David Marshall wrote: > > My thanks to all who made suggestions. I am a little surprised that "lacemaker" would have been considered > more prestigious than "Corporal in the Grenadier Guards" but maybe he just considered his military service a > temporary episode in his life - he bought himself out and returned to lacemaking a couple of years later. > > David > A temporary aberration perhaps ? How long was he in the Army; had there been any Army recruiting operations in the vicinity when he joined up ? Did he sign up for xxx years and then have to wait until he could leave? -- Anne Chambers South Australia anne dot chambers at bigpond dot com

On Mon, 08 Dec 2014 10:59:27 -0000, David Marshall via <[email protected]> wrote: > On 08/12/2014 10:49, Anne Chambers wrote: >> David Marshall wrote: >> >>> >>> My thanks to all who made suggestions. I am a little surprised that >>> "lacemaker" would have been considered >>> more prestigious than "Corporal in the Grenadier Guards" but maybe he >>> just considered his military service a >>> temporary episode in his life - he bought himself out and returned to >>> lacemaking a couple of years later. >>> >>> David >>> >> A temporary aberration perhaps ? How long was he in the Army; had there >> been any Army recruiting operations in the vicinity when he joined up ? >> Did he sign up for xxx years and then have to wait until he could >> leave? >> > He enlisted in his home town of Nottingham in January 1877 for 12 years > and purchased his release for £9 in July 1885. I have not yet found out > why the wedding was in Clewer. Nottingham is the home of lacemaking. I think that in a civilian context, being a lacemaker from Nottingham would trump being a Corporal in pretty much any regiment. As for Clewer, there's a large 'house' nearby (aka Windsor Castle) that could provide ample excuse for the Grenadier Guards being nearby. So you only have to wonder why a girl from Ireland was in Clewer ... in service perhaps? = Malcolm. -- Malcolm Austen <[email protected]> GENUKI trustee <[email protected]> Pedigree User Group <[email protected]> Oxfordshire FHS <[email protected]> FFHS Communications Officer <[email protected]>

On 08/12/2014 11:17, Anne Chambers wrote: > David Marshall wrote: >> On 08/12/2014 10:49, Anne Chambers wrote: >>> David Marshall wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> My thanks to all who made suggestions. I am a little surprised that >>>> "lacemaker" would have been considered >>>> more prestigious than "Corporal in the Grenadier Guards" but maybe he >>>> just considered his military service a >>>> temporary episode in his life - he bought himself out and returned to >>>> lacemaking a couple of years later. >>>> >>>> David >>>> >>> A temporary aberration perhaps ? How long was he in the Army; had there >>> been any Army recruiting operations in the vicinity when he joined up ? >>> Did he sign up for xxx years and then have to wait until he could >>> leave? >>> >> He enlisted in his home town of Nottingham in January 1877 for 12 >> years and purchased his release for £9 in >> July 1885. I have not yet found out why the wedding was in Clewer. >> >> David >> > Have you found the bride in a previous census in England ? In the 1891 census her birthplace is just stated to be Ireland and I have not found her in 1881. In 1882 his battalion was in Ireland so maybe he met her there. David

On 08/12/2014 10:49, Anne Chambers wrote: > David Marshall wrote: > >> >> My thanks to all who made suggestions. I am a little surprised that >> "lacemaker" would have been considered >> more prestigious than "Corporal in the Grenadier Guards" but maybe he >> just considered his military service a >> temporary episode in his life - he bought himself out and returned to >> lacemaking a couple of years later. >> >> David >> > A temporary aberration perhaps ? How long was he in the Army; had there > been any Army recruiting operations in the vicinity when he joined up ? > Did he sign up for xxx years and then have to wait until he could leave? > He enlisted in his home town of Nottingham in January 1877 for 12 years and purchased his release for £9 in July 1885. I have not yet found out why the wedding was in Clewer. David

On 07/12/2014 22:10, Charles Ellson wrote: > On Sun, 07 Dec 2014 11:14:21 +0000, Ian Goddard > <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On 06/12/14 19:36, The Chief wrote: >>> On Saturday, December 6, 2014 4:18:39 AM UTC-8, David Marshall wrote: >>>> In January 1883 Corporal Booth of the Grenadier Guards married Elizabeth >>>> Bennett from Ireland in Clewer Berks. The marriage was correctly noted >>>> in his Army records. >>>> However on the civil marriage certificate his only occupation was given >>>> as lacemaker, which was indeed his occupation before and after his >>>> military service. >>>> On other marriage certificates for military personnel that I have seen >>>> (admittedly mainly in the 20th century) the serviceman's rank and number >>>> are recorded. >>>> Can anyone suggest if this case is unusual, or what might be an explanation? >>>> >>>> David >>> >>> People cared about social position then as now. A soldier was pretty low on the totem pole - very low - and I would suggest that he thought lacemaker was a better choice to put on an official marriage record. >>> >> >> Indeed. >> >> It's worth remembering that to a first approximation the clerk writing >> up a register writes down what they were told by the informant. Maybe >> in the case of a vicar writing up a PR they might supply information >> which they think they know but might be incorrect. >> >> To be more precise they write down what they think they heard which >> might not be what the informant said if there's a mismatch in accent >> (e.g. my ggfather's brothers with their broad Yorkshire accents about >> their place of birth on disembarkation in Sydney). >> >> To be even more precise, if the record was written up later it might be >> what the register writer makes of a scribbled note which the >> interrogator (not necessarily the same person) originally wrote. >> > If it is 1883 then the details should already have been written in the > register before the parties to the marriage have signed it. > >> And for even greater precision, the informant will have replied to the >> question he thought he was asked (ggfather's brothers again, one gave >> the name of the hamlet, the other the name of the parish at the time of >> his birth which was already out of date as it was being split). >> >> And finally the informant's answer will be what he chose to say in reply >> to the perceived question which might range from plain unvarnished truth >> via exaggeration to outright lie if he thought he could get away with it. My thanks to all who made suggestions. I am a little surprised that "lacemaker" would have been considered more prestigious than "Corporal in the Grenadier Guards" but maybe he just considered his military service a temporary episode in his life - he bought himself out and returned to lacemaking a couple of years later. David

On Sun, 07 Dec 2014 11:14:21 +0000, Ian Goddard <[email protected]> wrote: >On 06/12/14 19:36, The Chief wrote: >> On Saturday, December 6, 2014 4:18:39 AM UTC-8, David Marshall wrote: >>> In January 1883 Corporal Booth of the Grenadier Guards married Elizabeth >>> Bennett from Ireland in Clewer Berks. The marriage was correctly noted >>> in his Army records. >>> However on the civil marriage certificate his only occupation was given >>> as lacemaker, which was indeed his occupation before and after his >>> military service. >>> On other marriage certificates for military personnel that I have seen >>> (admittedly mainly in the 20th century) the serviceman's rank and number >>> are recorded. >>> Can anyone suggest if this case is unusual, or what might be an explanation? >>> >>> David >> >> People cared about social position then as now. A soldier was pretty low on the totem pole - very low - and I would suggest that he thought lacemaker was a better choice to put on an official marriage record. >> > >Indeed. > >It's worth remembering that to a first approximation the clerk writing >up a register writes down what they were told by the informant. Maybe >in the case of a vicar writing up a PR they might supply information >which they think they know but might be incorrect. > >To be more precise they write down what they think they heard which >might not be what the informant said if there's a mismatch in accent >(e.g. my ggfather's brothers with their broad Yorkshire accents about >their place of birth on disembarkation in Sydney). > >To be even more precise, if the record was written up later it might be >what the register writer makes of a scribbled note which the >interrogator (not necessarily the same person) originally wrote. > If it is 1883 then the details should already have been written in the register before the parties to the marriage have signed it. >And for even greater precision, the informant will have replied to the >question he thought he was asked (ggfather's brothers again, one gave >the name of the hamlet, the other the name of the parish at the time of >his birth which was already out of date as it was being split). > >And finally the informant's answer will be what he chose to say in reply >to the perceived question which might range from plain unvarnished truth >via exaggeration to outright lie if he thought he could get away with it.

On 07/12/2014 11:42, Anne Sherman wrote: > Like others I generally only use this site for the newspapers now. I have a subscription to the British Newspaper Archive for that as well as online library access to Scotsman, Grauniad, Times, 19th Century and 17/18th Century newspapers so never used the more limited FMP access.

On 06/12/14 19:36, The Chief wrote: > On Saturday, December 6, 2014 4:18:39 AM UTC-8, David Marshall wrote: >> In January 1883 Corporal Booth of the Grenadier Guards married Elizabeth >> Bennett from Ireland in Clewer Berks. The marriage was correctly noted >> in his Army records. >> However on the civil marriage certificate his only occupation was given >> as lacemaker, which was indeed his occupation before and after his >> military service. >> On other marriage certificates for military personnel that I have seen >> (admittedly mainly in the 20th century) the serviceman's rank and number >> are recorded. >> Can anyone suggest if this case is unusual, or what might be an explanation? >> >> David > > People cared about social position then as now. A soldier was pretty low on the totem pole - very low - and I would suggest that he thought lacemaker was a better choice to put on an official marriage record. > Indeed. It's worth remembering that to a first approximation the clerk writing up a register writes down what they were told by the informant. Maybe in the case of a vicar writing up a PR they might supply information which they think they know but might be incorrect. To be more precise they write down what they think they heard which might not be what the informant said if there's a mismatch in accent (e.g. my ggfather's brothers with their broad Yorkshire accents about their place of birth on disembarkation in Sydney). To be even more precise, if the record was written up later it might be what the register writer makes of a scribbled note which the interrogator (not necessarily the same person) originally wrote. And for even greater precision, the informant will have replied to the question he thought he was asked (ggfather's brothers again, one gave the name of the hamlet, the other the name of the parish at the time of his birth which was already out of date as it was being split). And finally the informant's answer will be what he chose to say in reply to the perceived question which might range from plain unvarnished truth via exaggeration to outright lie if he thought he could get away with it. -- Ian The Hotmail address is my spam-bin. Real mail address is iang at austonley org uk

An entry in the Dunsford, Devon, parish register for 1597 reads as follows: The [xx]vij daie of the said November (being the grett ...re of la...im) Anne Borredge widow, Jonne Stodd..., G... Moccye, and a childe of Gregory Talma[n] [were] buryed Any suggestions for what "the grett ...re of la...im" might mean? My first thought is something in the liturgical calendar, although this register is not usually inclined that way. My second thought is that a single entry for four burials suggests an accident or an epidemic. But that's about as far as I've got, other than guessing that "grett" means "great".

I was/am on the FMP customer panel and at first they seemed to be listening but now my posts do not get posted and my emails are ignored. I think they got tired of listening to us. My main annoyance is the parish images that apparently cover dates such as 1600 to 1910 with only 100 pages and covers different date ranges with huge gaps in between and not always in date order. Just to make things really difficult they have lumped a lot of North Yorkshire parishes under East Yorkshire. Like others I generally only use this site for the newspapers now.

On Sat, 06 Dec 2014 17:06:14 +0000, Ian Goddard <[email protected]> wrote: >On 06/12/14 12:19, David Marshall wrote: >> In January 1883 Corporal Booth of the Grenadier Guards married Elizabeth >> Bennett from Ireland in Clewer Berks. The marriage was correctly noted >> in his Army records. >> However on the civil marriage certificate his only occupation was given >> as lacemaker, which was indeed his occupation before and after his >> military service. >> On other marriage certificates for military personnel that I have seen >> (admittedly mainly in the 20th century) the serviceman's rank and number >> are recorded. >> Can anyone suggest if this case is unusual, or what might be an >> explanation? > >Simple. That's what he told the vicar. > The name, rank and number bit IME is something of a WW2 thing; earlier 20th century records mentioning someone's then current military service tended just to mention rank and regiment for full time soldiers while in WW1 the occupation as often as not would give the "day job".

On 06/12/14 12:19, David Marshall wrote: > In January 1883 Corporal Booth of the Grenadier Guards married Elizabeth > Bennett from Ireland in Clewer Berks. The marriage was correctly noted > in his Army records. > However on the civil marriage certificate his only occupation was given > as lacemaker, which was indeed his occupation before and after his > military service. > On other marriage certificates for military personnel that I have seen > (admittedly mainly in the 20th century) the serviceman's rank and number > are recorded. > Can anyone suggest if this case is unusual, or what might be an > explanation? Simple. That's what he told the vicar. -- Ian The Hotmail address is my spam-bin. Real mail address is iang at austonley org uk

On 06/12/2014 12:22, Tony Proctor wrote: > I think I'm heading that same way. To be fair, they have made a lot of > changes, and engaged users to ask for feedback & suggestions. Surprisingly, > they haven't always understood that feedback, though, and declined some > suggestions for reasons that seem to be obtuse to anyone who does genealogy. > > Having had two recent suggestions -- one quite lengthy -- "lost", and > probably closed as duplicates based on some naive automated keyword basis, I > have given up there. Must admit I have not studied the site closely since the changes, I just find it so frustrating that I give up but I have not noticed any significant improvements. At the most basic level I would like to be able to quickly select a particular census, enter just a surname and town and get meaningful results within seconds as previously. I hate to think how many clicks it will need now to do a similar search and even then it is not as good because you have to specify county etc so will miss any that people have originally entered incorrectly on the census.

"MB" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected] > On 05/12/2014 15:21, brightside S9 wrote: >> This seems to be their mangement strtegy - take the money and ignore >> the >>>protests. > > > They do seem to have surrounded themselves with some equivalent of spin > doctors and got out of touch with their previous regular users. I gave up > after they ruined the site earlier in the year. I EMailed them, including > the top woman, but got nowhere. I have hardly used since then - usually > disconnect in disgust after a few attempts at searches. > > My subscription ran out a few months ago, I EMailed to tell them why I was > not renewing so they extended it by a few months but I have still hardly > looked at the site and will not be renewing next week. > > Pity because it used to be a really good site that was far better than > Ancestry. > > I think I'm heading that same way. To be fair, they have made a lot of changes, and engaged users to ask for feedback & suggestions. Surprisingly, they haven't always understood that feedback, though, and declined some suggestions for reasons that seem to be obtuse to anyone who does genealogy. Having had two recent suggestions -- one quite lengthy -- "lost", and probably closed as duplicates based on some naive automated keyword basis, I have given up there. Tony Proctor

In January 1883 Corporal Booth of the Grenadier Guards married Elizabeth Bennett from Ireland in Clewer Berks. The marriage was correctly noted in his Army records. However on the civil marriage certificate his only occupation was given as lacemaker, which was indeed his occupation before and after his military service. On other marriage certificates for military personnel that I have seen (admittedly mainly in the 20th century) the serviceman's rank and number are recorded. Can anyone suggest if this case is unusual, or what might be an explanation? David

On 05/12/2014 14:41, Tickettyboo wrote: > The Amalgamated Society of Carpenters and Joiners have matching records > which tally with the crossing date and destination to say he transferred > from the Gateshead branch in the NE of England to the Toronto branch in > April 1910. Warwick University have lots of trade union records including the woodworkers' union annual reports which have reports from each branch with lists of officers. Also lists of rates paid in each area along with a summary of work prospects in each area.

On 05/12/2014 15:21, brightside S9 wrote: > This seems to be their mangement strtegy - take the money and ignore the >>protests. They do seem to have surrounded themselves with some equivalent of spin doctors and got out of touch with their previous regular users. I gave up after they ruined the site earlier in the year. I EMailed them, including the top woman, but got nowhere. I have hardly used since then - usually disconnect in disgust after a few attempts at searches. My subscription ran out a few months ago, I EMailed to tell them why I was not renewing so they extended it by a few months but I have still hardly looked at the site and will not be renewing next week. Pity because it used to be a really good site that was far better than Ancestry.

On Saturday, December 6, 2014 4:18:39 AM UTC-8, David Marshall wrote: > In January 1883 Corporal Booth of the Grenadier Guards married Elizabeth > Bennett from Ireland in Clewer Berks. The marriage was correctly noted > in his Army records. > However on the civil marriage certificate his only occupation was given > as lacemaker, which was indeed his occupation before and after his > military service. > On other marriage certificates for military personnel that I have seen > (admittedly mainly in the 20th century) the serviceman's rank and number > are recorded. > Can anyone suggest if this case is unusual, or what might be an explanation? > > David People cared about social position then as now. A soldier was pretty low on the totem pole - very low - and I would suggest that he thought lacemaker was a better choice to put on an official marriage record. Regards, The Chief

"Tickettyboo" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected] > On 2014-12-05 09:52:11 +0000, Trevor Rix via said: > >> In todays Findmypast Friday email they announce a new to them dataset >> "Over 60 million English Births & Baptisms, 1538-1975". On using this >> dataset however it appears that there are no "first names". >> >> I phoned Findmypast twice this morning to report this major issue. They >> are not interested. They say that as the records were provided to them by >> FamilySearch, I have to contact FamilySearch myself to request them to >> contact Findmypast to discuss the error. Findmypast are unwilling to >> contact FamilySearch themselves. I find that astonishing. On the spot >> checks that I have conducted the forenames are there on the FamilySearch >> side but not on the Findmypast side. >> >> Trevor Rix > > Nothing about FMP astonishes me, its 'stack 'em high and sell 'em cheap' > and if its right, great and if its mucked up then tough. > > BUT I have to say I do love them this morning, cos they also released > some trade union records that verify the 'possible' passenger list entry > to Canada in April 1910, 1911 Canadian census record and a return to the > UK in Nov 1911 I had found for my Granda, AWOL in the UK 1911 census. > > The Amalgamated Society of Carpenters and Joiners have matching records > which tally with the crossing date and destination to say he transferred > from the Gateshead branch in the NE of England to the Toronto branch in > April 1910. > The same database confirmed that he transferred back from Regina (where > I'd found him on the Canadian census) to Gateshead in Nov 1911 and 'that' > tallies with the return crossing. > These records tick all the boxes for dates of events, age and admisson to > the Society, they even have a note of his marriage date in 1915 which is > spot on. > > The births and baptisms dataset is dreadful, but I am doing the little > happy dance like a woman posessed over the Trade Union Records :-) > -- > Tickettyboo > What I find staggering about this is that it was released and no one noticed. I was led to believe that their "team" (presumably product managers and developers) included their own "genealogists". As someone who has used FMP from the very earliest of its days, I find myself using it less and less now. I think the newspapers access is the most important feature I use, and even that doesn't work properly (the default sort-by-relevance most certainly does not do so). I have tried to report transcription errors, missing parts of transcriptions, missing records, suggestions/improvements, and software errors, but finding that my time is being wasted. I recently pointed out, for instance, that putting a "?" wildcard as the first character in a census surname field causes an exception. Simply enough, right? I got a reply saying that "?" is not a valid wildcard, followed by a stock copy-and-paste of some help text which explicitly said that it *was*. You can only try so much to help. Eventually your time is better spent elsewhere. Tony Proctor

Jenny M Benson wrote: > On 05/12/2014 15:21, brightside S9 wrote: >> Intriguing. I have the fiche of the parish registers for Gretton, >> Northamptonshire. >> >> In 1824 only 4 baptisms are registered for Surname Lenton and father's >> name Thomas. Yet this FindmyPast search lists eight. I will be >> intrested to see what the forenames are, when they get round to fixing >> it. > > Presumably got the same 4 people twice, like FamilySearch has. > Bishop's Transcripts as well as Parish Registers probably. -- Anne Chambers South Australia anne dot chambers at bigpond dot com