"Daniel Morgan" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected] >A friend has discovered an ancestor who came from Northamptonshire, born >circa 1620. This is a new county for both of us. Are Northamptonshire >parish registers online anywhere? Northamptonshire is one of the counties where a lot of effort has been put into FreeReg ( http://www.freereg.org.uk/ ), partly because the registers were never allowed to be filmed by the LDS. Also there's a lot on Alan Clark's website ( http://www.familyhistorynorthants.co.uk/ ) which might be interest. Steven --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. http://www.avast.com

A-HA! I actually got a response to a Wills Feedback suggestion. It was probably automated, but at least someone programmed in a response! Now, do I really want to spend £10 to get great uncle Boffo's will, or second cousin Emma's. I think the decider will be how much they left and who distributed it! I surrendered once and spent £40, but it was a 10 page will and covered the distribution of £12K in 1911. Happy New Year, and good health to all. [email protected]

A friend has discovered an ancestor who came from Northamptonshire, born circa 1620. This is a new county for both of us. Are Northamptonshire parish registers online anywhere?

A Jones <[email protected]> wrote on Fri, 11 May 2012 at 20:26:37: > >"Tony Proctor" <.net> wrote in message >news:[email protected] > >> When it was launched, there was a lot of talk about the very inaccurate >> transcriptions. However, has anyone confirmed whether that's just an >> obfuscation of the short transcription summary it presents in the search >> results? > >There are no "transcriptions" as such - merely OCR [Optical Character >Recognition] text running in the background and struggling with the >inevitable problems posed by the nature of the original materials, which can >pose particular difficulties. There is provision for users themselves to >make instant corrections to the OCR text whilst they work. The more people >who avail themselves of this opportunity, the better it will be for >everyone. > >> It seems to find most surnames I've looked for, but the context around it >> in the few lines that the search-results hold are usually junk. I wondered >> if that was simply to avoid people getting too much of an answer for free. > >No, I don't suppose that to be the case. > >I certainly wouldn't say that I'd been disappointed with my subscription - I >simply accept that the available tools have their limitations, and that they >need to be used thoughtfully, carefully and methodically in order to get the >most out of the facility. In most cases it's still a lot more practical >than having to travel to the appropriate repositories, or having to make do >without any kind of index at all. > Their current offer -- they seem to occur moderately frequently -- is a year's subscription for half price, ie £39.98. It's open until 23.59 on Sunday 4 January. I've seen two promotion codes: 50XMAS and XMASDEAL. http://www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/ -- Iain Archer

On Tue, 30 Dec 2014 13:47:50 -0000, "Gordon" <[email protected]> wrote: >BT will only show phone numbers of BT customers. > Incorrect. BT has to show the number of any other company's customer supplied to them for insertion into the directory :- "The Phone Book online uses source data from a core database to which all licensed Telecommunications Operators and Service Providers submit their customer's directory data." [http://www.thephonebook.bt.com/publisha.content/en/search/business_by_type/help.publisha] >The family may have their >landline phone supplied by another phone company. Also they may have chosen >to have their number withheld which means that it will not be given out by >phone directories etc, only by the family. > >In the UK several broadband providers give combined phone and broadband and >as most families now have broadband they may still have a landline phone. >More people are going over to mobile phones as we call them in the UK and >most young people tend to use social media to contact each other. You could >try social media to find the family concerned. > >Gorleston comes under Great Yarmouth for the area code (I think that is what >you call it in the US). > >Good hunting > >Gordon > >"Susan" wrote in message >news:[email protected] > >Did the BT thing. Came up with Gorleston, Greater Yarmouth. Either the >family moved or their phone is unlisted or like most families in the U.S., >they only have a cell phone. Sigh, Genealogy is getting harder now. > >Susan >There's more to NY than NYC.

BT will only show phone numbers of BT customers. The family may have their landline phone supplied by another phone company. Also they may have chosen to have their number withheld which means that it will not be given out by phone directories etc, only by the family. In the UK several broadband providers give combined phone and broadband and as most families now have broadband they may still have a landline phone. More people are going over to mobile phones as we call them in the UK and most young people tend to use social media to contact each other. You could try social media to find the family concerned. Gorleston comes under Great Yarmouth for the area code (I think that is what you call it in the US). Good hunting Gordon "Susan" wrote in message news:[email protected] Did the BT thing. Came up with Gorleston, Greater Yarmouth. Either the family moved or their phone is unlisted or like most families in the U.S., they only have a cell phone. Sigh, Genealogy is getting harder now. Susan There's more to NY than NYC.

On Monday, December 29, 2014 11:33:20 AM UTC-5, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote: > In message <[email protected]>, Geoff Pearson > <[email protected]> writes: > > > >"cecilia" <[email protected]> wrote in message > >news:[email protected] > >> "Gordon" <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > >>>Yes, the "on Sea" bit tends to get dropped by us "locals" when > >>>talking about > >>>Gorleston. This happens a lot in the UK where there is a name something > >>>on/by etc it is not uncommon to find that the first part of the name > >>>is what > >>>people tend to use as opposed to the full name because locally everyone > >>>knows what you are talking about.[...] > > Which _can_ cause confusion, especially when there are several > widely-separated places with the name, all of which are moderately > sizeable: Newcastle, for example, is taken by most to mean -upon-Tyne, > the capital of Geordieland (and where I'm typing this), but a > sufficiently large proportion think of -under-Lyme, and the one in > Northern Ireland is selected by some mapping softwares (if you plot a > route and it starts taking you up through north Wales, ...!). [There are > several other Newcastles too - not surprising really. (I've never > actually visited the castle! I must sometime.)] > >> > >> It's usually when everyone else drops the "on sea" etc and the locals > >> use it that I get confused, as in Boulogne-sur-Mer.. > >> > >> For the UK, I find the BT telephone directory helpful - put in a > >> place-name, and it may well offer possibilities. > > That's (some way down on the right on) bt.com, if anyone's wondering > where to find it. > >> > >> E,g, > >> > >> "Wells" asks for a choice between > >> > >> 1. WELLS { - SOMERSET} > >> 2. WELLS GREEN { Crewe - CHESHIRE} > >> 3. WELLS NEXT THE SEA { - NORFOLK} > > > >And no one talks about Kingston-upon- Hull, or do they? > > For the benefit of foreigners: that one's a trick question: the place is > more or less universally known as Hull. (If you say Kingston, people > assume the one on Thames - though that is usually given in full.) I > suspect most even Brits, from outside the area anyway, don't even know > Hull is a river. (Except in the telecommunications industry: when all of > England - possibly Britain - got its telephone service from the GPO > [general post office], later BT, Hull was the exception, and got them > from Kingston Communications; distinguished by having green telephone > boxes, when the rest of the country [and places further afield like the > Falkland Islands!] had red ones. [Sadly, you'll have a job to find a > 'phone box of any colour these days, at least one that hasn't been > retired and turned into a village noticeboard/flowerbox.]) > -- > J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)[email protected]+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf > > "Dook, that was great but I think the line needs > awe. Can you do it again, giving it just a little awe?" > > "Sure, George," said Wayne and looking up at the cross said: > "Aw, truly this man is the son of God." > (recounted in Radio Times, 30 March-5 April 2013.) Did the BT thing. Came up with Gorleston, Greater Yarmouth. Either the family moved or their phone is unlisted or like most families in the U.S., they only have a cell phone. Sigh, Genealogy is getting harder now. Susan There's more to NY than NYC.

On 29/12/14 21:24, Richard Smith wrote: %>< > You can't unless you have whatever lookup > table The National Archives uses internally. Obviously that's fine if > you use The National Archives' website (and pay £3.30 to view it), but > what if you use another provider like Ancestry.com? If they haven't > transcribed the name well enough to find it %>< > > Obviously moaning here isn't going to change how The National Archive > index their wills, but perhaps I can draw attention to the fact that > simply citing PROB 11/308/246 is pretty unsatisfactory, even if > accompanied by the testator's name, David Urry. (For this particular > will, I've submitted a correction to Ancestry's transcription so > hopefully it will now turn up in a search.) Where at all possible, also > include the page or quire number, or better, both. Why not write to them telling them the sort of information available to you (I haven't Ancestry here so I don't know what they provide you with) and asking them how, starting from that, and using their online site only, they would go about finding the correct will? Because you and I both know that unless a developer has a good understanding of the user's point of view there's a good chance that the resulting application will be cutter rap. If they're put in the position of thinking about the problem from the user's point of view they may be able to use that lookup table to translate what you've got into what you need. My view is that the best way to test a program or web site would be a team of three, one of the developers, a user who is reasonably knowledgeable about the domain the application covers and an invigilator. The user has a set of tasks to be accomplished. The user is only allowed to ask and the developer to answer questions of the form "Where does it tell me...?". The nominal role of the invigilator is to enforce that rule. The real role is to stop the other two coming to blows. -- Ian The Hotmail address is my spam-bin. Real mail address is iang at austonley org uk

On 29/12/14 15:59, Ian Goddard wrote: > On 29/12/14 15:10, Richard Smith wrote: >> Can anyone explain what the last number in a reference like PROB >> 11/308/246 actually means? I know that "PROB 11" denotes PCC will >> registers, and 308 is the piece number, in this case the volume >> containing quires 53-107 of register "Laud" (1662). I had assumed 246 >> was a quire number, a page number, or the entry number, but I don't >> think it can be. Starting at the first page of volume PROB 11/308, the >> first ten wills are: >> >> Richard Norton [PROB 11/308/6] >> Elizabeth Nevill [PROB 11/308/50] >> John Ormesby [PROB 11/308/12] >> John Oxlard [PROB 11/308/22] >> John Orisby [PROB 11/308/3] >> John Olive [PROB 11/308/41] >> Dorothy Old [PROB 11/308/15] >> Hugh Potter [PROB 11/308/43] >> Anne Porter [PROB 11/308/4] >> Mary Palmer [PROB 11/308/31] >> >> I can see no logic in the the numbering at all! > > Chronological order in which they were handled by the probate office? Yes, checking the probate date on those wills, that seems to be the case. But it's a crazy way of doing it. How do you go about finding a will using that number? That's not the order they appear in the original registers of wills. You can't unless you have whatever lookup table The National Archives uses internally. Obviously that's fine if you use The National Archives' website (and pay £3.30 to view it), but what if you use another provider like Ancestry.com? If they haven't transcribed the name well enough to find it (or at least the similarly enough to The National Archives), your only option is to page through the volume. The same would be true if you had physical access to the actual bound volume. It's generally accepted good practice when citing a source to use something like a page number rather than an opaque reference number. The National Archives even say this on their own website. "A brief citation usually contains the following information: [...] the internal identifier: details of the folio, page, docket, membrane or other number within the piece." So why do they not follow their own advice when it comes to PCC wills. The folio number is stamped on each recto side, and quire numbers are written on every 8th folio. That makes them both easy to use. If we applied The National Archives' own guidance, the correct way of citing PROB 11/308/246 would be PROB 11/308, f156 r. But The National Archives catalogue provides no way of discovering the folio or page number short of purchasing the will. And by not showing quire numbers, The National Archives make it impossible to look up wills using the citation style prevalent in the 19th or early 20th century. An author a hundred years ago would have cited PROB 11/308/246 as "P.C.C. 73 Laud", where 73 is the quire number and Laud the name used for the year, 1662. Not quite as easy to use as the page number as you might need to look over up to eight pages to find the will when sat in front of the volume (or viewing it on Ancestry.com), but impossible to look up on The National Archives catalogue. Finally, I note that if you actually buy the image of a will from The National Archives website, nowhere on the file you receive does it include the will number (in probate order). Instead it says PROB 11/308, image number 607, though it does have the page number 156 visible on the first side. Obviously moaning here isn't going to change how The National Archive index their wills, but perhaps I can draw attention to the fact that simply citing PROB 11/308/246 is pretty unsatisfactory, even if accompanied by the testator's name, David Urry. (For this particular will, I've submitted a correction to Ancestry's transcription so hopefully it will now turn up in a search.) Where at all possible, also include the page or quire number, or better, both. Richard

In message <[email protected]>, Geoff Pearson <[email protected]> writes: > >"cecilia" <[email protected]> wrote in message >news:[email protected] >> "Gordon" <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>>Yes, the "on Sea" bit tends to get dropped by us "locals" when >>>talking about >>>Gorleston. This happens a lot in the UK where there is a name something >>>on/by etc it is not uncommon to find that the first part of the name >>>is what >>>people tend to use as opposed to the full name because locally everyone >>>knows what you are talking about.[...] Which _can_ cause confusion, especially when there are several widely-separated places with the name, all of which are moderately sizeable: Newcastle, for example, is taken by most to mean -upon-Tyne, the capital of Geordieland (and where I'm typing this), but a sufficiently large proportion think of -under-Lyme, and the one in Northern Ireland is selected by some mapping softwares (if you plot a route and it starts taking you up through north Wales, ...!). [There are several other Newcastles too - not surprising really. (I've never actually visited the castle! I must sometime.)] >> >> It's usually when everyone else drops the "on sea" etc and the locals >> use it that I get confused, as in Boulogne-sur-Mer.. >> >> For the UK, I find the BT telephone directory helpful - put in a >> place-name, and it may well offer possibilities. That's (some way down on the right on) bt.com, if anyone's wondering where to find it. >> >> E,g, >> >> "Wells" asks for a choice between >> >> 1. WELLS { - SOMERSET} >> 2. WELLS GREEN { Crewe - CHESHIRE} >> 3. WELLS NEXT THE SEA { - NORFOLK} > >And no one talks about Kingston-upon- Hull, or do they? For the benefit of foreigners: that one's a trick question: the place is more or less universally known as Hull. (If you say Kingston, people assume the one on Thames - though that is usually given in full.) I suspect most even Brits, from outside the area anyway, don't even know Hull is a river. (Except in the telecommunications industry: when all of England - possibly Britain - got its telephone service from the GPO [general post office], later BT, Hull was the exception, and got them from Kingston Communications; distinguished by having green telephone boxes, when the rest of the country [and places further afield like the Falkland Islands!] had red ones. [Sadly, you'll have a job to find a 'phone box of any colour these days, at least one that hasn't been retired and turned into a village noticeboard/flowerbox.]) -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)[email protected]+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf "Dook, that was great but I think the line needs awe. Can you do it again, giving it just a little awe?" "Sure, George," said Wayne and looking up at the cross said: "Aw, truly this man is the son of God." (recounted in Radio Times, 30 March-5 April 2013.)

On 29/12/14 15:58, Peter Goodey wrote: > Are they not in date order? And it's explained in the catalogue "Referencing: In 2012, as part of transferring digitised records to The National Archives' new Discovery catalogue, the items throughout the series were temporarily numbered using the image numbers. In March 2013, in order to resolve the duplication of image numbers and other anomalies, these items were referenced starting chronologically at number one within each piece."

On 29/12/14 15:10, Richard Smith wrote: > Can anyone explain what the last number in a reference like PROB > 11/308/246 actually means? I know that "PROB 11" denotes PCC will > registers, and 308 is the piece number, in this case the volume > containing quires 53-107 of register "Laud" (1662). I had assumed 246 > was a quire number, a page number, or the entry number, but I don't > think it can be. Starting at the first page of volume PROB 11/308, the > first ten wills are: > > Richard Norton [PROB 11/308/6] > Elizabeth Nevill [PROB 11/308/50] > John Ormesby [PROB 11/308/12] > John Oxlard [PROB 11/308/22] > John Orisby [PROB 11/308/3] > John Olive [PROB 11/308/41] > Dorothy Old [PROB 11/308/15] > Hugh Potter [PROB 11/308/43] > Anne Porter [PROB 11/308/4] > Mary Palmer [PROB 11/308/31] > > I can see no logic in the the numbering at all! Chronological order in which they were handled by the probate office? -- Ian The Hotmail address is my spam-bin. Real mail address is iang at austonley org uk

On 29/12/14 15:10, Richard Smith wrote: > > I can see no logic in the the numbering at all! Are they not in date order?

Can anyone explain what the last number in a reference like PROB 11/308/246 actually means? I know that "PROB 11" denotes PCC will registers, and 308 is the piece number, in this case the volume containing quires 53-107 of register "Laud" (1662). I had assumed 246 was a quire number, a page number, or the entry number, but I don't think it can be. Starting at the first page of volume PROB 11/308, the first ten wills are: Richard Norton [PROB 11/308/6] Elizabeth Nevill [PROB 11/308/50] John Ormesby [PROB 11/308/12] John Oxlard [PROB 11/308/22] John Orisby [PROB 11/308/3] John Olive [PROB 11/308/41] Dorothy Old [PROB 11/308/15] Hugh Potter [PROB 11/308/43] Anne Porter [PROB 11/308/4] Mary Palmer [PROB 11/308/31] I can see no logic in the the numbering at all! Richard

On 29/12/14 12:13, cecilia wrote: > "Gordon" <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Yes, the "on Sea" bit tends to get dropped by us "locals" when talking about >> Gorleston. This happens a lot in the UK where there is a name something >> on/by etc it is not uncommon to find that the first part of the name is what >> people tend to use as opposed to the full name because locally everyone >> knows what you are talking about.[...] > > It's usually when everyone else drops the "on sea" etc and the locals > use it that I get confused, as in Boulogne-sur-Mer.. > > For the UK, I find the BT telephone directory helpful - put in a > place-name, and it may well offer possibilities. > > E,g, > > "Wells" asks for a choice between > > 1. WELLS { - SOMERSET} > 2. WELLS GREEN { Crewe - CHESHIRE} > 3. WELLS NEXT THE SEA { - NORFOLK} > You should have used Streetview. You've missed the splendidly named Wells & Sheds Cottages (Essex). -- Ian The Hotmail address is my spam-bin. Real mail address is iang at austonley org uk

"cecilia" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected] > "Gordon" <[email protected]> wrote: > >>Yes, the "on Sea" bit tends to get dropped by us "locals" when talking >>about >>Gorleston. This happens a lot in the UK where there is a name something >>on/by etc it is not uncommon to find that the first part of the name is >>what >>people tend to use as opposed to the full name because locally everyone >>knows what you are talking about.[...] > > It's usually when everyone else drops the "on sea" etc and the locals > use it that I get confused, as in Boulogne-sur-Mer.. > > For the UK, I find the BT telephone directory helpful - put in a > place-name, and it may well offer possibilities. > > E,g, > > "Wells" asks for a choice between > > 1. WELLS { - SOMERSET} > 2. WELLS GREEN { Crewe - CHESHIRE} > 3. WELLS NEXT THE SEA { - NORFOLK} And no one talks about Kingston-upon- Hull, or do they?

"Gordon" <[email protected]> wrote: >Yes, the "on Sea" bit tends to get dropped by us "locals" when talking about >Gorleston. This happens a lot in the UK where there is a name something >on/by etc it is not uncommon to find that the first part of the name is what >people tend to use as opposed to the full name because locally everyone >knows what you are talking about.[...] It's usually when everyone else drops the "on sea" etc and the locals use it that I get confused, as in Boulogne-sur-Mer.. For the UK, I find the BT telephone directory helpful - put in a place-name, and it may well offer possibilities. E,g, "Wells" asks for a choice between 1. WELLS { - SOMERSET} 2. WELLS GREEN { Crewe - CHESHIRE} 3. WELLS NEXT THE SEA { - NORFOLK}

Start here... http://search.ancestry.co.uk/search Match all terms exactly. Results displayed by Categories. Search for Elizabeth L*ton, keyword Gretton. Two results in the 1851 England Census, one of which is your Elizabeth. Ancestry have misindexed her as Louton. Trevor Rix > Anyone care to try and find them in the normal 1851 census?

On Sun, 28 Dec 2014 17:35:01 -0000, "Gordon" <[email protected]> wrote: >Yes, the "on Sea" bit tends to get dropped by us "locals" when talking about >Gorleston. This happens a lot in the UK where there is a name something >on/by etc it is not uncommon to find that the first part of the name is what >people tend to use as opposed to the full name because locally everyone >knows what you are talking about. > See also Staines-upon-Thames, a place not a pollution incident. >To find Gorleston on the map find Great Yarmouth, Norfolk and look south >across the mouth of the River Yare and that is Gorleston on Sea. Due to >housing development etc, there is no "green space" between Gt Yarmouth and >Gorleston so the two look as one on the map. The church indicates where >Gorleston on Sea grew from. > >Note if you are researching ancestors from Gorleston or the surrounding area >be aware of county boundary changes between Norfolk and Suffolk in this area >and the church comes under the Norfolk Diocese in Norwich. > >Good hunting > >Gordon > >"Susan" wrote in message >news:[email protected] > >and Gorleston by the Sea, are they the same place? Trying to find Gorleston >on an old Baedeker's Map of Great Britain. It's about 30 years old, can't >find a copyright, if that helps. > >Susan >There's more to NY than NYC.

On Sun, 28 Dec 2014 12:21:48 +0000, Richard Smith <[email protected]> wrote: >On 28/12/14 10:45, Jon Green wrote: > >> Now, if only we could get online death indices more recent than 2006... > >Does anyone properly understand what is preventing this? I understand >it is not simply that Ancestry et al have decide not to pay for it, and >that a change in government policy is involved, but I've not been able >to determine exactly what the current policy is. As the index post-2006 >is accessible in a small number of libraries and archives, the >government has clearly not decided it should be kept from the public >entirely. > It all started to go downhill when the English GRO was stuffed into HM Passport Office and official paranoia became a consideration affecting access to records.