"eve via" wrote in message news:[email protected] > > the > > burial/death record for James WARD, died 1788, St James Westminster. I > > placed it as Middlesex as it didn't show as Westminster. I already have > > his > > Will. > > The death record for his brother has not survived and James is my last > > hope > > in the search for their parents. > > You are unlikely to get any help from finding the burial entry for James. > In > 1788, you mostly get just the name of the person and date of burial. (not > even an age unless he was very old indeed fior the time). The will would > have been a better bet, since wills often mention brothers (and looking > for > two in a family is more productive than looking for one.) > However, if he held any copyhold property, track down the manorial > records, > since these may often show inheritance of land from a father (or uncle). > If > he > only acquired it by purchase, he was just being difficult. > EVE > Another approach is Apprentice Tax records. You don't say roughlu how old he was, but if he was in a trade and born after 1697 before c 1738, then he should have been apprenticed, and most apprentice entries pre 1752 will show the name of the father and usually his location. These records are on Ancestry. Select 'Probate and Tax', then 'Tax' and scroll right down to (something like) Register of Duties paid for Apprenticeship Indentures' Failing James, look for the brothers. EVE Author of The McLaughlin Guides for Family Historians Secretary, Bucks Genealogical Society Thanks to all for your input. I don't know James' age I can only work roughly from one brother being born 1730. James was a Cheesemonger in Clare Market, Westminster. I was trying to find if this was related to an apprenticeship or did he just own such a business. He paid land tax but I have not been able to find anything relating to him in Apprentices records. His Will only left moderate amounts to his family as well as the business. Brother William who lived at Lambeth was the one with money that is why I thought he might have been the eldest boy, he worked at the general post office as an Accountant and according to his Will another brother, John, was his pensioner. I am still trying to find parents common to all siblings, including sister Elizabeth but with such common names I've yet to meet with any success, more so as I don't know where the family lived. Regards Kate Sydney, Australia

> On 06/02/2015 14:28, hownhelcymru wrote: > > The date of 1540 for the will seems to be reasonable, given that the son appears to have been the rector in 1835. > > Thank you for the information re the usual citing of wills. > > > Pardon? There's close on 300 years difference. Even given that some clergy were long lived, this is going it. Doesn't even seem likely that the son of a man dying in 1540 would be alive in 1635 even, so is the missing figure 1535? EVE Author of The McLaughlin Guides for Family Historians Secretary, Bucks Genealogical Society

Tim Powys-Lybbe <[email protected]> wrote: > On 9 Feb at 1:45, Tickettyboo <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On 2015-02-07 00:08:33 +0000, Iain Archer said: >> >>> I've just seen this, which I presume will be welcome news, on the >>> SoG website: >>> >>> "The Society of Genealogists is delighted to announce that the >>> Government has accepted an amendment to the Deregulation Bill >>> currently going before the House of Lords that allows for the >>> publication of information from Birth, Marriage and Death >>> Certificates in England and Wales to be issued otherwise than in the >>> form of a certified copy ..." >>> > <http://www.sog.org.uk/news/article/gro-information-on-births-marriages-a >>> nd-death-doesnt-have-to-on-expensive-c/> >> >> At the moment certs cost £9.25. Bearing in mind that the cost of a >> will has risen recently from £6 to £10 and the justification, given to >> me after I complained to my MP about such a big price hike, was that >> £10 was the standard cost for any copy record, I am not holding out >> much hope for a reduction in cost. >> >> Add in the fact that a non certified copy would probably involve >> digitising the entire GRO database (a la Scotlands People) and the >> dire track record of Govt digitisation projects, I doubt I will live >> long enough to even bother about the pricing :-) >> >> and now I am off to my weekly meeting of Sceptics Anonymous! > > Don't blame you. > > This whole thing puts The National Archives into a very good light. > They have copied all the pre 1858 wills in PCC and deliver them to us > immediately instead of within 10 working days. Further they only charge > £3-30 apiece instead of £10. And they cover their full costs. > > The MP who justified the tenner needs bringing down to earth, sharply. Oh he passed the question to the govt dept (court services or something - I'm not at home so can't check) . My original complaint was about ww1 soldiers wills. I still find it distasteful that the last testament of a generation of young men was used as a means to subsidise govt overspendimg on courts.

On 9 Feb at 1:45, Tickettyboo <[email protected]> wrote: > On 2015-02-07 00:08:33 +0000, Iain Archer said: > > > I've just seen this, which I presume will be welcome news, on the > > SoG website: > > > > "The Society of Genealogists is delighted to announce that the > > Government has accepted an amendment to the Deregulation Bill > > currently going before the House of Lords that allows for the > > publication of information from Birth, Marriage and Death > > Certificates in England and Wales to be issued otherwise than in the > > form of a certified copy ..." > > <http://www.sog.org.uk/news/article/gro-information-on-births-marriages-a > > nd-death-doesnt-have-to-on-expensive-c/> > > At the moment certs cost £9.25. Bearing in mind that the cost of a > will has risen recently from £6 to £10 and the justification, given to > me after I complained to my MP about such a big price hike, was that > £10 was the standard cost for any copy record, I am not holding out > much hope for a reduction in cost. > > Add in the fact that a non certified copy would probably involve > digitising the entire GRO database (a la Scotlands People) and the > dire track record of Govt digitisation projects, I doubt I will live > long enough to even bother about the pricing :-) > > and now I am off to my weekly meeting of Sceptics Anonymous! Don't blame you. This whole thing puts The National Archives into a very good light. They have copied all the pre 1858 wills in PCC and deliver them to us immediately instead of within 10 working days. Further they only charge £3-30 apiece instead of £10. And they cover their full costs. The MP who justified the tenner needs bringing down to earth, sharply. -- Tim Powys-Lybbe [email protected] for a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org/

On 05/02/2015 01:19, [email protected] wrote: > Alfred James Healey and Halliday (nickname) 'Razorslasher' who escaped Dartmoor prison in the mid 1900's I have looked everywhere but the records can anyone help? or anything on Alfred James Healey. thankyou > http://search.lma.gov.uk/LMA_DOC/ACC_3444.PDF LONDON METROPOLITAN ARCHIVES WANDSWORTH, HM PRISON ACC/3444 Page 43 Reference Description Dates ACC/3444/PD/01/0468 not available for general access Halliday, John Thomas 1 file 1959

On 30/01/2015 20:18, Richard Smith wrote: > Is anyone here an expert on WWI military uniforms? If so, could they > take a quick glance at this photograph? > > http://www.wikitree.com/photo/png/Smith-76395 > > It's of my great uncle, aged about 17 and wearing what seems to be an > WWI-era British army tunic. In later life, however, he claimed to be in > the RAF during WWI. His name (George Smith) makes it too difficult to > verify this in the historical record, but I was hoping someone might be > able to tell me whether it's an RAF or an army tunic. > > Richard Lance corporal stripe on the arm? Couldn't find anything identical using google images (eg nothing with the same combination of the collar and pointed flaps on the pockets). Some American and Canadian uniforms came close but also had big buttons on the collar.

On Sun, 8 Feb 2015 20:45:03 -0500, Tickettyboo <[email protected]> wrote: >On 2015-02-07 00:08:33 +0000, Iain Archer said: > >> I've just seen this, which I presume will be welcome news, on the SoG website: >> >> "The Society of Genealogists is delighted to announce that the >> Government has accepted an amendment to the Deregulation Bill currently >> going before the House of Lords that allows for the publication of >> information from Birth, Marriage and Death Certificates in England and >> Wales to be issued otherwise than in the form of a certified copy ..." >> <http://www.sog.org.uk/news/article/gro-information-on-births-marriages-a >> nd-death-doesnt-have-to-on-expensive-c/> > >At the moment certs cost £9.25. >Bearing in mind that the cost of a will has risen recently from £6 to >£10 and the justification, given to me after I complained to my MP >about such a big price hike, was that £10 was the standard cost for any >copy record, I am not holding out much hope for a reduction in cost. > >Add in the fact that a non certified copy would probably involve >digitising the entire GRO database > Wasn't that already done (at least partly) as part of the failed DOVE project ? >(a la Scotlands People) and the dire >track record of Govt digitisation projects, I doubt I will live long >enough to even bother about the pricing :-) > >and now I am off to my weekly meeting of Sceptics Anonymous!

In message <[email protected]>, Jon Green <[email protected]> writes: >On 07/02/2015 00:08, Iain Archer wrote: >> I've just seen this, which I presume will be welcome news, on the SoG >> website: >> >> "The Society of Genealogists is delighted to announce that the >> Government has accepted an amendment to the Deregulation Bill currently >> going before the House of Lords that allows for the publication of >> information from Birth, Marriage and Death Certificates in England and >> Wales to be issued otherwise than in the form of a certified copy ..." >> >><http://www.sog.org.uk/news/article/gro-information-on-births-marriages >>-and-death-doesnt-have-to-on-expensive-c/> > >YES!!! But, as others have said, let's see how this plays with the >upcoming election. > >Jon Also, I note the following: (4) The provision that may be made in the regulations includes provision for a record to be provided in a form that does not include all of the information contained in an entry. ... which I hope is _not_ implemented: other than money-raising (i. e. blackmail to get the full record), I can see no possible reason to exclude any of the information. (If the reason - the only one I can think of - is something to do with the privacy of living persons, then this should have been made clear, which it certainly isn't - to me at least - in the Hansard record in the above.) -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)[email protected]+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf Rugby is a game played by gentlemen with odd-shaped balls.

On 2015-02-07 00:08:33 +0000, Iain Archer said: > I've just seen this, which I presume will be welcome news, on the SoG website: > > "The Society of Genealogists is delighted to announce that the > Government has accepted an amendment to the Deregulation Bill currently > going before the House of Lords that allows for the publication of > information from Birth, Marriage and Death Certificates in England and > Wales to be issued otherwise than in the form of a certified copy ..." > <http://www.sog.org.uk/news/article/gro-information-on-births-marriages-a > nd-death-doesnt-have-to-on-expensive-c/> At the moment certs cost £9.25. Bearing in mind that the cost of a will has risen recently from £6 to £10 and the justification, given to me after I complained to my MP about such a big price hike, was that £10 was the standard cost for any copy record, I am not holding out much hope for a reduction in cost. Add in the fact that a non certified copy would probably involve digitising the entire GRO database (a la Scotlands People) and the dire track record of Govt digitisation projects, I doubt I will live long enough to even bother about the pricing :-) and now I am off to my weekly meeting of Sceptics Anonymous! -- Tickettyboo

In message <[email protected]>, Charles Ellson <[email protected]> writes: >On Sat, 7 Feb 2015 12:42:36 +0000, "J. P. Gilliver (John)" ><[email protected]> wrote: [] >>One thing that _has_ always struck me as requiring some input is the >>frustration between the marriage _indexes_ and the actual certificates - >>that is improving due to the sterling work done by FreeBMD and even, to >>a lesser extent, FMP and I think now even Ancestry - but it still >>frustrates (me at least) not knowing who married who without the >>certificate. >> >For pre-1912 marriages there is an increasing amount of further >indexing by Familysearch/LDS and <county>BMD groups which will give >you that information and sometimes more. Pairing of spouses can often >be done by looking for the possible combinations of names in following >censuses which in most cases works as long as all the brides have >different names. I did acknowledge the work being done by others ... > >>(You'd have thought they could have been at least entering >>that information into something when someone does buy a certificate; I >>don't know what percentage of the whole that would represent, but it >>can't be zero - but I've seen no indication it is even occurring.) ... but I still think the GRO themselves should be improving the situation. -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)[email protected]+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf After I'm dead I'd rather have people ask why I have no monument than why I have one. -Cato the Elder, statesman, soldier, and writer (234-149 BCE)

On 07/02/2015 00:08, Iain Archer wrote: > I've just seen this, which I presume will be welcome news, on the SoG > website: > > "The Society of Genealogists is delighted to announce that the > Government has accepted an amendment to the Deregulation Bill currently > going before the House of Lords that allows for the publication of > information from Birth, Marriage and Death Certificates in England and > Wales to be issued otherwise than in the form of a certified copy ..." > <http://www.sog.org.uk/news/article/gro-information-on-births-marriages-and-death-doesnt-have-to-on-expensive-c/> YES!!! But, as others have said, let's see how this plays with the upcoming election. Jon -- Maintainer, soc.genealogy.britain FAQs: www.genealogy-britain.org.uk *** WATCH OUT FOR THE SPAM BLOCK! *** Replace 'deadspam' with 'green-lines' to reply in email!

On Sat, 7 Feb 2015 12:42:36 +0000, "J. P. Gilliver (John)" <[email protected]> wrote: >In message <[email protected]>, Tim Powys-Lybbe ><[email protected]> writes: >>On 7 Feb at 0:08, Iain Archer <[email protected]> wrote: >[] >>> currently going before the House of Lords that allows for the >>> publication of information from Birth, Marriage and Death Certificates >>> in England and Wales to be issued otherwise than in the form of a >>> certified copy ..." >>> >><http://www.sog.org.uk/news/article/gro-information-on-births-marriages- >>and-death-doesnt-have-to-on-expensive-c/> >> >> >>What excellent news and many thanks for passing it on. >> >>I wonder how long it will be before the Minister will have made the > >[As another has said, it seems all too likely it'll get lost in the >election kerfuffle. )-:] > >>necessaery regulations and obtained the needed funds to provide this >>income-producing resource? >> >According to what I've read in the LostCousins newsletter (and possibly >elsewhere), not producing the official certified paper copy will only >shave twentysomething pence off the tenner or so cost of doing the >necessary work, so I doubt it would actually be an income-producing >resource. >> Ireland manages it for 4 EUR so the supposed GRO cost probably doesn't bear much resemblance to reality. >There is always the question of quite _why_ it costs so much in the >first place; it is highly tempting to think that, being a monopoly >supplier, they have no incentive to improve the efficiency of their >processes. While certainly feeling that that _is_ the case, I keep an >open (well, ajar) mind as to whether there might be genuine reasons it >costs so much. > All the current stuff probably unnecessarily (for older records) undergoes the same degree of physical and other checking once you get past the ordering process on the GRO website so if nothing else there ought to be a saving in time by producing a simple photocopy. >If it _can_ be done a _lot_ cheaper, it might still not be an >income-producing resource: it depends whether the reduction in cost >would produce an increase in volume. (Certainly LostCousins have pointed >out that the reverse is not the case: recent _rises_ in the costs of >certificates have not resulted in an increase in revenue, because the >_numbers_ fell off by a higher percentage. Though whether this is due >purely to the price rises, or the recession in general, is probably not >knowable.) > >One thing that _has_ always struck me as requiring some input is the >frustration between the marriage _indexes_ and the actual certificates - >that is improving due to the sterling work done by FreeBMD and even, to >a lesser extent, FMP and I think now even Ancestry - but it still >frustrates (me at least) not knowing who married who without the >certificate. > For pre-1912 marriages there is an increasing amount of further indexing by Familysearch/LDS and <county>BMD groups which will give you that information and sometimes more. Pairing of spouses can often be done by looking for the possible combinations of names in following censuses which in most cases works as long as all the brides have different names. >(You'd have thought they could have been at least entering >that information into something when someone does buy a certificate; I >don't know what percentage of the whole that would represent, but it >can't be zero - but I've seen no indication it is even occurring.)

In message <[email protected]>, Tim Powys-Lybbe <[email protected]> writes: >On 7 Feb at 0:08, Iain Archer <[email protected]> wrote: [] >> currently going before the House of Lords that allows for the >> publication of information from Birth, Marriage and Death Certificates >> in England and Wales to be issued otherwise than in the form of a >> certified copy ..." >> ><http://www.sog.org.uk/news/article/gro-information-on-births-marriages- >and-death-doesnt-have-to-on-expensive-c/> > > >What excellent news and many thanks for passing it on. > >I wonder how long it will be before the Minister will have made the [As another has said, it seems all too likely it'll get lost in the election kerfuffle. )-:] >necessaery regulations and obtained the needed funds to provide this >income-producing resource? > According to what I've read in the LostCousins newsletter (and possibly elsewhere), not producing the official certified paper copy will only shave twentysomething pence off the tenner or so cost of doing the necessary work, so I doubt it would actually be an income-producing resource. > There is always the question of quite _why_ it costs so much in the first place; it is highly tempting to think that, being a monopoly supplier, they have no incentive to improve the efficiency of their processes. While certainly feeling that that _is_ the case, I keep an open (well, ajar) mind as to whether there might be genuine reasons it costs so much. If it _can_ be done a _lot_ cheaper, it might still not be an income-producing resource: it depends whether the reduction in cost would produce an increase in volume. (Certainly LostCousins have pointed out that the reverse is not the case: recent _rises_ in the costs of certificates have not resulted in an increase in revenue, because the _numbers_ fell off by a higher percentage. Though whether this is due purely to the price rises, or the recession in general, is probably not knowable.) One thing that _has_ always struck me as requiring some input is the frustration between the marriage _indexes_ and the actual certificates - that is improving due to the sterling work done by FreeBMD and even, to a lesser extent, FMP and I think now even Ancestry - but it still frustrates (me at least) not knowing who married who without the certificate. (You'd have thought they could have been at least entering that information into something when someone does buy a certificate; I don't know what percentage of the whole that would represent, but it can't be zero - but I've seen no indication it is even occurring.) -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)[email protected]+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf "Where's Piglet?" asked Pooh, as he munched a pork pie.

On 07/02/2015 09:31, Gordon wrote: > Good news but as this is an election year there could be a risk of it > becoming "unfinished business" and would the next government continue > with it, especially if it changes? Also, if "they" see it as a cashcow > it could end up just as expensive as a full certificate. Only time will > tell or am I being cynical!!! > > Gordon > > > "Iain Archer" wrote in message news:[email protected] > > I've just seen this, which I presume will be welcome news, on the SoG > website: > > "The Society of Genealogists is delighted to announce that the > Government has accepted an amendment to the Deregulation Bill currently > going before the House of Lords that allows for the publication of > information from Birth, Marriage and Death Certificates in England and > Wales to be issued otherwise than in the form of a certified copy ..." > <http://www.sog.org.uk/news/article/gro-information-on-births-marriages-a > nd-death-doesnt-have-to-on-expensive-c/> In considering possible ways forward, if this ever comes to pass, can I recommend the example of the Queensland Government historical BMD service. Although the certificates themselves are ruinously expensive the free search gives the parents' names in full which is a great help in resolving ambiguities without buying a lot of unwanted certificates. Although I appreciate that they are dealing with much smaller databases the Irish or Scottish model of providing downloadable photocopies relatively cheaply would also be welcome. David

Good news but as this is an election year there could be a risk of it becoming "unfinished business" and would the next government continue with it, especially if it changes? Also, if "they" see it as a cashcow it could end up just as expensive as a full certificate. Only time will tell or am I being cynical!!! Gordon "Iain Archer" wrote in message news:[email protected] I've just seen this, which I presume will be welcome news, on the SoG website: "The Society of Genealogists is delighted to announce that the Government has accepted an amendment to the Deregulation Bill currently going before the House of Lords that allows for the publication of information from Birth, Marriage and Death Certificates in England and Wales to be issued otherwise than in the form of a certified copy ..." <http://www.sog.org.uk/news/article/gro-information-on-births-marriages-a nd-death-doesnt-have-to-on-expensive-c/> -- Iain Archer

Sorry, that's my dyslexia - 1538

On 7 Feb at 0:08, Iain Archer <[email protected]> wrote: > I've just seen this, which I presume will be welcome news, on the SoG > website: > > "The Society of Genealogists is delighted to announce that the > Government has accepted an amendment to the Deregulation Bill > currently going before the House of Lords that allows for the > publication of information from Birth, Marriage and Death Certificates > in England and Wales to be issued otherwise than in the form of a > certified copy ..." > <http://www.sog.org.uk/news/article/gro-information-on-births-marriages-and-death-doesnt-have-to-on-expensive-c/> What excellent news and many thanks for passing it on. I wonder how long it will be before the Minister will have made the necessaery regulations and obtained the needed funds to provide this income-producing resource? -- Tim Powys-Lybbe [email protected] for a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org/

I've just seen this, which I presume will be welcome news, on the SoG website: "The Society of Genealogists is delighted to announce that the Government has accepted an amendment to the Deregulation Bill currently going before the House of Lords that allows for the publication of information from Birth, Marriage and Death Certificates in England and Wales to be issued otherwise than in the form of a certified copy ..." <http://www.sog.org.uk/news/article/gro-information-on-births-marriages-a nd-death-doesnt-have-to-on-expensive-c/> -- Iain Archer

On 04/02/15 23:46, Kate wrote: > I was hoping a burial record might have stated "son of...". Burial registers at that time do sometimes give such detail, but it's the exception rather than the rule. In Hampshire that year 12% of burials give an age, and 5% give a relation ("son of", "daughter of", "child of", "wife of" or "widow of"). Richard

On 06/02/15 12:59, eve via wrote: > My sons had an infant teacher named Miss Missen (presumably same stock) > and one day, they came home and reported that she was going to marry a > millionaire and live in Africa. And she duly left with the Rev. Mr X to convert > the little children. So, from Missen to mission? -- Ian The Hotmail address is my spam-bin. Real mail address is iang at austonley org uk