I am adding a reply by Lawrence Greenall, it may help others, for clarity I have the Littlechild family well documented by Stephen Littlechild, Wills et al (see two volumes at the ERO in the oversize section), and many local communications - thanks Lawrence. <<Hi Kevan. Just a few thoughts generated by the info on your (very clear) webpages: John L (b1819) as a farmer would probably have left a will, detailing property transactions at least. Such transferral of property often allows you to follow the families as they inherit/sell it. I would also search for court roll entries and local poor rate returns. He may well have not owned Dodds Farm, but a relative might have done. There could be many reasons why he's not there in 1871, not just 'hard times'. Had the farm been passed on as the result of some relative dying? Maybe his wife was the entitlee (is there such a word?) to it rather than him, until a third party came of age or some other such event took place. >> hard times forced them out, see the historyhouse.co.uk (Kelvedon Hatch) site for this. I think dad was fairly well off, according to wills. They moved to Becontree, and later married into a ag lab family from Suffolk. We Wildings always marry up, I married a vicars daughter. John L snr (b1796) also holds a large parcel of land, presumably recorded in the tithe awards going by the 1847 date? If the awards show the owner as the lord of the manor, check the court rolls as well; if he was a copyholder then finding out who he superseded and who superseded him could be very interesting. If the landlord was some local bigwig instead, then perhaps that family has some estate papers deposited somewhere. They may well provide details of servants and tenants. Even in old age, John L snr was well off enough to keep a servant; he may well have still owned property or was receiving an income from some? Look out for his will. And so on - but that's not the branch you were asking about. Henry Lagden (b1762): Again, was he a tenant or copyholder of Park Farm? Check the marriage register for several entries either side of their marriage, to see if the same witnesses crop up a lot; if they don't, then look out for their surnames in the area too - they may well be in-laws or cousins (or neighbours or colleagues). Try to find their marriages - I bet there's a Lagden witness to one of them! Remember that saying that everyone in the world is connected to everyone else by no more than six emails? Or however many it was. I think something similar applies to names recorded in local communities. << I have most of the info from ERO Parish registers, but the Littlechilf family appear from Cambridge , or Herts, maybe the Lagden family are the same??? Use the IGI to plot a district-wide distribution map of the surname throughout the 18th century, separated into decades or so, then start extracting all the register entries etc. and try to build up an overall picture of the development and spread of the surname in the area. Like a jigsaw puzzle, at first nothing will seem to be at all relevant to your own lot, but with luck putting one piece in place will suddenly link half the puzzle together! << I have used the IGI considerably, not that I trust much of the data here, nothing obvious. As Mary was a minor at marriage, was there a kerfuffle over an early pregnancy? Check the quarter sessions and so on. Was Richard really her father, or an impersonator? Also check the parish register carefully in case the incumbent made a marginal cryptic comment about the event being recorded; such comments won't often find their way into indexes and transcripts. << Interesting point. I have a Lagden who gets his housekeeper pregnant, he does the right thing apart from marrying her, and have seen the will that sets the son up for good. I must publish the details on the site, as the tree has not been updated for several years. Sarah Martin: As she was Henry's 2nd wife, could he also have been her 2nd hubby? This would mean that Martin wasn't her maiden name. << Missed that, good point. Hope this tickles the old grey bits Kevan, unless they're not grey or old yet in which case I apologise most profusely. Mine are. Lawrence << Lawrence is always full of excellent observations, many thanks. -----Original Message----- From: essex-uk-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:essex-uk-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Kevan Sent: 25 August 2008 00:11 To: 'Essex-UK-L Mailing List' Subject: [Ess] Littlechild, Lagden, Martin, Thomas All, I do not do much on the family tree these days, but I am still intrigued to answer a few basic queries. On my grandmothers side (a Littlechild), I go back to a marriage in 1819 for a John Littlechild and Sarah Lagden: http://essex1841.com/Legacy/104.htm I have the parents of Sarah Lagden, as Henry Lagden & Sarah Martin (where does she come from?). Also, Henry is son of a Henry Lagden & Mary Thomas (where do they come from?). My tree is fairly comprehensive, even if it is full of mistakes, and the Littlechild side is pretty good, thanks to a rather good source of information - but I would love to know more about the Martin, Thomas & Lagden side of the family. No rush for answers, but any suggestions are very welcome. Best Kevan ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 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

Sure, Shall I take it off line for the next few years whilst I fix it, and update the Pubs site alone. This is just a warning that you should never trust data on web sites unless you can prove it. Do you have anything useful to add, Best Kevan From: Andy Hedgcock [mailto:andy701@blueyonder.co.uk] Sent: 25 August 2008 01:09 To: Kevan; 'Essex-UK-L Mailing List' Subject: Re: [Ess] Littlechild, Lagden, Martin, Thomas Wouldn't it be a good idea to correct the mistakes? You may not get people willing to help if you're collecting 'errors'. Regards Andy ----- Original Message ----- From: Kevan <mailto:kevan@pubsgen.com> To: 'Essex-UK-L <mailto:Essex-UK-L@rootsweb.com> Mailing List' Sent: Monday, August 25, 2008 12:11 AM Subject: [Ess] Littlechild, Lagden, Martin, Thomas My tree is fairly comprehensive, even if it is full of mistakes, Best Kevan ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 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

Wouldn't it be a good idea to correct the mistakes? You may not get people willing to help if you're collecting 'errors'. Regards Andy ----- Original Message ----- From: Kevan To: 'Essex-UK-L Mailing List' Sent: Monday, August 25, 2008 12:11 AM Subject: [Ess] Littlechild, Lagden, Martin, Thomas My tree is fairly comprehensive, even if it is full of mistakes, Best Kevan ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 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

All, I do not do much on the family tree these days, but I am still intrigued to answer a few basic queries. On my grandmothers side (a Littlechild), I go back to a marriage in 1819 for a John Littlechild and Sarah Lagden: http://essex1841.com/Legacy/104.htm I have the parents of Sarah Lagden, as Henry Lagden & Sarah Martin (where does she come from?). Also, Henry is son of a Henry Lagden & Mary Thomas (where do they come from?). My tree is fairly comprehensive, even if it is full of mistakes, and the Littlechild side is pretty good, thanks to a rather good source of information - but I would love to know more about the Martin, Thomas & Lagden side of the family. No rush for answers, but any suggestions are very welcome. Best Kevan

Thanks once again for the very informative reply. Disappointing to hear that some register offices have taken it upon themselves to refuse to issue the "historical" certs. Why would they do this ? Yes, the LDS film would seem to be the way to go. Mind you, one person's "X" might look the same as another's ! Just joking. The ones who could sign would be worth having a look at. I have navy and army records which have two g-g-grandfathers' sigs. One signs "Payne" whereas all the previous parish and census records had him and his family as "Pain". So, something of a landmark. Francis ----- Original Message ----- From: "Firebird" <sparrer@gmail.com> To: <Essex-UK@rootsweb.com> Sent: Sunday, August 24, 2008 10:05 PM Subject: Re: [Ess] REGISTER ENTRIES & CERTIFICATES [wasRe: Birth BaptismMarriage William Hyde KNAPP] > Francis Payne wrote: >> Do you know which offices do the same as GRO, >> so you do get to see the actual signatures ? > > All the register offices can produce copies of the marriage certs with > the actual signatures, although there are some register offices now > which are refusing to issue "historical" certificates, ie those before > 1900. > > You can also get copies of the marriage entries from the church > registers which would be (or should be) held at the record office but > that would cost considerably more usually than getting a copy from the > GRO. (Note: a register office is not the same thing as a record office.) > > If you are near an LDS FHC, then you can hire the parish films through > them and see the signatures for yourself that way. That would be > cheaper (transport costs excluded) than getting a GRO cert :)) You > can usually make a photocopy, digital copy or download the image from > the film. > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > 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

Any words (except for family names) that are all in capitals are considered to be shouted and therefore should not be used, unless, of course, you do mean to shout. If you are replying to a message with a shouted Subject, then please change it to the normal case. One of the rules of the Essex-UK Mailing List is to use meaningful Subjects, so if you don't mean to shout back then don't. I know the words "Register", "Entries" and "Certificates" are unlikely to be confused with family names, but many other common words can also be names. Reducing the confusion between names is a benefit to the list as a whole. Thank you for your co-operation. Regards Elmo. -- --Keith Elmo ELDRIDGE Essex-UK-Admin@rootsweb.com --Elmo@aphelia.co.uk --Buxworth, High Peak, Derbyshire, England. --List Administrator of the Essex-UK mailing list

Very interesting post, John. Do you know which offices do the same as GRO, so you do get to see the actual signatures ? Francis Auckland, NZ > > Just a reminder that all General Register Office certificates,whether > handwritten, typewritten or > incorporating a facsimile of the entry in the quarterly return are > certified copies of the certified > copy which is the quarterly return. > If they are the facsimile type, the historic looking handwriting is that > of the Registrar or church > cleric or clerk who made the quarterly copies to send to the Registrar > General at the end of the > quarter in which the event took place.. > The only exceptions are sometimes found in a GRO marriage certificates, > where the clergyman, at the > time of the wedding, got the couple and the witnesses [contrary to the > official Advice to Clergy] to > sign the quarterly copies as well as the register entries. > > Certificates from a local Register Office (and from churches) , on the > other hand, are certified > copies of the actual entries in the register, which means that if the > office is one of the very few > that issue certificates by a similar facsimile process to the GRO, then > one *does* see the actual > signatures on the actual register entry. > Just as mistakes can be made in producing a transcription type certificate > from a local Register > Office, so did mistakes occasionally occur in producing the quarterly > copies sent to the G.R.O., > and in producing the GRO Indexes. > > Which is why genealogists and family historians were keen that any new > index produced by the GRO > should be made from the original register entries held locally, and not > the quarterly copies held by > the GRO. > The plea was not heard, and the current digitization process, which has > now ground to a halt, was of > the GRO returns. > > Cheers > > John Henley > researching (and not finding much time for - but always very glad to hear > of any) > HENLEY, PARKER, RAPER, [London/Middlesex] > DURDEN, PRENTICE [Essex/London/ Woolwich] , > SECKER, [Suffolk, London/Middlesex] > ROLFE, (O)RAFFERTY, EVANS, PARSONS, SYMONDS [ Berks/Hants/Wilts] > HILL [IN Staffs/Cambs/Berks] > > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > 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

Our burial register includes all the burials but the service can have happened in any Church in Lutterworth. Jo in Leics jo.mason@swsmail.net holmested@one-name.org

Anne wrote :- >>> No. > Parish Burial registers will only contain entries of people ( or ashes) > buried in the churchyard. > If a funeral service is held at a church followed by burial in a public > cemetery, then the funeral service will be noted in the service register, > but the burial will be noted in the burial register of the cemetery - > quite separate from the church's one.<< Sorry Anne but I beg to differ with you. I have 4 people buried in the same family grave in a cemetery in a town in the North East of England where each burial service was carried out in the Parish church round the corner from where the family lived. The burial service in each case is noted in the Parish Register of burials and not in any other kind of register. The first of these 4 burials took place in 1862 the last in 1899. The entry for each burial service has a note that the burial took place in the nearby cemetery which had been opened in 1856. The churchyard was only taking burials where there was an existing grave for earlier family members. Regards Jenny DeAngelis Spain.

Apologies. I was speaking from my experience as a Parish Secretary in a parish where the churchyard was closed for burials but there was a facility for burial of ashes. The only entries in the burials register there were for burial of ashes. Also from my current experience of officiating at funerals local churches and cemeteries and crematoria, where I sign a service register for the service in church and the burials register at the cemetery for the burial of the body or of ashes. I have never come across an instance in this area ( Hertfordshire) where burials elsewhere are entered in the parish burial register. I can only assume that the 'new cemetery' in the areas you and podnsod describe was considered an extension of the churchyard, and was under the care and control of the parish church ( I know the parish church where I worked was still responsible for the insurance for the cemetery chapel in the oldest of the local cemeteries in the 1970s, so this seems to have been the case at one time here). When the local authorities took over care and control of the cemeteries, then they would have separate burial registers. Anne On 24 Aug 2008, at 16:15, Jenny De Angelis wrote: > Anne wrote :- >>>> No. >> Parish Burial registers will only contain entries of people ( or >> ashes) buried in the churchyard. >> If a funeral service is held at a church followed by burial in a >> public cemetery, then the funeral service will be noted in the >> service register, but the burial will be noted in the burial >> register of the cemetery - quite separate from the church's one.<< > > Sorry Anne but I beg to differ with you. I have 4 people buried in > the same family grave in a cemetery in a town in the North East of > England where each burial service was carried out in the Parish > church round the corner from where the family lived. > > The burial service in each case is noted in the Parish Register of > burials and not in any other kind of register. The first of these 4 > burials took place in 1862 the last in 1899. The entry for each > burial service has a note that the burial took place in the nearby > cemetery which had been opened in 1856. > > The churchyard was only taking burials where there was an existing > grave for earlier family members. > > Regards > Jenny DeAngelis > Spain.

If a "learned counsel" is on the list, could they please point me to the law regarding access to BMD information? Particularly "Local" rather than "National". Many thanks JK On Sun, Aug 24, 2008 at 2:24 PM, Firebird <sparrer@gmail.com> wrote: > Brad Rogers wrote: > > On Sun, 24 Aug 2008 11:05:27 +0100 > > Firebird <sparrer@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Hello Firebird, > > > >> the actual signatures, although there are some register offices now > >> which are refusing to issue "historical" certificates, ie those before > >> 1900. > > > > That's not lawful, surely? > > No, I don't think it is, but I'm not up on the finer points. The > register offices in question tend to refer customers to the GRO. > >

podnsod wrote: > Also, just because the parish register has a burial entry at a particular > church it didn't mean that the burial was at that church, unless of course > the family had a "vault/family plot". As local church burial grounds began > to fill "public" cemeteries were established. If the burial is in the burial register, then it took place at that church. If the *death* was elsewhere and the deceased was brought back for burial, then there is usually a note in the burial register to that effect, but not always. As ever, how much additional information you get is dependent on the vicar or whoever filled in the register which wouldn't necessarily have been at the time but maybe a week or month after the event or even longer afterwards. I believe that, apart from churchyards becoming full, there were health concerns which prompted the opening of cemeteries which happened from around 1860 onwards.

Hello Firebird, ----- Original Message ----- From: "Firebird" <sparrer@gmail.com>To: <essex-uk@rootsweb.com> > Brad Rogers wrote: >> On Sun, 24 Aug 2008 11:05:27 +0100 >> Firebird <sparrer@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> Hello Firebird, >> >>> the actual signatures, although there are some register offices now >>> which are refusing to issue "historical" certificates, ie those before >>> 1900.>> >> That's not lawful, surely? > No, I don't think it is, but I'm not up on the finer points. The > register offices in question tend to refer customers to the GRO. > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ As you say in another posting, shortage of staff/funds/time is the normal reason giving. But, as I posted earlier this year on another list: The law, to us mere mortals, seems reasonably clear. [see extracts below] But, and what a big BUT, individual superintendent registrars, and Registrars-General, have but their own glosses on these provisions. In particular, I think, the superintendent registrar has been deemed not to be a registrar within the terms of the Act, unless specifically mentioned as such, which leads to inability to search register-books which the registrar has delivered to the superintendent registrar. [despite, these days, their normally being in the same office!] Various local register offices have declared they are unable to supply "historic" certificates, particularly of marriages, usually quoting staffing problems. Can anyone say where the General Register Office now is?? I believe the Registrar-General's office is still in London, but the certificates office is in Southport, and the indexes only available in outdated microform. Can you find anything in the Act prohibiting the issue electronically of an uncertified copy of a register or quarterly copy entry? Yet the GRO insists that it is illegal to do so. Regards John Henley [from the Marriage Act 1949]: 63.-(I) Every incumbent, registering officer of the Society of Friends, secretary of a synagogue and registrar by whom a marriage register book is kept shall at all reasonable hours allow searches to be made in any marriage register book in his keeping, and shall give a copy certified under his hand of any entry in such a book, on payment of the following fee, that is to say- (a) for every search covering a period of not more than one year, the sum of one shilling, and for every search covering a period of more than one year, the sum of one shilling for the first year together with an additional sixpence for every additional year; and (b) for every certified copy, the sum of two shillings and sixpence. (2) The last foregoing subsection shall apply in the case of a registered building for which an authorised person has been appointed with the substitution for the reference to the incumbent of a reference to the person having the custody of a marriage register book in accordance with regulations made under section seventy-four of this Act. 64.-(I) Every superintendent registrar shall cause indexes of the marriage register books in his office to be made and to be kept with the other records of his office, and the Registrar General shall supply to every superintendent registrar suitable forms for the making of such indexes. (2) Any person shall be entitled at all reasonable hours to search the said indexes, and to have a certified copy of any entry in the said marriage register books under the hand of the superintendent registrar, on payment to the superintendent registrar of the following fee, that is to say :- (a) for every general search, the sum of five shillings : (b) for every particular search, the sum of one shilling : and (c) for every certified copy, the sum of two shillings and sixpence. 65.-(I) The Registrar General shall cause indexes of all certified copies of entries in marriage register books sent to him under this Part of this Act to be made and kept in the General Register Office. (2) Any person shall be entitled to search the said indexes between the hours of ten in the morning and four in the afternoon of every day, except Sundays, Christmas Day and Good Friday, and to have a certified copy of any entry in the said certified copies of marriage register books, on payment to the Registrar General or to such other person as may be appointed to act on his behalf of the following fee, that is to say :- (a) for every general search, the sum of twenty shillings ; (b) for every particular search, the sum of one shilling ; and (c) for every certified copy, the sum of two shillings and sixpence. (3) The Registrar General shall cause all certified copies of entries given in the General Register Office to be sealed or stamped with the seal of that Office ; and any certified copy of an entry to be sealed or stamped with the said seal shall be received as evidence of the marriage to which it relates without any further or other proof of the entry, and no certified copy purporting to have been given in the said Office shall be of any force or effect unless it is sealed or stamped as aforesaid. (4) Every sum received under this section by or on behalf of the Registrar General shall be accounted for by the Registrar General and paid by him, at such times as the Treasury from time to time may direct, into the Exchequer. 66. Any certificate, return or other document required by this Part of this Act to be delivered or sent to the Registrar General, a superintendent registrar or a registrar may be sent by post. ----------source http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~framland/acts/1949bAct.htm and the Births & Deaths Registration Act, 1953: Searches and Certificates 30.-(1) The Registrar General shall cause indexes of all certified copies of entries in registers sent to him under this Act or under any enactment repealed by this Act to be made and kept in the General Register Office. (2) Any person shall be entitled to search the said indexes at any time when the General Register Office is open for that purpose, and to have a certified copy of any entry in the said certified copies, on payment to the Registrar General or to such other person on his behalf of the following fees respectively, that is to say- (a) for every general search the sum of thirty shillings ; (b) for every particular search, the sum of one shilling and sixpence ; and (c) for every certified copy, the sum of three shillings and ninepence. (3) The foregoing provisions of this section shall not apply to certified copies of entries in registers of still-births, but the Registrar General may, if he sees fit in any particular case and on payment of as aforesaid of the appropriate fee aforesaid, cause a search to be made for, and allow any person to have a certified copy of any entry in any such certified copies or in any filled register of still-births which has been forwarded to him. 31.-(1) Every superintendent registrar shall cause indexes of the registers of live-births and registers of deaths in his register office to be made and to be kept with the other records of that office, and the Registrar General shall supply to every superintendent registrar suitable forms for the making of such indexes. (2) Any person shall be entitled at any time when the register office is required to be open for the transaction of public business to search the said indexes, and to have a certified copy of any entry in the said registers under the hand of the superintendent register, on payment by that person to the of the superintendent registrar of the following fees respectively, that is to say- (a) for every general search, the sum of seven shillings and sixpence ; (b) for every particular search, the sum of one shilling and sixpence ; and (c) for every certified copy, the sum of three shillings and ninepence. 32. Every registrar shall at any time when his office is required to be open for the transaction of public business allow searches to be made in any register of births or register of deaths in his keeping, and shall give a copy certified under his hand of any entry therein, on payment of the following fees respectively, that is to say- (a) for every search covering a period of not more than one year, the sum of one shilling and sixpence ; (b) for every search covering a period of more than one year, the sum of one shilling and sixpence for the first year together with an additional ninepence for every additional year ; and (c) for every certified copy the sum of three shillings and ninepence : Provided that this section shall not apply in relation to a register of still-births except as the registrar may, with the consent of the Registrar General, in any particular case allow. 33.-(1) Any person shall, on payment of a fee of ninepence and on furnishing the prescribed particulars, be entitled to obtain from the Registrar General, a superintendent registrar or a registrar a short certificate of the birth of any person. (2) Any such certificate shall be in the prescribed form and shall be compiled in the prescribed manner from the records and registers in the custody of the Registrar General, or from the registers in the custody of the superintendent registrar or registrar, as the case may be, and shall contain such particulars as may be prescribed : Provided that any particulars prescribed in addition to name, surname, sex and date of birth shall not include any particulars relating to parentage or adoption contained in any such records or registers. -------source: http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~framland/acts/1953Act.htm ---------------

This entry is not too clear but is at the bottom of the Lt Clacton PR Marriages page where my BEVAN ancestor is noted. I thought it may be of interest to someone. Philoman WESTOCK? widower of the parish of Thorpe and Sarah PALMER, widow of this parish, were married in this parish By Licence on the 16th day of September 1756 Signed Phil' WESTOCK (WESTLOCK?) It was cut off at this point so don't know if Sarah signed or who the witnesses were. Margaret Taylor (Toronto) "It is by logic that we prove, but by intuition that we discover".

Francis Payne wrote: > Thanks once again for the very informative reply. Thank you :)) > Disappointing to hear that > some register offices have taken it upon themselves to refuse to issue the > "historical" certs. Why would they do this ? Some of it is simply that they do not have the staff. > Yes, the LDS film would seem to be the way to go. Mind you, one person's "X" > might look the same as another's ! True but not all those who couldn't write did sign with an "X". I've seen "marks" that were like five bar gates, as well as circles, horizontal lines, the initial letters of the bride's/groom's given name. Some marks could be quite elaborate. On the other hand the vicar's writing could leave much to be desired!! > Just joking. The ones who could sign would be worth having a look at. Very definitely worth a look as you can tell from the signature how confident they were with writing. Awkward, angular letters suggest someone who had possibly learnt to write for the occasion and would never pick up a pen again. Flowing, well formed letters suggest someone who wrote regularly. And all points inbetween :)) > I have > navy and army records which have two g-g-grandfathers' sigs. One signs "Payne" whereas all the previous parish and census records had him > and his family as "Pain". So, something of a landmark. That's also useful for helping find possible variant spellings in registers too.

Brad Rogers wrote: > On Sun, 24 Aug 2008 11:05:27 +0100 > Firebird <sparrer@gmail.com> wrote: > > Hello Firebird, > >> the actual signatures, although there are some register offices now >> which are refusing to issue "historical" certificates, ie those before >> 1900. > > That's not lawful, surely? No, I don't think it is, but I'm not up on the finer points. The register offices in question tend to refer customers to the GRO.

On 24 Aug 2008, at 13:19, podnsod wrote: > > Also, just because the parish register has a burial entry at a > particular > church it didn't mean that the burial was at that church, unless of > course > the family had a "vault/family plot". As local church burial > grounds began > to fill "public" cemeteries were established. > > No. Parish Burial registers will only contain entries of people ( or ashes) buried in the churchyard. If a funeral service is held at a church followed by burial in a public cemetery, then the funeral service will be noted in the service register, but the burial will be noted in the burial register of the cemetery - quite separate from the church's one. Anne

Hello Francis, ----- Original Message ----- From: "Francis Payne" <francisp@xtra.co.nz> > Very interesting post, John. Do you know which offices do the same as GRO, > so you do get to see the actual signatures ? > > Francis> Auckland, NZ Sadly, not, tho' other listers might: but I thinkl it is very few. Of course, if it is a church wedding and the registers have been microfilmed by the LDS or by the local records/archives officve [if the church registers have been transferred there], the print form the miocroform *will" be a facsimile of the actual entry, with signatures. Regards John > >> >> Just a reminder that all General Register Office certificates,whether >> handwritten, typewritten or >> incorporating a facsimile of the entry in the quarterly return are >> certified copies of the certified >> copy which is the quarterly return. >> If they are the facsimile type, the historic looking handwriting is that >> of the Registrar or church >> cleric or clerk who made the quarterly copies to send to the Registrar >> General at the end of the >> quarter in which the event took place.. >> The only exceptions are sometimes found in a GRO marriage certificates, >> where the clergyman, at the >> time of the wedding, got the couple and the witnesses [contrary to the >> official Advice to Clergy] to >> sign the quarterly copies as well as the register entries. >> >> Certificates from a local Register Office (and from churches) , on the >> other hand, are certified >> copies of the actual entries in the register, which means that if the >> office is one of the very few >> that issue certificates by a similar facsimile process to the GRO, then >> one *does* see the actual >> signatures on the actual register entry. >> Just as mistakes can be made in producing a transcription type certificate >> from a local Register >> Office, so did mistakes occasionally occur in producing the quarterly >> copies sent to the G.R.O., >> and in producing the GRO Indexes. >> >> Which is why genealogists and family historians were keen that any new >> index produced by the GRO >> should be made from the original register entries held locally, and not >> the quarterly copies held by >> the GRO. >> The plea was not heard, and the current digitization process, which has >> now ground to a halt, was of >> the GRO returns. >> >> Cheers >> >> John Henley >> researching (and not finding much time for - but always very glad to hear >> of any) >> HENLEY, PARKER, RAPER, [London/Middlesex] >> DURDEN, PRENTICE [Essex/London/ Woolwich] , >> SECKER, [Suffolk, London/Middlesex] >> ROLFE, (O)RAFFERTY, EVANS, PARSONS, SYMONDS [ Berks/Hants/Wilts] >> HILL [IN Staffs/Cambs/Berks] >> >> >> >> >> >> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >> 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 > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > 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 >

On Sun, 24 Aug 2008 11:05:27 +0100 Firebird <sparrer@gmail.com> wrote: Hello Firebird, > the actual signatures, although there are some register offices now > which are refusing to issue "historical" certificates, ie those before > 1900. That's not lawful, surely? -- Regards _ / ) "The blindingly obvious is / _)rad never immediately apparent" Bet you thought you had it all worked out Problem - Sex Pistols

What's good about our conversation on burials today is we get to share our experiences on subjects that might not otherwise get to be aired. As usual great thread for this subject - I learned something today I hope everyone else did! ----- Original Message ----- From: "Anne Peat" <anne.peat@bigwindows.demon.co.uk> To: "Jenny De Angelis" <jennyda@telefonica.net> Cc: "podnsod" <podnsod@comcast.net>; <Essex-UK@rootsweb.com> Sent: Sunday, August 24, 2008 11:35 AM Subject: Re: [Ess] REGISTER ENTRIES & CERTIFICATES [wasRe:Birth BaptismMarriage William Hyde KNAPP] > Apologies. I was speaking from my experience as a Parish Secretary in a > parish where the churchyard was closed for burials but there was a > facility for burial of ashes. The only entries in the burials register > there were for burial of ashes. Also from my current experience of > officiating at funerals local churches and cemeteries and crematoria, > where I sign a service register for the service in church and the > burials register at the cemetery for the burial of the body or of ashes. > > I have never come across an instance in this area ( Hertfordshire) where > burials elsewhere are entered in the parish burial register. I can only > assume that the > 'new cemetery' in the areas you and podnsod describe was considered an > extension of the churchyard, and was under the care and control of the > parish church ( I know the parish church where I worked was still > responsible for the insurance for the cemetery chapel in the oldest of > the local cemeteries in the 1970s, so this seems to have been the case at > one time here). When the local authorities took over care and control of > the cemeteries, then they would have separate burial registers. > > Anne > > On 24 Aug 2008, at 16:15, Jenny De Angelis wrote: > >> Anne wrote :- >>>>> No. >>> Parish Burial registers will only contain entries of people ( or >>> ashes) buried in the churchyard. >>> If a funeral service is held at a church followed by burial in a >>> public cemetery, then the funeral service will be noted in the service >>> register, but the burial will be noted in the burial register of the >>> cemetery - quite separate from the church's one.<< >> >> Sorry Anne but I beg to differ with you. I have 4 people buried in the >> same family grave in a cemetery in a town in the North East of England >> where each burial service was carried out in the Parish church round the >> corner from where the family lived. >> >> The burial service in each case is noted in the Parish Register of >> burials and not in any other kind of register. The first of these 4 >> burials took place in 1862 the last in 1899. The entry for each burial >> service has a note that the burial took place in the nearby cemetery >> which had been opened in 1856. >> >> The churchyard was only taking burials where there was an existing grave >> for earlier family members. >> >> Regards >> Jenny DeAngelis >> Spain. >