On 24/10/2015 09:12, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote: > In message <skcm2btt20v37tc76j88cjrdgmmsfpcul5@4ax.com>, Steve Hayes > <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> writes: >> On Sat, 24 Oct 2015 08:04:59 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)" >> <G6JPG@soft255.demon.co.uk> wrote: >> >>> In message <0m4m2blnpj3el62hehob679o1danln696u@4ax.com>, Steve Hayes >>> <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> writes: >>> [] >>>> A new genetic map of Britain shows that there has been little movement >>>> between areas of Britain which were former tribal kingoms in >>>> Anglo-Saxon England > [] >>> It would be interesting to have another study taken without the >>> restriction, to see how things _have_ changed since "mass migration". >> >> I think the restriction would have been necessary to discover what >> they had changed *from*. >> >> If you want to find the DNA of a particular area, it makes little >> sense to test the DNA of people who *have* migrated from elsewhere. >> Only when yopu've established the base can you work out where the >> others may have migrated from. >> > I agree, and this first study is certainly useful. I was just a little > cross with the headline ("there has been little movement"), since it is > misleading (though probably pleasing to the target audience). There have been earlier studies which have come to much the same conclusion so I am not sure what is so different about the current one. There's even a book, called The Tribes of Britain which goes into it at great length. Basically it refutes the classical ideas that the Celts retreated westward into Wales and Cornwall under pressure from first the Romans and later the Anglo-Saxon, Viking and even Norman invasions. Arguing that the peasant classes remained on their lands while the leaders may well have been routed or killed. Given there was little mixing between the ruling and peasant classes in either society then one would expect exactly this result. -- Graeme Wall This account not read, substitute trains for rail.

On Sat, 24 Oct 2015 08:04:59 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG@soft255.demon.co.uk> wrote: >In message <0m4m2blnpj3el62hehob679o1danln696u@4ax.com>, Steve Hayes ><hayesstw@telkomsa.net> writes: >[] >>A new genetic map of Britain shows that there has been little movement >>between areas of Britain which were former tribal kingoms in >>Anglo-Saxon England >[] >>The ‘People of the British Isles’ study analysed the DNA of 2,039 >>people from rural areas of the UK, whose four grandparents were all >>born within 80km of each other. >> >>Because a quarter of our genome comes from each of our grandparents, >>the researchers were effectively sampling DNA from these ancestors, >>allowing a snapshot of UK genetics in the late 19th Century before >>mass migration events caused by the industrial revolution. >[] >Thanks for posting this; interesting. > >Although the Telegraph's analysis - though it left the second two >paragraphs above in - seems to have ignored them; by limiting its focus >to those whose grandparents were all born within 80 km of each other, it >is obviously biased to immobility. The general thrust of the article is >that we haven't moved much for 14 centuries; however, a better summary >would be that _up to the late 19th century_ we hadn't moved much. Still >interesting, especially the fact that Viking, Saxon, and Roman (genetic) >influence is only moderate, but not particularly startling to >genealogists: anyone who has done much research in the field will have >already discovered that people before even up to the end of the >nineteenth century often lived their entire lives within a few miles of >where they were born. > >It would be interesting to have another study taken without the >restriction, to see how things _have_ changed since "mass migration". I think the restriction would have been necessary to discover what they had changed *from*. If you want to find the DNA of a particular area, it makes little sense to test the DNA of people who *have* migrated from elsewhere. Only when yopu've established the base can you work out where the others may have migrated from. -- Steve Hayes Web: http://hayesgreene.wordpress.com/ http://hayesgreene.blogspot.com http://groups.yahoo.com/group/afgen/ --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus

In message <skcm2btt20v37tc76j88cjrdgmmsfpcul5@4ax.com>, Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> writes: >On Sat, 24 Oct 2015 08:04:59 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)" ><G6JPG@soft255.demon.co.uk> wrote: > >>In message <0m4m2blnpj3el62hehob679o1danln696u@4ax.com>, Steve Hayes >><hayesstw@telkomsa.net> writes: >>[] >>>A new genetic map of Britain shows that there has been little movement >>>between areas of Britain which were former tribal kingoms in >>>Anglo-Saxon England [] >>It would be interesting to have another study taken without the >>restriction, to see how things _have_ changed since "mass migration". > >I think the restriction would have been necessary to discover what >they had changed *from*. > >If you want to find the DNA of a particular area, it makes little >sense to test the DNA of people who *have* migrated from elsewhere. >Only when yopu've established the base can you work out where the >others may have migrated from. > I agree, and this first study is certainly useful. I was just a little cross with the headline ("there has been little movement"), since it is misleading (though probably pleasing to the target audience). -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf I quite like being cosy and complacent, I'm not doing any harm. I like to watch talented people make cakes. So there. - Alison Graham, RT 19-25 October 2013

On 24/10/2015 06:16, Steve Hayes wrote: > There is also little Roman DNA in the British genetic make-up. They need to look at Roman history. Who were the "Romans" that formed the occupation force in Britain? They weren't all, or even the majority, natives of a small part of the Italian peninsular but drawn from all over the Roman Empire so their genetic footprint would be very diffuse. -- Graeme Wall This account not read, substitute trains for rail.

In message <0m4m2blnpj3el62hehob679o1danln696u@4ax.com>, Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> writes: [] >A new genetic map of Britain shows that there has been little movement >between areas of Britain which were former tribal kingoms in >Anglo-Saxon England [] >The ‘People of the British Isles’ study analysed the DNA of 2,039 >people from rural areas of the UK, whose four grandparents were all >born within 80km of each other. > >Because a quarter of our genome comes from each of our grandparents, >the researchers were effectively sampling DNA from these ancestors, >allowing a snapshot of UK genetics in the late 19th Century before >mass migration events caused by the industrial revolution. [] Thanks for posting this; interesting. Although the Telegraph's analysis - though it left the second two paragraphs above in - seems to have ignored them; by limiting its focus to those whose grandparents were all born within 80 km of each other, it is obviously biased to immobility. The general thrust of the article is that we haven't moved much for 14 centuries; however, a better summary would be that _up to the late 19th century_ we hadn't moved much. Still interesting, especially the fact that Viking, Saxon, and Roman (genetic) influence is only moderate, but not particularly startling to genealogists: anyone who has done much research in the field will have already discovered that people before even up to the end of the nineteenth century often lived their entire lives within a few miles of where they were born. It would be interesting to have another study taken without the restriction, to see how things _have_ changed since "mass migration". In my own researches, I had assumed the coming of the railways in the mid to late 19C would have led to much greater migration around the country; however, I've found the effect was much less than I'd expected. Still, when doing research for work colleagues (at Rochester in Kent), I find quite a lot of them are from local areas. -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf My daughter is appalled by it at all times, but you know you have to appal your 14-year-old daughter otherwise you're not doing your job as a father. - Richard Osman to Alison Graham, in Radio Times 2013-6-8 to 14

Britons still live in Anglo-Saxon tribal kingdoms, Oxford University finds A new genetic map of Britain shows that there has been little movement between areas of Britain which were former tribal kingoms in Anglo-Saxon England By Sarah Knapton, Science Editor 6:00PM GMT 18 Mar 2015 Britons are still living in the same 'tribes' that they did in the 7th Century, Oxford University has found after an astonishing study into our genetic make-up. Archaeologists and geneticists were amazed to find that genetically similar individuals inhabit the same areas they did following the Anglo-Saxon invasion, following the fall of the Roman Empire. In fact, a map showing tribes of Britain in 600AD is almost identical to a new chart showing genetic variability throughout the UK, suggesting that local communities have stayed put for the past 1415 years. Many people in Britain claim to feel a strong sense of regional identity and scientists say they the new study proves that the link to birthplace is DNA deep. The most striking genetic split can be seen between people living in Cornwall and Devon, where the division lies exactly along the county border. It means that people living on either side of the River Tamar, which separates the two counties, have different DNA. Similarly there is a large area in southern and central England with a shared genetic heritage which coincides with the boundaries of Anglo-Saxon England. Likewise, separate genetic groups can be found in areas of North and South Wales corresponding to the ancient kingdoms of Gwynedd and Dyfed. In the North, specific groups were found in the North East, tallying with the area of Bernicia which was colonised by the Angles from Southern Denmark. And, intriguingly, a small genetic cluster was spotted in the West Riding of Yorkshire, which coincides with the former small kingdom of Elmet, one of the last strongholds of the ancient Britons. Geneticist Professor Sir Walter Bodmer of Oxford University said: “What it shows is the extraordinary stability of the British population. Britain hasn’t changed much since 600AD. “When we plotted the genetics on a map we got this fantastic parallel between areas and genetic similarity. “It was an extraordinary result, one which was much more than I expected. We see areas like Devon and Cornwall where the difference lies directly on the boundary.” Professor Mark Robinson, of Oxford University’s department of archaeology added: “The genetic make-up we see is really one of perhaps 1400 years ago.” The ‘People of the British Isles’ study analysed the DNA of 2,039 people from rural areas of the UK, whose four grandparents were all born within 80km of each other. Because a quarter of our genome comes from each of our grandparents, the researchers were effectively sampling DNA from these ancestors, allowing a snapshot of UK genetics in the late 19th Century before mass migration events caused by the industrial revolution. They then analysed DNA differences at over 500,000 positions within the genome and plotted each person onto a map of the British Isles, using the centre point of their grandparents’ birth places, they were able to see how this distribution correlated with their genetic groupings. Professor Peter Donnelly, Director of the Wellcome Trust Centre for Human Genetics said: “It has long been known that human populations differ genetically but never before have we been able to observe such exquisite and fascinating detail. “We used the genetic material to really tease apart the subtle differences in DNA. And we’re able to zoom in and see which areas are closer genetically. “In a certain sense there are more genetic differences between North and South Wales than between Kent and Scotland. “And in a certain sense there is more similarity between people in the North of England and Scotland than people in the south of England.” The findings also showed that there is not a single ‘Celtic’ genetic group. In fact the Celtic parts of the UK (Scotland, Northern Ireland, Wales and Cornwall) are among the most different from each other genetically. And the research has finally answered the question of whether the Romans, Vikings and Anglo-Saxons interbred with the Brits or wiped out communities. The team found that people in central and southern England have a significant DNA contribution from the Anglo-Saxons showing that the invaders intermarried with, rather than replaced, the existing population. But there is no genetic signature from the Danish Vikings even though they controlled large parts of England – The Danelaw – from the 9th century, suggesting they conquered, kept largely to themselves, and then left. Only Orkney residents were found to have Viking DNA. “We found that 25 per cent of the DNA of someone living in Orkney is from Norse ancestry which suggests that when the Vikings arrived the intermingled with the local population rather than wiping them out,” added Prof Peter Donnelly. “Similarly the Saxons in Germany have contributed DNA to some of the English groups but not to some of the others. We can see not only the differences in the UK but the reasons for those differences in terms of population movements.” There is also little Roman DNA in the British genetic make-up. The research, which was also carried out by University College London and the Murdoch Children’s Research Institute in Australia, was published in the journal Nature. https://t.co/w6MrFLN3xa -- Steve Hayes Web: http://hayesgreene.wordpress.com/ http://hayesgreene.blogspot.com http://groups.yahoo.com/group/afgen/ --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus

On Fri, 23 Oct 2015 19:25:46 +0100, brightside S9 <address@replyto_is_not.invalid> wrote: >On Fri, 23 Oct 2015 11:28:10 +0100, johnfhhgen via ><genbrit@rootsweb.com> wrote: > >>On 22/10/2015 9:10 PM, brightside S9 via wrote: >>> I have been sent the following 1911 census page. >>> https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/61253607/1911%20FLORRIE%20MERCER.jpg >>> I have tried and tried to find the page by search on Ancestry. I can't >>> find it. It's driving me nuts! >>> Anyone care to find it by a search on Ancestry and give me a clue. >>> And please interpret the place of birth of Sarah Mercer >>> Thanks. >>I've had a look at Lancashire Towns and parishes on GENUKI but nothing >>obvious. >>Also a quick look at The New Lancashire Gazatteer here >>http://search.ancestry.co.uk/search/db.aspx?dbid=2105 >> >>but not time to search thoroughly. >> >>Searching Google on Lancashire Gazatteer produces a lot of hits. And it >>might also be worth searching on Lancashire place-names >> >>Also consider places across the border in neighbouring counties which >>may have once been in Lancashire. >> >>Note that 'Lancs' and the " marks have been added in a different hand, >>possibly the enumerator. >> >>FreeBMD has only one possible marriage of a Robert Mercer to a Sarah: >>Marriages Dec 1900 (>99%) >>------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>*Gimbert* *Sarah Ellen* *Warrington* >><javascript:golink("/cgi/districts.pl?r=104626098:6179&d=bmd_1443462789")> >> *8c* *259* <javascript:gopage(1900,4,2,'8c','259',0)> >><javascript:golink("/cgi/information.pl?r=104626098:6179&d=bmd_1443462789")> >>Scan available - click to view >><javascript:golink("/cgi/information.pl?scan=1&r=104626098:6179&d=bmd_1443462789")> >> >>Mercer Robert Warrington >><javascript:golink("/cgi/districts.pl?r=104665401:0560&d=bmd_1443462789")> >> 8c 259 <javascript:gopage(1900,4,2,'8c','259',0)> >><javascript:golink("/cgi/information.pl?r=104665401:0560&d=bmd_1443462789")> >>Scan available - click to view >><javascript:golink("/cgi/information.pl?scan=1&r=104665401:0560&d=bmd_1443462789")> >> >>*Sankey* *Caroline* ** *Warrington* >><javascript:golink("/cgi/districts.pl?r=104691595:4220&d=bmd_1443462789")> >> *8c* *259* <javascript:gopage(1900,4,2,'8c','259',0)> >><javascript:golink("/cgi/information.pl?r=104691595:4220&d=bmd_1443462789")> >>Scan available - click to view >><javascript:golink("/cgi/information.pl?scan=1&r=104691595:4220&d=bmd_1443462789")> >> >>Whitlow John Henry Warrington >><javascript:golink("/cgi/districts.pl?r=104718992:2843&d=bmd_1443462789")> >> 8c 259 <javascript:gopage(1900,4,2,'8c','259',0)> >> >> >>BUT, in 1901 Robert Mercer is a widower boarding in Preston. >>AND Lancashire BMD reveals that this Robert married Caroline Sankey :( >> >>However, Lancahire BMD reveals bith of these children in 1902, 1903, and >>1905 >>Surname Forename(s) Sub-District Registers At Mother's Maiden Name >> >>MERCER Florrie Trinity Preston TRAVIS >> >>MERCER William Henry East Preston Preston TRAVIS >> >> >> >>But, can find no trace of a marriage for Robert Mercer and Sarah Travis >>Regards >>John Henley >> >Thanks John. I doubt that you will find a marriage for Sarah Travis >and Robert Mercer. Depite his claim to be a widower in 1901 his wife >was alive and kicking, living with one of her married daughters and >giving marital status as married. > >She is still alive in 1911 living with another married daughter but >now giving marital status as widow, even though her hubby had been >living with a woman 35 years younger i.e Sarah Travis for 10 years of >"marriage". > >That still leaves me researching Sarah Travis. The only clue I have is >her age on 1911 census, and her birth place. That is why I asked my >original question and request for help. > >Even a search on Ancestry with her age +/- 2 doesn't bring up any >possibilities for a birth place that could be the one on the 1911 >census except Manchester (and the surrounding area which today is >called Greater Manchester, e.g Rochdale, Ashton, Oldham etc). The only >other clue from her greatgranson is that his father remembers her to >have an oriental look. Greatgrandson calls it "half Chinese". No >photos have been found. > This looks like her (1 of 2, see below) in 1901 ? :- Name: Sarah Travis Age: 22 Estimated birth year: abt 1879 Relation to Head: Servant Gender: Female Birth Place: Manchester, Lancashire, England Civil Parish: Preston Ecclesiastical parish: Christchurch Town: Preston County/Island: Lancashire Country: England Street address: [1 Jordan Street] Occupation: [Cook (domestic)] Condition as to marriage: [S] View image Registration district: Preston Sub-registration district: St John ED, institution, or vessel: 12 Neighbors: View others on page Piece: 3954 Folio: 133 Page Number: 56 Household schedule number: 288 Household Members: Name Age Henry Whitlock 75 Isabell S Whitlock 65 Florence Whitlock 24 Joseph Whitlock 22 Sarah Travis 22 Elizabeth Hood 20 William F Hoctor 47 BUT see also her doppelganger at 63 Corran Street, Harpurhey, Manchester [RG13 3776] In 1891 you have Sarah Ann TRAVIS, 14y, acholar at the Swinton Industrial School in Swinton; the younger one of two matches is Sarah TRAVIS, 12y, niece of Sarah Alice TRAVIS in Bolton In 1881 only one shows up as born in "Manchester" - the 3y old great-granddaughter of Esther Chapman at 1 Providence Place, Manchester. The other one might be Sarah Ann TRAVIS, 3y at 7 Worral Street, Newton Heath, Manchester, daughter of Philip TRAVIS and Hannah.

On 2015-10-22 20:47:33 +0000, brightside S9 said: > On Thu, 22 Oct 2015 21:43:24 +0100, "Steven Gibbs" > <stevenng5@sgibbs1.freeserve.co.uk> wrote: > >> "Ron Taylor" <roninmission@gmail.com> wrote in message >> news:n0bgpk$3r2$1@dont-email.me... >>> On 10/22/2015 1:10 PM, brightside S9 wrote: >>>> I have been sent the following 1911 census page. >>>> https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/61253607/1911%20FLORRIE%20MERCER.jpg >>>> >>>> I have tried and tried to find the page by search on Ancestry. I can't >>>> find it. It's driving me nuts! >> >> The family is indexed as Meneer. The piece number is 25256. The address 10 >> Ashworth Street, Preston. >> > Thanks, I tried dozens of combinations of the possible spelling of > MERCER, but not one. Grrrr. Sometimes trying a search term such as Me*er, combined with a first name, age and name of spouse etc will bring badly transcribed entries up. Though you often have to trawl through a long list it can pay off. -- Tickettyboo

On 2015-10-22 22:08:11 +0000, dougshaw@orange.fr said: > The principal source document appears to have been an out-of-print book > 'The History of the Wollaston Family' and I have been vainly searching > for a copy for several months.The author of this work, Henry Woods > Wollaston ex. Grenadier Guards, son of Sir Gerald Wollaston, Garter > King of Arms. Like his father he was educated at Harrow and Trinity > College, Cambridge. He won a travelling scholarship to Yale University > . . . . ." > > In view of the detail contained in the 'History' I suspect that the > father had been involved in compiling much of information. > > Apparently the Jacksons circulated a CD with the book and much > additional information within the Wollaston clan (at least to those who > were in contact through their site which appears to have been defunct > since about 2005). Finding a copy of this CD may also produce some gems. Thanks for the information. The book you refer to was consulted by a relative of mine (I haven't seen the book myself). Referring to it, he wrote: "History of the Wollaston Family by Mr. H. W. Wollaston. This was published privately in 1960. It was not unfortunately until I had written the first draft of my Note on the Wollastons that I became aware of this account of the family, and was able to obtain a copy from Mr. Wollaston. Although much of this most interesting and readable book deals with the members of the family in the 19th and 20th Centuries (with whom I am not really concerned), it has given me a certain amount of additional information on the probable history of the family in Staffordshire in the 14th and 15th Centuries, and on some members of the family thereafter, notably Thomas Wollaston (1587–1674), a number of whose letters have survived. Mr. Wollaston has been kind enough to let me read copies of these letters, which throw a most interesting light on the character of Thomas and his unfortunate wife." I agree with your impression that the Jackson site has become moribund, though it is still accessible. My relative died 15 or 20 years ago, so there is no question of asking him if he can lend me his copy. However, I'm in touch with one of his daughters, so maybe she can help. -- athel

I should be very grateful if you could contact your relative to see if she knows where one could borrow/buy a copy of the 'History'. My particular interest is the 19th century; Alexander Luard Wollaston & his wife, Susanna Charlotte Morris, their parents, siblings & children. With kind regards, Douglas Shaw

On 22/10/2015 9:10 PM, brightside S9 via wrote: > I have been sent the following 1911 census page. > https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/61253607/1911%20FLORRIE%20MERCER.jpg > I have tried and tried to find the page by search on Ancestry. I can't > find it. It's driving me nuts! > Anyone care to find it by a search on Ancestry and give me a clue. > And please interpret the place of birth of Sarah Mercer > Thanks. I've had a look at Lancashire Towns and parishes on GENUKI but nothing obvious. Also a quick look at The New Lancashire Gazatteer here http://search.ancestry.co.uk/search/db.aspx?dbid=2105 but not time to search thoroughly. Searching Google on Lancashire Gazatteer produces a lot of hits. And it might also be worth searching on Lancashire place-names Also consider places across the border in neighbouring counties which may have once been in Lancashire. Note that 'Lancs' and the " marks have been added in a different hand, possibly the enumerator. FreeBMD has only one possible marriage of a Robert Mercer to a Sarah: Marriages Dec 1900 (>99%) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ *Gimbert* *Sarah Ellen* *Warrington* <javascript:golink("/cgi/districts.pl?r=104626098:6179&d=bmd_1443462789")> *8c* *259* <javascript:gopage(1900,4,2,'8c','259',0)> <javascript:golink("/cgi/information.pl?r=104626098:6179&d=bmd_1443462789")> Scan available - click to view <javascript:golink("/cgi/information.pl?scan=1&r=104626098:6179&d=bmd_1443462789")> Mercer Robert Warrington <javascript:golink("/cgi/districts.pl?r=104665401:0560&d=bmd_1443462789")> 8c 259 <javascript:gopage(1900,4,2,'8c','259',0)> <javascript:golink("/cgi/information.pl?r=104665401:0560&d=bmd_1443462789")> Scan available - click to view <javascript:golink("/cgi/information.pl?scan=1&r=104665401:0560&d=bmd_1443462789")> *Sankey* *Caroline* ** *Warrington* <javascript:golink("/cgi/districts.pl?r=104691595:4220&d=bmd_1443462789")> *8c* *259* <javascript:gopage(1900,4,2,'8c','259',0)> <javascript:golink("/cgi/information.pl?r=104691595:4220&d=bmd_1443462789")> Scan available - click to view <javascript:golink("/cgi/information.pl?scan=1&r=104691595:4220&d=bmd_1443462789")> Whitlow John Henry Warrington <javascript:golink("/cgi/districts.pl?r=104718992:2843&d=bmd_1443462789")> 8c 259 <javascript:gopage(1900,4,2,'8c','259',0)> BUT, in 1901 Robert Mercer is a widower boarding in Preston. AND Lancashire BMD reveals that this Robert married Caroline Sankey :( However, Lancahire BMD reveals bith of these children in 1902, 1903, and 1905 Surname Forename(s) Sub-District Registers At Mother's Maiden Name MERCER Florrie Trinity Preston TRAVIS MERCER William Henry East Preston Preston TRAVIS But, can find no trace of a marriage for Robert Mercer and Sarah Travis Regards John Henley >

brightside S9 wrote: > I have been sent the following 1911 census page. > https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/61253607/1911%20FLORRIE%20MERCER.jpg > > I have tried and tried to find the page by search on Ancestry. I can't > find it. It's driving me nuts! > > Anyone care to find it by a search on Ancestry and give me a clue. > > And please interpret the place of birth of Sarah Mercer > > Thanks. > Just to complicate the issue - I see Robert Mercer married Sarah Ellen Gimbert in 1900 - she was born in 1878 in Staffordshire, (Wolstanton RD) according to FreeBMD -- Anne Chambers South Australia anne dot chambers at bigpond dot com

On 22-10-2015 23:10, Graeme Wall wrote: > On 22/10/2015 21:55, brightside S9 wrote: >> On Thu, 22 Oct 2015 21:44:58 +0100, brightside S9 >> <address@replyto_is_not.invalid> wrote: >> >>> On Thu, 22 Oct 2015 13:28:36 -0700, Ron Taylor >>> <roninmission@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> On 10/22/2015 1:10 PM, brightside S9 wrote: >>>>> I have been sent the following 1911 census page. >>>>> https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/61253607/1911%20FLORRIE%20MERCER.jpg >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I have tried and tried to find the page by search on Ancestry. I can't >>>>> find it. It's driving me nuts! >>>>> >>>>> Anyone care to find it by a search on Ancestry and give me a clue. >>>>> >>>>> And please interpret the place of birth of Sarah Mercer >>>>> >>>>> Thanks. >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Looks like Nuneaton to me >>>> >>> >>> Thanks, I thought that at first but then I noticed to the right of the >>> birth place there are inverted commas indicating ditto as the line >>> above which is the county of Lancs. If there is a Nuneaton in Lancs I >>> can't find it. Anyone know if there is? >> >> >> OK now Steven has found the page for me, Ancestry transcribes Sarah's >> birthplace as Muncester, I suppose it could be Manchester but looking >> at the image there is no riser for an 'h' in there. >> >> Any better offers, somewhere in Lancashire, eagerly awaited. 8-) >> > > There's a Muncaster in the Lake District. > Like this as interpretation. See also the second writing of Married where also an open a is used. -- Richard van Schaik f.m.a.vanschaikREMOVE@THISgmail.com http://www.fmavanschaik.nl/ The world is one big madhouse and this is main office.

On 22/10/15 21:55, brightside S9 wrote: > On Thu, 22 Oct 2015 21:44:58 +0100, brightside S9 > <address@replyto_is_not.invalid> wrote: > >> On Thu, 22 Oct 2015 13:28:36 -0700, Ron Taylor >> <roninmission@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> On 10/22/2015 1:10 PM, brightside S9 wrote: >>>> I have been sent the following 1911 census page. >>>> https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/61253607/1911%20FLORRIE%20MERCER.jpg >>>> >>>> I have tried and tried to find the page by search on Ancestry. I can't >>>> find it. It's driving me nuts! >>>> >>>> Anyone care to find it by a search on Ancestry and give me a clue. >>>> >>>> And please interpret the place of birth of Sarah Mercer >>>> >>>> Thanks. >>>> >>> >>> >>> Looks like Nuneaton to me >>> >> >> Thanks, I thought that at first but then I noticed to the right of the >> birth place there are inverted commas indicating ditto as the line >> above which is the county of Lancs. If there is a Nuneaton in Lancs I >> can't find it. Anyone know if there is? > > > OK now Steven has found the page for me, Ancestry transcribes Sarah's > birthplace as Muncester, I suppose it could be Manchester but looking > at the image there is no riser for an 'h' in there. > > Any better offers, somewhere in Lancashire, eagerly awaited. 8-) > Is it in Lancs? There are only 2 lots of dittos for the 3 lines of PoB below the father's so I think they're maybe carelessly written and belong to the Prestons for the children. In that case Muncaster, which is in Cumberland, would still fit & it certainly looks like Muncaster to me. -- Hotmail is my spam bin. Real address is ianng at austonley org uk

On 22/10/2015 21:10, brightside S9 wrote: > I have been sent the following 1911 census page. > https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/61253607/1911%20FLORRIE%20MERCER.jpg > > I have tried and tried to find the page by search on Ancestry. I can't > find it. It's driving me nuts! > > Anyone care to find it by a search on Ancestry and give me a clue. > > And please interpret the place of birth of Sarah Mercer That last request is a tricky one. Definitely don't think it's Nuneaton as someone else suggested - it certainly starts with an M. At first I thought Muncaster, but that was in Cumberland, not Lancashire. If, as seems most likely, she was the Sarah Ellen Gimbert who possibly married a Robert Mercer in Warrington in 1900, then she was born in Staffordshire and in the 1881 Census her birthplace is given as Kidsgrove. I think her husband tried to write Manchester in 1911 but missed out the h. Not all that near to Newton-in-Markerfield where she had lived before her marriage, but perhaps his knowledge of geography was sketchy. -- Jenny M Benson

On Thu, 22 Oct 2015 21:44:58 +0100, brightside S9 <address@replyto_is_not.invalid> wrote: >On Thu, 22 Oct 2015 13:28:36 -0700, Ron Taylor ><roninmission@gmail.com> wrote: > >>On 10/22/2015 1:10 PM, brightside S9 wrote: >>> I have been sent the following 1911 census page. >>> https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/61253607/1911%20FLORRIE%20MERCER.jpg >>> >>> I have tried and tried to find the page by search on Ancestry. I can't >>> find it. It's driving me nuts! >>> >>> Anyone care to find it by a search on Ancestry and give me a clue. >>> >>> And please interpret the place of birth of Sarah Mercer >>> >>> Thanks. >>> >> >> >>Looks like Nuneaton to me >> > >Thanks, I thought that at first but then I noticed to the right of the >birth place there are inverted commas indicating ditto as the line >above which is the county of Lancs. If there is a Nuneaton in Lancs I >can't find it. Anyone know if there is? > Nuneaton is in Warwickshire, I think that might actually be Manchester (missing the "h") but it could also be worth casting your eyes around both Mellor and Preston in case anything else nearby fits. There's a Robert MERCER (58y, widower, brewer) boarding in Preston in 1901 who likes like the same man.

On 22/10/2015 21:55, brightside S9 wrote: > On Thu, 22 Oct 2015 21:44:58 +0100, brightside S9 > <address@replyto_is_not.invalid> wrote: > >> On Thu, 22 Oct 2015 13:28:36 -0700, Ron Taylor >> <roninmission@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> On 10/22/2015 1:10 PM, brightside S9 wrote: >>>> I have been sent the following 1911 census page. >>>> https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/61253607/1911%20FLORRIE%20MERCER.jpg >>>> >>>> I have tried and tried to find the page by search on Ancestry. I can't >>>> find it. It's driving me nuts! >>>> >>>> Anyone care to find it by a search on Ancestry and give me a clue. >>>> >>>> And please interpret the place of birth of Sarah Mercer >>>> >>>> Thanks. >>>> >>> >>> >>> Looks like Nuneaton to me >>> >> >> Thanks, I thought that at first but then I noticed to the right of the >> birth place there are inverted commas indicating ditto as the line >> above which is the county of Lancs. If there is a Nuneaton in Lancs I >> can't find it. Anyone know if there is? > > > OK now Steven has found the page for me, Ancestry transcribes Sarah's > birthplace as Muncester, I suppose it could be Manchester but looking > at the image there is no riser for an 'h' in there. > > Any better offers, somewhere in Lancashire, eagerly awaited. 8-) > There's a Muncaster in the Lake District. -- Graeme Wall This account not read, substitute trains for rail.

In message <4fii2b13c1udmknjl326g7kqb173lpajkh@4ax.com>, brightside S9 <address@replyto_is_not.invalid> writes: >On Thu, 22 Oct 2015 13:28:36 -0700, Ron Taylor ><roninmission@gmail.com> wrote: > >>On 10/22/2015 1:10 PM, brightside S9 wrote: >>> I have been sent the following 1911 census page. >>> https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/61253607/1911%20FLORRIE%20MERCER.jpg >>> >>> I have tried and tried to find the page by search on Ancestry. I can't >>> find it. It's driving me nuts! >>> >>> Anyone care to find it by a search on Ancestry and give me a clue. >>> >>> And please interpret the place of birth of Sarah Mercer >>> >>> Thanks. >>> >> >> >>Looks like Nuneaton to me >> > >Thanks, I thought that at first but then I noticed to the right of the >birth place there are inverted commas indicating ditto as the line >above which is the county of Lancs. If there is a Nuneaton in Lancs I >can't find it. Anyone know if there is? > Unfortunately there aren't any capital Ns on the page, but to me it looks as if it starts with M - compare Married, and the various Mercers. Looks like Muneenden or -len to me, but I've no idea if any such exists. -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf Air conditioned environment - Do not open Windows.

On 22/10/2015 21:28, Ron Taylor wrote: > On 10/22/2015 1:10 PM, brightside S9 wrote: >> I have been sent the following 1911 census page. >> https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/61253607/1911%20FLORRIE%20MERCER.jpg >> >> I have tried and tried to find the page by search on Ancestry. I can't >> find it. It's driving me nuts! >> >> Anyone care to find it by a search on Ancestry and give me a clue. >> >> And please interpret the place of birth of Sarah Mercer >> >> Thanks. >> > > > Looks like Nuneaton to me > That's not in Lancashire, could be a miss-spelled Manc(h)ester. -- Graeme Wall This account not read, substitute trains for rail.

"Ron Taylor" <roninmission@gmail.com> wrote in message news:n0bgpk$3r2$1@dont-email.me... > On 10/22/2015 1:10 PM, brightside S9 wrote: >> I have been sent the following 1911 census page. >> https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/61253607/1911%20FLORRIE%20MERCER.jpg >> >> I have tried and tried to find the page by search on Ancestry. I can't >> find it. It's driving me nuts! The family is indexed as Meneer. The piece number is 25256. The address 10 Ashworth Street, Preston. --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. http://www.avast.com