On 24-12-2014 12:01, brightside S9 wrote: > On Wed, 24 Dec 2014 09:52:13 +0000, John P Gibson > <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On 20/12/2014 11:39, brightside S9 wrote: >> >> <snip> >> >>> I now have the marriage cert from GRO. I can understand the >>> mistranscription into GRO index. The handwriting is awful. >>> >>> The mariage took place on July 9th 1866. John's father's name is >>> William Lenton. >>> >>> I can scan the cert if anyone wants / needs to try to deciper the >>> rest. >>> >> >> Ooh, yes please! That would be very nice. >> >> I really must try to remember to fire up my newsreader, such as it is, >> more frequently. > > > This link should (I hope it works) bring up the scan. I'll leave it > available for a few days. It would be nice if someone can decpher the > church at which the marriage was solemnised, and the grooms age. > > https://www.dropbox.com/s/mmad1tdybeb0a8f/johnlenton_estherlance.jpg?dl=0 His age is 28 Richard -- Richard van Schaik [email protected] http://www.fmavanschaik.nl/ The world is one big madhouse and this is main office.

On Wednesday, December 24, 2014 12:01:43 PM UTC+1, brightside S9 wrote: > On Wed, 24 Dec 2014 09:52:13 +0000, John P Gibson > <[email protected]> wrote: > > >On 20/12/2014 11:39, brightside S9 wrote: > > > ><snip> > > > >> I now have the marriage cert from GRO. I can understand the > >> mistranscription into GRO index. The handwriting is awful. > >> > >> The mariage took place on July 9th 1866. John's father's name is > >> William Lenton. > >> > >> I can scan the cert if anyone wants / needs to try to deciper the > >> rest. > >> > > > >Ooh, yes please! That would be very nice. > > > >I really must try to remember to fire up my newsreader, such as it is, > >more frequently. > > > This link should (I hope it works) bring up the scan. I'll leave it > available for a few days. It would be nice if someone can decpher the > church at which the marriage was solemnised, and the grooms age. > > https://www.dropbox.com/s/mmad1tdybeb0a8f/johnlenton_estherlance.jpg?dl=0 > > -- > brightside S9 I don't see why Richard van Schaik says such a definite 28 as 20 seems just as likely/unlikely to me, particularly as over 21 was often written as "of age". As for the parish, looking through the list of parishes on Genuki for Hampshire I think Portsea is the most likely, specially if one compares it with the word Southsea below. Genuki gives a list of churches in the parish and the church of the Ascension in Stubbington Ave is the only one which could possibly fit the hand writing. There is an article giving the history of Portsea which I haven't read but may help here http://www.british-history.ac.uk/vch/hants/vol3/pp192-202#h3-0007 regards melanie chesnel

On 20/12/2014 11:39, brightside S9 wrote: <snip> > I now have the marriage cert from GRO. I can understand the > mistranscription into GRO index. The handwriting is awful. > > The mariage took place on July 9th 1866. John's father's name is > William Lenton. > > I can scan the cert if anyone wants / needs to try to deciper the > rest. > Ooh, yes please! That would be very nice. I really must try to remember to fire up my newsreader, such as it is, more frequently.

On 19/12/2014 19:57, Charles Ellson wrote: > On Fri, 19 Dec 2014 07:46:21 +0200, Steve Hayes > <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On Thu, 18 Dec 2014 23:47:59 +0000, Richard Smith <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> On 17/12/14 09:36, Steve Hayes wrote: >>>> We have been approached by two different heir-hunting firms with the news that >>>> my wife's first cousin once removed has died intestate, and they are looking >>>> for heirs. >>> >>> Which way around is the "once removed"? If one of your wife's parents >>> was the deceased's first cousin, your wife is perhaps an heir, being the >>> granddaughter of an uncle or aunt. If it was the other way round, and >>> one of the deceased's parents was your wife's first cousin, then (as I >>> understand it) your wife would not normally be an heir. (This is per >>> the law in England and Wales. If the estate is in Scotland or Northern >>> Ireland, things might be different.) >> > Very different in Scotland. Spouses and children have rights which > cannot be overcome by a will and the chain of succession has no end > unlike in England and Wales where the Crown gets the estate of an > intestate person if the nearest relative is not closely enough > related. > >> The deceased was my wife's mother's first cousin, so my wife is one of the >> heirs. >> >> My question was really about who would have have charge of the deceased's >> property if she died intestate. If there is a will, there is usually a named >> executor. But if there is no will, who looks after the property until an >> executor can be appointed? >> > There is no executor if there is no will, probate is then the > responsibility of an administrator. An administrator (or the person on > whose behalf an administrator acts) has to have an interest in the > estate as someone entitled to inherit or by having some other claim > upon the estate (e.g. a person to whom the deceased owed a debt). IMU > there is no particular order of precedence to be considered when a > person qualified to act makes an application for a grant to administer > but this does not later prevent someone higher up the chain of > succession (or anywhere in it?) applying to take over the > administration if the person who got in first fails to do the job > properly. > See also Administration of Estates Act 1925 > [http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Geo5/15-16/23/contents] > s.46 has the sequence of succession of the residuary estate of an > intestate person domiciled in England and Wales. > >> We've now managed to find the name of a firm of lawyers who have apparently >> taken charge of such things, though I still have no idea who appointed them, >> in the absence of a will. >> > In England and Wales they would have required a grant of > administration from the Principal Registry of the Family Division of > the High Court (PRFD) :- > https://www.gov.uk/wills-probate-inheritance/overview > I don't know if anyone has mentioned but there is a TV programme here in the UK that follows of the work of companies that do 'heir hunting'. They go through the lists of unclaimed estates and try to reach the heirs before any of their competitors. But they can be brought in before that stage. I think sometimes they are contacted by neighbours, friends of the deceased person or other interested parties. I understand that the bigger heir hunting companies charge quite high commissions for their work but there are also smaller one or two man businesses.

On 19/12/2014 09:57, Mick IOW wrote: > Hi all, How can I trace who ran Stagg Bros. Decorators Merchants 20 > Carisbrooke Rd, Newport, Isle of Wight in the 1950s/1960s British Newspaper Archive have some IoW and Portsmouth newspaper but not that recent. UKPRESSONLINE have national newspapers and some regional ones. http://www.ukpressonline.co.uk/ukpressonline/open/index.jsp Most local newspapers have some sort of local history column, you could ask there or just put letters in some local newspapers. Have you tried following through the telephone directories on Ancestry, you might be able to get an idea of when they disappear. You could ask the local archive. Have you tried any local ROOTSWEB Message Board? http://boards.rootsweb.com/localities.britisles.england.ham.wight/mb.ashx

On 21/12/2014 16:49, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote: > e is decades out of date, but I was favourably impressed with the one I > visited (in north-east London, England): what impressed me was that they > did _not_ make any attempt to bring me into their church - they just > took me to the machines (mostly microfilm in those days, with a few CDs) > and let me get on with my research. I think they'd have been quite happy > to discuss religious matters if I'd wanted to, but no pressure. (Of > course, this could have just been the one centre, or one set of staff.) I've had quite a lot of dealings with LDS church members and that has always been my experience too. I don't hold with many of their beliefs, but I do see a lot to admire and their gifts (many of them free) to the genealogical community are hugely valuable and I am immensely grateful. -- Jenny M Benson

On 21/12/2014 16:49, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote: > In message <[email protected]>, Jenny M Benson > <[email protected]> writes: >> On 20/12/2014 17:32, Percival P. Cassidy wrote: >>> Thank you very much. But are the records on FamilySearch reliable? I >>> have heard that some (much?) of the stuff in the LDS records is merely >>> conjecture or hearsay. >> >> Nowadays the LDS keeps the "extracted" and the "submitted" records >> separate so you pretty much know how much you can rely on what you >> see. "Extracted" means the original records (Parish Registers or BTs >> or whatever else) have been filmed by the LDS and sometimes you can >> view the images on site, sometimes you'll just see indexes. >> "Submnitted" records comprise informtion submitted by LDS members so >> reliability is very mixed - some very good, some decidedly iffy. >> > OP said not in the UK, but I don't think said where he is. Probably > worth (especially if in north America) seeing if there's an LDS family > history centre near you. My experience is decades out of date, but I was > favourably impressed with the one I visited (in north-east London, > England): what impressed me was that they did _not_ make any attempt to > bring me into their church - they just took me to the machines (mostly > microfilm in those days, with a few CDs) and let me get on with my > research. I think they'd have been quite happy to discuss religious > matters if I'd wanted to, but no pressure. (Of course, this could have > just been the one centre, or one set of staff.) But anyway, I'd say > worth investigating, if there's an FHC near you. I'ev had similar experiences with the one in Portsmouth. -- Graeme Wall This account not read, substitute trains for rail. Railway Miscellany at <http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail>

In message <[email protected]>, Jenny M Benson <[email protected]> writes: >On 20/12/2014 17:32, Percival P. Cassidy wrote: >> Thank you very much. But are the records on FamilySearch reliable? I >> have heard that some (much?) of the stuff in the LDS records is merely >> conjecture or hearsay. > >Nowadays the LDS keeps the "extracted" and the "submitted" records >separate so you pretty much know how much you can rely on what you see. >"Extracted" means the original records (Parish Registers or BTs or >whatever else) have been filmed by the LDS and sometimes you can view >the images on site, sometimes you'll just see indexes. "Submnitted" >records comprise informtion submitted by LDS members so reliability is >very mixed - some very good, some decidedly iffy. > OP said not in the UK, but I don't think said where he is. Probably worth (especially if in north America) seeing if there's an LDS family history centre near you. My experience is decades out of date, but I was favourably impressed with the one I visited (in north-east London, England): what impressed me was that they did _not_ make any attempt to bring me into their church - they just took me to the machines (mostly microfilm in those days, with a few CDs) and let me get on with my research. I think they'd have been quite happy to discuss religious matters if I'd wanted to, but no pressure. (Of course, this could have just been the one centre, or one set of staff.) But anyway, I'd say worth investigating, if there's an FHC near you. -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)[email protected]+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf We like to get up at the crack of noon - Kathy Lette (on her fellow Aussies), RT 2014/1/11-17

On 20 Dec at 22:59, Jenny M Benson <[email protected]> wrote: > On 20/12/2014 19:28, Percival P. Cassidy wrote: > > > > What I am seeing is all under the "Records" category. > > You can ignore the FSID (if that's what you are seeing - your example > certainly looks like one.) > > You will see a film number on each record, eg GS Film Number 1041297. > If you click on the Catalog tab, select Film/Fiche Number and put the > number in there you can get the exact details of the film which is > indexed. The example I gave is Parish Registers for Alton 1615-1901 > and Parish Registers for Bishops-Sutton 1711-1876. If you click on > "Parish Registers for Alton 1615-1901" you will get more details. > > The only thing it doesn't usually tell you is the name of the Church, > unless there are several churches in the same city on the one film. Perhaps there is a need to add that the step after finding the film number is to ask the local LDS Family History Centre to order you a copy of the film if they don't already have it. You have to pay a modest fee but it's enormously cheaper than travelling to a repository that does have a copy. On arrival they will reserve it for your exclusive use for a month or so. -- Tim Powys-Lybbe [email protected] for a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org/

Jenny M Benson via wrote: > I'm not LDS and frankly I think their "one big FamilyTree" is an > impossible pipe dream, but I do contribute data to FamilyTree and do I think ANYONE's "one big FamilyTree" is an impossible pipe-dream -- LDS', Ancestry's, WorldConnect, the old FTM one. Since it is possible for two people to look at the same thing and interpret it differently there's always going to be conflict. Cheryl

On 20/12/2014 19:28, Percival P. Cassidy wrote: > > What I am seeing is all under the "Records" category. You can ignore the FSID (if that's what you are seeing - your example certainly looks like one.) You will see a film number on each record, eg GS Film Number 1041297. If you click on the Catalog tab, select Film/Fiche Number and put the number in there you can get the exact details of the film which is indexed. The example I gave is Parish Registers for Alton 1615-1901 and Parish Registers for Bishops-Sutton 1711-1876. If you click on "Parish Registers for Alton 1615-1901" you will get more details. The only thing it doesn't usually tell you is the name of the Church, unless there are several churches in the same city on the one film. -- Jenny M Benson

On 20/12/2014 17:56, Percival P. Cassidy wrote: > On 12/20/2014 12:38 PM, Jenny M Benson wrote: > >>> Thank you very much. But are the records on FamilySearch reliable? I >>> have heard that some (much?) of the stuff in the LDS records is merely >>> conjecture or hearsay. > >> Nowadays the LDS keeps the "extracted" and the "submitted" records >> separate so you pretty much know how much you can rely on what you see. >> "Extracted" means the original records (Parish Registers or BTs or >> whatever else) have been filmed by the LDS and sometimes you can view >> the images on site, sometimes you'll just see indexes. "Submnitted" >> records comprise informtion submitted by LDS members so reliability is >> very mixed - some very good, some decidedly iffy. > > I see neither "extracted" nor "submitted" in the records of the people > I've located in the early 1600s, but the heading is "England Births and > Christenings, 1538-1975"; does that tell us anything? > They're split into separate sections now - Records and Genealogies. Genealogies are the submittes stuff. > And there are alphanumerical sequences (record numbers?) such as LCTH-4CM. That sounds as though you are also looking at FamilySearch Family Tree (as opposed to Search. Those are the FamilySearch ID numbers. Eventually the idea is that there will be one enormous family tree with every individual having a unique ID. At the moment there is a long way to go and there are many, many duplicates - lots of FSIDs all relating to the same person, with varying amounts of information in each record. I'm not LDS and frankly I think their "one big FamilyTree" is an impossible pipe dream, but I do contribute data to FamilyTree and do some work towards combining duplicates. I have made contact with a distant relative through FT and also found a fair few pointers towards possible/probable relatives worthwhile lines of research. -- Jenny M Benson

On 20/12/2014 17:32, Percival P. Cassidy wrote: > Thank you very much. But are the records on FamilySearch reliable? I > have heard that some (much?) of the stuff in the LDS records is merely > conjecture or hearsay. Nowadays the LDS keeps the "extracted" and the "submitted" records separate so you pretty much know how much you can rely on what you see. "Extracted" means the original records (Parish Registers or BTs or whatever else) have been filmed by the LDS and sometimes you can view the images on site, sometimes you'll just see indexes. "Submnitted" records comprise informtion submitted by LDS members so reliability is very mixed - some very good, some decidedly iffy. -- Jenny M Benson

On 20/12/2014 17:32, Percival P. Cassidy wrote: > On 12/20/2014 11:47 AM, Tim Powys-Lybbe wrote: > >>> What are the earliest records available for Alton, Hampshire, and how >>> would I access them? (I am not in the UK.) > >> 1615. (From Phillimore's "Atlas and Index of Parish registers", 3rd >> edition, p. 155) The same says they are on IGI, nowadays FamilySearch. >> >> But these are not BMD but BMB - Baptisms, Marriages and Burials. > > Thank you very much. But are the records on FamilySearch reliable? I > have heard that some (much?) of the stuff in the LDS records is merely > conjecture or hearsay. > Check it is extracted records not patron submissions, it's the latter that are dodgy. -- Graeme Wall This account not read, substitute trains for rail. Railway Miscellany at <http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail>

On 20 Dec at 14:54, "Percival P. Cassidy" <[email protected]> wrote: > What are the earliest records available for Alton, Hampshire, and how > would I access them? (I am not in the UK.) > > Perce 1615. (From Phillimore's "Atlas and Index of Parish registers", 3rd edition, p. 155) The same says they are on IGI, nowadays FamilySearch. But these are not BMD but BMB - Baptisms, Marriages and Burials. -- Tim Powys-Lybbe [email protected] for a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org/

On 12/20/2014 02:23 PM, Jenny M Benson wrote: >>>> Thank you very much. But are the records on FamilySearch reliable? I >>>> have heard that some (much?) of the stuff in the LDS records is merely >>>> conjecture or hearsay. >>> Nowadays the LDS keeps the "extracted" and the "submitted" records >>> separate so you pretty much know how much you can rely on what you see. >>> "Extracted" means the original records (Parish Registers or BTs or >>> whatever else) have been filmed by the LDS and sometimes you can view >>> the images on site, sometimes you'll just see indexes. "Submnitted" >>> records comprise informtion submitted by LDS members so reliability is >>> very mixed - some very good, some decidedly iffy. >> I see neither "extracted" nor "submitted" in the records of the people >> I've located in the early 1600s, but the heading is "England Births and >> Christenings, 1538-1975"; does that tell us anything? > They're split into separate sections now - Records and Genealogies. > Genealogies are the submittes stuff. > >> And there are alphanumerical sequences (record numbers?) such as >> LCTH-4CM. > > That sounds as though you are also looking at FamilySearch Family Tree > (as opposed to Search. Those are the FamilySearch ID numbers. > Eventually the idea is that there will be one enormous family tree with > every individual having a unique ID. At the moment there is a long way > to go and there are many, many duplicates - lots of FSIDs all relating > to the same person, with varying amounts of information in each record. > > I'm not LDS and frankly I think their "one big FamilyTree" is an > impossible pipe dream, but I do contribute data to FamilyTree and do > some work towards combining duplicates. I have made contact with a > distant relative through FT and also found a fair few pointers towards > possible/probable relatives worthwhile lines of research. What I am seeing is all under the "Records" category. Perce

On 12/20/2014 12:38 PM, Jenny M Benson wrote: >> Thank you very much. But are the records on FamilySearch reliable? I >> have heard that some (much?) of the stuff in the LDS records is merely >> conjecture or hearsay. > Nowadays the LDS keeps the "extracted" and the "submitted" records > separate so you pretty much know how much you can rely on what you see. > "Extracted" means the original records (Parish Registers or BTs or > whatever else) have been filmed by the LDS and sometimes you can view > the images on site, sometimes you'll just see indexes. "Submnitted" > records comprise informtion submitted by LDS members so reliability is > very mixed - some very good, some decidedly iffy. I see neither "extracted" nor "submitted" in the records of the people I've located in the early 1600s, but the heading is "England Births and Christenings, 1538-1975"; does that tell us anything? And there are alphanumerical sequences (record numbers?) such as LCTH-4CM. Perce

On 12/20/2014 11:47 AM, Tim Powys-Lybbe wrote: >> What are the earliest records available for Alton, Hampshire, and how >> would I access them? (I am not in the UK.) > 1615. (From Phillimore's "Atlas and Index of Parish registers", 3rd > edition, p. 155) The same says they are on IGI, nowadays FamilySearch. > > But these are not BMD but BMB - Baptisms, Marriages and Burials. Thank you very much. But are the records on FamilySearch reliable? I have heard that some (much?) of the stuff in the LDS records is merely conjecture or hearsay. Perce

What are the earliest records available for Alton, Hampshire, and how would I access them? (I am not in the UK.) Perce

On Fri, 19 Dec 2014 19:01:21 +0000, Ian Goddard <[email protected]> wrote: >On 19/12/14 09:57, Mick IOW wrote: >> Hi all, How can I trace who ran Stagg Bros. Decorators Merchants 20 >> Carisbrooke Rd, Newport, Isle of Wight in the 1950s/1960s > >A family business may well have been a partnership but if they were a >limited company Companies House should have the company returns listing >the directors. > Older records of defunct companies are only kept as a partial sample but IIRC basic details (name, date dissolved and similar) exist in unpublished index form (i.e, you need to write in and ask). The London Gazette contains various statutory notices concerning dissolution and winding up of companies, partnerships etc. If dates are uncertain you can follow a business's telephone directory entries via Ancestry up to 1984; this can also help if an address has changed during the business's existence.