously. See http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6722481.stm for a BBc item about it in 2007 ( which answers your question) and this from the Independent in 2002 <http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/mps-urge-reuse-of-graves-to-save-space-in-cemeteries-689551.html > Anne On 14 Nov 2008, at 21:28, Tony Pottrell wrote: > Hi all, > > Just spotted this : > > http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_3085406.html > > Does anyone know if its possible to "register" a claim/interest in a > grave to prevent this from happening? > > Tony

I suppose you could try squatting on it... Seriously, though, the report gives the impression that this will happen everywhere at the same time, to the same degree, but I bet there's serious hotspots that need urgent action. I can't see there being any such problem at WA for some time yet. Our cemy is divided into two by a road, and the 'old' half (say pre-1900) has mostly been cleared ready for a new batch. The new half took roughly a century to fill up. I must say, though, that as a historian I'd prefer double-decking and retention of the old inscriptions to a complete clearance. Plenty of my ancestors are now memorial-less. To answer your question (sort of), I'm sure that living relatives have rights over their family grave plots; when I buried my dad in 06 and had to pay £500 for the plot, I'm sure the certificate said that I 'owned' it (or the right of burial in it) for 100 years. Therefore, any plans to commence double-decking would technically require all living plot-owners to be contacted - though we know that will happen, don't we! Lawrence -----Original Message----- From: essex-uk-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:essex-uk-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Tony Pottrell Sent: 14 November 2008 21:28 To: essex-uk@rootsweb.com; eng-cambridgeshire@rootsweb.com; eng-hertfordshire@rootsweb.com Subject: [Ess] Plans to re-use graves Hi all, Just spotted this : http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_3085406.html Does anyone know if its possible to "register" a claim/interest in a grave to prevent this from happening? Tony ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Any problems, please contact the List Admin: Essex-UK-admin@rootsweb.com ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to ESSEX-UK-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. Version: 7.5.549 / Virus Database: 270.9.2/1784 - Release Date: 12/11/2008 19:01 No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG. Version: 7.5.549 / Virus Database: 270.9.2/1784 - Release Date: 12/11/2008 19:01

HO107/1835 Corston, Wiltshire CENSUS 1 Page 16/F326 John WOOLLEY, 43, Groom, b. Brentwood, Essex Ann, 33, b. Seven Oaks, Kent Rosa, 8, b. Tring Ann Hemings, visitor, 18, do William Wheeler, svt, 17, Groom, b. Oxford HO107/1834 Cricklade St.Mary, Wiltshire Page 13/14 F350/1 Richard PATER, mrd, 72, Schoolmaster, b. Cricklade St.Mary Mary Ann, 68, b. Cirencester, Glos. Martha, 23, Dressmaker, do Emma, 26, do b. Steeple, Essex Elizabeth Pater, granddaughter, 13, scholar, b. Cirencester, Glos. Emma Kibblewhite, lodger, 17,Servant to Wm.Neate, b. Stoke Martha Hannah Neate, 4, scholar, b. Cricklade St.Mary Arthur Webb Neate, 2, do Charles Jacob, 8 months, do

Hi all, Just spotted this : http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_3085406.html Does anyone know if its possible to "register" a claim/interest in a grave to prevent this from happening? Tony

Eunice, Roger Powell is registered with Friendsreunited.co.uk If you have any problems finding him on this site please let me know.   Ray   --- On Thu, 13/11/08, Eunice <ozypomeg@tpg.com.au> wrote: Hi I am trying to trace a Roger POWELL who attended Wickford County Junior School 1946-1952.....so born 1942/3 maybe. He also went to Mid Essex County Tech School 1953 - 1957. He married and has 3 children. He worked at Lesney Products 1960 - 1965 in London, then Mettoy 1967 - 1970 Is there anyone out there that could help me trace Roger please. He came to our wedding in Northampton in 1968 and have lost touch TIA Regards Eunice - Melbourne, Australia ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Any problems, please contact the List Admin: Essex-UK-admin@rootsweb.com ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to ESSEX-UK-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Hi I am trying to trace a Roger POWELL who attended Wickford County Junior School 1946-1952.....so born 1942/3 maybe. He also went to Mid Essex County Tech School 1953 - 1957. He married and has 3 children. He worked at Lesney Products 1960 - 1965 in London, then Mettoy 1967 - 1970 Is there anyone out there that could help me trace Roger please. He came to our wedding in Northampton in 1968 and have lost touch TIA Regards Eunice - Melbourne, Australia

If you find that they did have connections with Hatfield Heath's URC, I can take a few photos of the church if you would like. Let me know - I will try to wait for a fine day ;-) Heather suffolk sue wrote: > Possible marriage on Boyds marriage index. > > > 1733 TILLURY HEN OAKMAN ELZ STANSTED MOUNTFITCHET ESSEX > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "John Paul Bradford" <johnpaul.bradford@gmail.com> > To: <Essex-UK@rootsweb.com> > Sent: Thursday, November 13, 2008 5:29 PM > Subject: [Ess] Hatfield Heath Independent - 1740 Tilbury > > > >> Greetings all, >> >> I have a ggggg-grandmother (Sarah Tilbury)that I just discovered on the IGI baptised at Hatfield Heath's non-conformist chapel. The IGI and the film it is taken from (which I have ordered) starts only in 1730 and contains only baptisms. >> >> Does anyone know anything about this church or if any early additional material remains? I am betting her parents, Henry and Elizabeth Tilbury, where married there as they don't turn up elsewhere in CofE churches. >> Any ideas appreciated. >> >> God bless >> John Paul Bradford >> Barrie, Ontario

Possible marriage on Boyds marriage index. 1733 TILLURY HEN OAKMAN ELZ STANSTED MOUNTFITCHET ESSEX ----- Original Message ----- From: "John Paul Bradford" <johnpaul.bradford@gmail.com> To: <Essex-UK@rootsweb.com> Sent: Thursday, November 13, 2008 5:29 PM Subject: [Ess] Hatfield Heath Independent - 1740 Tilbury > Greetings all, > > I have a ggggg-grandmother (Sarah Tilbury)that I just discovered on the > IGI > baptised at Hatfield Heath's non-conformist chapel. The IGI and the film > it > is taken from (which I have ordered) starts only in 1730 and contains only > baptisms. Does anyone know anything about this church or if any early > additional material remains? I am betting her parents, Henry and Elizabeth > Tilbury, where married there as they don't turn up elsewhere in CofE > churches. Any ideas appreciated. > > God bless > > John Paul Bradford > Barrie, Ontario > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > Any problems, please contact the List Admin: Essex-UK-admin@rootsweb.com > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > ESSEX-UK-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message >

Greetings all, I have a ggggg-grandmother (Sarah Tilbury)that I just discovered on the IGI baptised at Hatfield Heath's non-conformist chapel. The IGI and the film it is taken from (which I have ordered) starts only in 1730 and contains only baptisms. Does anyone know anything about this church or if any early additional material remains? I am betting her parents, Henry and Elizabeth Tilbury, where married there as they don't turn up elsewhere in CofE churches. Any ideas appreciated. God bless John Paul Bradford Barrie, Ontario

Thank you all for your further comments. It had slipped my mind that on the 1841 census the ages of adults were rounded down... I must write myself a post-it and stick it somewhere obvious as a reminder! In fact that probably explains it. On the 1851 census her age is recorded as 32, so she might well have been 21 when she married in October 1839, whereas he must have been a little younger (under 21). Thanks again, Jan Beaconsfield, UK _________________________________________________________________ See the most popular videos on the web http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/115454061/direct/01/

David Turnidge wrote: > A woman lie about her age.... now that's a good one !!!! Men weren't averse to doing so on occasion either!! <G>

podnsod wrote: > All the pr's I have read have had banns very, very, clearly and very > dilberately written. I am thankful for that! Surely we have to have a > little faith and assume that the banns were read. Not all the PRs I've seen have had the actual dates of the banns given but they do say "by Banns", "by Licence" or "by Certificate". In 99.9% of cases I'm sure the banns were read (even if the dates given weren't always three consecutive Sundays!). I'm also equally sure that in a handful of instances, they weren't for reasons we'll never know :)) > Bearing in mind that most of our ancestors were iliterate and who knows > whether they actually went to church on the Sundays the banns were read. That may be so for your ancestors but literacy was much higher than is generally assumed. Looking at the PRs for just your family, won't tell you much, but if you go through whole registers, you'll soon see who had learned to write their name for their wedding, who was reasonably comfortable with a pen and those who could write fluently. Even those ancestors who made a mark may not have actually been unable to write. Those who did make a mark didn't necessarily put a wobbly X or +. Some made quite elaborate marks. Priests were important people, much respected and held in awe, so if he told a bride to "make your mark", she would do just that even if she could write. Being able to read the Bible was important, so most people were able to read at least some of the Bible, even if they couldn't write. Apart from anything else, just because someone may not have been able to read and/or write, doesn't mean they couldn't understand the spoken word. It was also the "done thing" to attend church to hear ones banns read. (My mother had a right go at me for not going to hear mine read on one Sunday!) > Also, given the fact that most of our ancestors were ag/labs and > probably worked on those Sundays they probably didn't know what banns > were!. Again, that may be true of your ancestors but not necessarily everyone else's. Mine were a mix of ag labs, craftsmen, tradesmen, right up to nobility. Even ag labs would have known precisely what banns were. You're confusing illiteracy with ignorance - and ignorant was one thing they were not. Inability to read and/or write doesn't mean they were stupid. They weren't. If you were able to go back to their time, you'd be shocked by the things they knew that you didn't despite all your school learning. Sunday was the one day of the week when they would NOT have worked, except during the harvest. It was the Sabbath and to be kept Holy. It would have meant, for many, attending church 3 times during the day. My grandmother did so every Sunday, until she became too infirm to go. > There is always the parish chest and minutes to read from some church > wardens accounts. Although they don't say who's banns were read I have > read in the St Margaret's Barking Wardens/Parish chest minutes that > "banns were read" in some of these early records. Yes, they do make for very interesting reading, as to the Poor Books. You'd learn a lot from studying the available documents for your parish of interest, which will be difficult for you since you're in America, but the PRs alone will give you much information apart from the basic facts.

unless they were lying, as was very often the case ;) Anne South Australia Alan Nelson wrote: > under 21 is a minor over 21 is full age > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Jan R" <tartania99@hotmail.co.uk> > To: "Rootsweb Essex" <> > Sent: Monday, November 10, 2008 11:20 PM > Subject: [Ess] Ages on marriage certificates > > >> >> Hi all, >> >> On a marriage certificate from October 1839, if the man's age is given as >> "Minor" >> and the woman's age is given as "of full age", what ages would this >> indicate? >> >> Thanks, >> >> Jan >> >> Beaconsfield, UK

A woman lie about her age.... now that's a good one !!!! ----- Original Message ----- From: "Firebird" <sparrer@gmail.com> To: "Rootsweb Essex" <essex-uk@rootsweb.com> Sent: Tuesday, November 11, 2008 10:41 AM Subject: Re: [Ess] Ages on marriage certificates > Jan R wrote: > >> Firebird, I think you're probably right that she was lying about being >> "of full age" to avoid having to get her father's consent -- they had >> a baby about 7 months later. They did get married in the village where >> both of them appear to have been born, so you'd think someone would have >> known she wasn't really over 21! None of the witnesses had either of the >> family surnames, so I guess their families weren't at the wedding. > > There was no obligation for family members to be witnesses. They > could have been friends of the couple or one of them could be the > parish clerk or other church official but you'd only be able to tell > if one witness was the parish clerk by looking at the parish register. > There's no way of telling who was or was not at the wedding now - > which is a shame. I image it could be quite interesting to know who'd > been there. > > If she was only a bit under 21, then it may well have been forgotten > that she was, plus with a baby on the way (nothing unusual in that by > the way) it might have been deemed expedient to allow the marriage to > go ahead before it was obvious. If they'd been made to wait then the > girl could have ended up with a bad reputation and the marriage > stopped completely because she wasn't "good enough" for the boy. > Better a blind eye than a bad reputation :)) > >> For the 1841 census, about 18 months after the marriage, they both gave >> their ages as 20 years (which would make them both about 18 when they >> married). > > Don't forget the ages were rounded down for the 1841 census which > would put both of them between 20 and 24. It's the only census that > does that. > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > Any problems, please contact the List Admin: Essex-UK-admin@rootsweb.com > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > ESSEX-UK-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message >

podnsod wrote: > I don't consider anyone in the age range of 18- 21 to be minors. Legally they still were, just as anyone under the age of 18 is legally a minor these days. Maturity is, of course, a different matter. I've known a 5 year old who are more mature than a so called adult of 43!! I also know a 62 year old who still uses baby talk and has done for at least the last 10 years. > Interestingly enough both marriages were with banns so it might be > interesting to check the pr's and see if they in fact posted banns. > The marriage certificate should tell you that. If the marriage cert says by banns, the parish register will say the same thing but you won't necessarily get the dates. Even if you did, how could you be sure the banns had really been read on those dates? Depending on the period, some registers did allow space for the dates of the reading of the banns. Some banns registers still exist but IME, most times the banns aren't recorded and the banns certs are given to the bride and/or groom so haven't survived.

Legally allowable ages for marriages are a separate issue to the difference between being a minor - who was still able to marry legally - and being of full age. You had to be 21 or over to be of full age, which meant that you could marry without asking your father first. If you were under 21 your father was still considered to be your legal guardian and therefore bore the responsibility over the choice of a marriage partner for you. But there was nothing stopping him, from a legal perspective, from marrying you off at 14 if he so wished! Royal offspring were often married, in a legal sense, even at only a few years old. Lawrence -----Original Message----- From: essex-uk-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:essex-uk-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Jan R Sent: 10 November 2008 23:20 To: Rootsweb Essex Subject: [Ess] Ages on marriage certificates Hi all, On a marriage certificate from October 1839, if the man's age is given as "Minor" and the woman's age is given as "of full age", what ages would this indicate? Thanks, Jan Beaconsfield, UK _________________________________________________________________ See the most popular videos on the web http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/115454061/direct/01/ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Any problems, please contact the List Admin: Essex-UK-admin@rootsweb.com ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to ESSEX-UK-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. Version: 7.5.549 / Virus Database: 270.9.0/1777 - Release Date: 09/11/2008 09:53 No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG. Version: 7.5.549 / Virus Database: 270.9.0/1777 - Release Date: 09/11/2008 09:53

Good day all - Here is a recent email from National Archives reference searching for WW1 service records   Hope it helps -   Still looking for my grandfather's service record - hoping that his records will be one of the one recovered.     First World War Army Service Records. British Army Soldiers' Document from Pension Claims, First World War (catalogue reference series WO 364), containing service records of non-commissioned officers and other ranks who were discharged from the Army and claimed disability pensions for service in the First World War, are now available to download for a fee from www.ancestry.co.uk. You can access these images free on site at The National Archives in Kew. The majority of First World War records of service will be found however, in the Soldiers' Documents, First World War 'Burnt Documents' (catalogue reference WO363).  These are the 'burnt documents' that survived the bombing in 1940 and consist of about 20 to 25% of the original total.   Ancestry.co.uk has recently begun the process of digitising the surviving records by surname and A - N are now available to download for a fee at: http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/militaryhistory .  These images can also be accessed free onsite at The National Archives, Kew. We suggest that you look at the Information from Archives leaflet called First World War Army Service: Other Ranks, which is available online at: http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/documents/ifa_m3_first_world_war_army_service_otherranks.pdf This leaflet will contain advice on the types of document that can be searched for this kind of information: each search is identified by a number. It also tells you how to use our paid search service. Please read it carefully: the leaflet should be helpful even if you decide not to use our paid search service. Once you have read this and identified the number/s of the search or searches you want from First World War Army Service: Other Ranks, you have three ways to proceed: 1. You can request a formal quotation for a paid search, by replying to this e-mail . Please make it clear which of the numbered searches described in the leaflet you want us to undertake, and make sure to include as much of the information requested in the leaflet as you can. We will then send you the quotation and your payment options. Do not send any payment until you have received our quotation. 2. You, or someone acting on your behalf, are welcome to visit us to do the research yourself. Our staff will give you advice free of charge. For visiting details, please go to http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/visit/. The only payment would be if you then wanted to buy copies from our Record Copying Department. You can take photographs of documents using your own digital camera, under certain rules. For details of both options go to http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/recordcopying/. 3. You can hire an independent researcher to carry out specific or wider-ranging research for you, both at The National Archives and in other relevant archives. For details, and for a list of independent researchers who conduct research at The National Archives, look at http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/irlist/. The fee that you will pay for this service is a matter for yourself and the researcher: it may be significantly less than the fee that we would charge. We wish you every success in your research, but please be aware that the records in our custody are not always complete: they were not created or kept for research purposes, but for use by the government or law courts of the day. We cannot guarantee that you will find what you are looking for. If you need to respond to this email, please click on Reply to do so. It is very helpful for us for the text of the earlier emails to be included. For a new enquiry, please go to http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/contact/form/. Yours sincerely Linda Church E-Mail Duty Officer Contact Centre Team 020 8876 3444  ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------  

All the pr's I have read have had banns very, very, clearly and very dilberately written. I am thankful for that! Surely we have to have a little faith and assume that the banns were read. Bearing in mind that most of our ancestors were iliterate and who knows whether they actually went to church on the Sundays the banns were read. Also, given the fact that most of our ancestors were ag/labs and probably worked on those Sundays they probably didn't know what banns were!. There is always the parish chest and minutes to read from some church wardens accounts. Although they don't say who's banns were read I have read in the St Margaret's Barking Wardens/Parish chest minutes that "banns were read" in some of these early records. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Firebird" <sparrer@gmail.com> To: "Rootsweb Essex" <essex-uk@rootsweb.com> Sent: Tuesday, November 11, 2008 10:49 AM Subject: Re: [Ess] Ages on marriage certificates > podnsod wrote: >> I don't consider anyone in the age range of 18- 21 to be minors. > > Legally they still were, just as anyone under the age of 18 is legally > a minor these days. > > Maturity is, of course, a different matter. I've known a 5 year old > who are more mature than a so called adult of 43!! I also know a 62 > year old who still uses baby talk and has done for at least the last > 10 years. > >> Interestingly enough both marriages were with banns so it might be >> interesting to check the pr's and see if they in fact posted banns. >> The marriage certificate should tell you that. > > If the marriage cert says by banns, the parish register will say the > same thing but you won't necessarily get the dates. Even if you did, > how could you be sure the banns had really been read on those dates? > > Depending on the period, some registers did allow space for the dates > of the reading of the banns. Some banns registers still exist but > IME, most times the banns aren't recorded and the banns certs are > given to the bride and/or groom so haven't survived. > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > Any problems, please contact the List Admin: Essex-UK-admin@rootsweb.com > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > ESSEX-UK-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Howard Laver wrote: > The Hardwicke Act of 1753 set the age of consent by parents at 21 but > English Common Law managed quite well without any statutory age of consent > until 1885. Under ancient Common Law, in line with Canon Law - which was > observed throughout Europe - a girl could marry at 12 and a boy at 14. That didn't change until 1927 in England and Wales but didn't change until comparatively recently (1960s?) in Ireland. I believe the change happened when the age of majority was dropped from 21 to the Royal coming of age of 18 in 1969.