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. -- Jenny M Benson

rote: > > I am trying to ascertain if a couple of young men served in WW1. Neither of them were in the army prior to WW1 > > or after from what I can see elsewhere. One was unmarried at the outbreak of war, the other was married but > > had returned from Canada when war broke out, so its likely he had done that in order to join up. You refer to them as 'returning' (and the response from Canada was indeed fast and valuaBle) presumably that means you know where they came from in England, and it is possible that they returned first to that place to stay with relatives before enlisting If so, as a possibility, they may brecorded on that village's War memorial, with their regiment, and a lot of places in this year are putting details of the Wr Memorial on line. Try putting in the name of the village or ' Xplace Remembers' and you could have a solution. > > showing in local newspapers so far (sometimes there were lists of men who had joined up that week etc). > > Having trawled the service records and pension records available I haven't found them. > > Looking at medal cards, I have a selection for the names of each man for which there are no surving > > service/pension records, but they do have service numbers and regiments noted. > > > > Nothing showing in local newspapers so far (sometimes there were lists of men who had joined up that week etc). Have you tried English newspapers (for the home village) as well as Canadian? > Did the unmarried man marry during the war ? If so, his rank and regiment may have been shown on the marriage > certificate. A good idea EVE Author of The McLaughlin Guides for Family Historians Secretary, Bucks Genealogical Society

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

> 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". This is yet another totally useless set of information from Findmypast - they do not seem to be interested in supplying what family historians want, just filling their site with meaningless garbage. Perha[ps the purchase by a comic book company means they are laughing at us. Fine, except when people pay to be made fun of. > > I phoned Findmypast twice this morning to report this major issue. They > are not interested. This seems to be their mangement strtegy - take the money and ignore the protests. I was recently trrying to provide a list of what they offered, so I could print it in the society magaine, which might have attracted customers for them. However, although, with some ingenuity and not in the obvious place, I found a basic list of sources, almost none of these were dated. On thjeir site is a useless list by separate year of a source which might have information or that year, no indication of what the information might be. After 4 hours wading through this, tyo try to make a list with beginning and end dates for the sources (and still being only in the early 1600s) I lost the will to live. But in the interests of my members, I e-mailed FMP for a dated list or Thesome indication of where such a list might be concealed on their site. They did not even reply, which is pretrty stupid of them. No doubt they are suckering in so many of the gullible that they do not wish to make any kind of effort for those who wish to make an informed choice. I suggest that until they mend their ways, enquirers stick to Familysearch for better information (and perhaps transfer their subscriptions elsewhere, to a comopany that does give a damn). EVE> Author of The McLaughlin Guides for Family Historians Secretary, Bucks Genealogical Society

On 5 Dec at 11:05, Trevor Rix via <[email protected]> wrote: > Findmypast have tweeted "We've fixed the issue causing first names not > to display and you'll see them appear over the next few hours." Well done: something got home to someone! -- Tim Powys-Lybbe [email protected] for a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org/

Findmypast have tweeted "We've fixed the issue causing first names not to display and you'll see them appear over the next few hours."

On 05/12/14 09:52, Trevor Rix via wrote: > 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. > Contact their press office and ask them for a comment on reports that they're offering a useless dataset of 60 million items. -- Ian The Hotmail address is my spam-bin. Real mail address is iang at austonley org uk

On 5 Dec at 9:52, Trevor Rix via <[email protected]> wrote: > 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. Spunds like you had got in touch with a marketing manager who had got our of the wrong side of his (or her) bed. Pity the hot line to the data processing manager is broken as they would surely have known what you were talking of and could have swiftly examined the file they received from LDS. -- Tim Powys-Lybbe [email protected] for a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org/

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

On Wed, 03 Dec 2014 12:15:57 -0000 eve via <[email protected]> wrote: > > > M(emorandu)m the ori(gina)l will is at Mr Thorpes but was proved > > > by Mr A[ck?]royd 1615 and administration granted to James lovell > > > one of the executors during the minority of John Lovell the > > > other one of the sons and executor which James is dead since that > > > time. > > > > Thanks. Though I'd be interested to know what you actually think > > the fourth and fifth lines say, rather than a translation / > > paraphrase. > > I don't think so, I know so. # > The 4th line > uni execut. duran' minor' Johis Lovell > the 5th line > alterius filio' ex'or wch James is dead > since that time > > > if you translate it any other way, I shall be very surprised > EVE So when John attains full age, he can take out probate. That is a standard arrangement. When probate is limited in some way such as this, no assets can be distributed without leave of the Probate Court. "Is dead since that time" sounds very French. They don't say "has been dead" unless the person has come back to life. This looks like the same construction in law Latin. Doug.

On 04/12/2014 20:38, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote: > You may find them online at familysearch; I know they have quite a lot > of Northumberland ones (some of which come under the Diocese of Durham). > Last time I used them they_weren't_ transcribed, so you have to trawl > through hundreds of images, which isn't as bad as it sounds, as they're > stored by church, and within that sometimes by chunk-of-time. Thanks, but unfortunately FamilySearch doesn't have Allendale BTs for the period in question. -- Brian Pears (Gateshead).

In message <[email protected]>, Brian Pears <[email protected]> writes: [] >The notion of checking the Bishop's Transcript is a good one - I'll >contact the Borthwick Institute at York (where the BTs are stored). [] You may find them online at familysearch; I know they have quite a lot of Northumberland ones (some of which come under the Diocese of Durham). Last time I used them they _weren't_ transcribed, so you have to trawl through hundreds of images, which isn't as bad as it sounds, as they're stored by church, and within that sometimes by chunk-of-time. -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)[email protected]+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf Actors are fairly modest...A lot of us have quite a lot to be modest about. - Simon Greenall (voice of Aleksandr the "Simples!" Meerkat), RT 11-17 Dec 2010

On Fri, 5 Dec 2014 03:42:18 +1100, Doug Laidlaw <[email protected]> wrote: >On Wed, 03 Dec 2014 12:15:57 -0000 >eve via <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > > M(emorandu)m the ori(gina)l will is at Mr Thorpes but was proved >> > > by Mr A[ck?]royd 1615 and administration granted to James lovell >> > > one of the executors during the minority of John Lovell the >> > > other one of the sons and executor which James is dead since that >> > > time. >> > >> > Thanks. Though I'd be interested to know what you actually think >> > the fourth and fifth lines say, rather than a translation / >> > paraphrase. >> >> I don't think so, I know so. # >> The 4th line >> uni execut. duran' minor' Johis Lovell >> the 5th line >> alterius filio' ex'or wch James is dead >> since that time >> > >> if you translate it any other way, I shall be very surprised >> EVE > >So when John attains full age, he can take out probate. That is a >standard arrangement. When probate is limited in some way such as this, >no assets can be distributed without leave of the Probate Court. > >"Is dead since that time" sounds very French. > Or uncertain about the actual date ? >They don't say "has been >dead" unless the person has come back to life. This looks like the >same construction in law Latin. > >Doug.

s is the last page of the will of Bridget Lovell, dated 1615, in > > which she makes her sons James and John joint executors. The paragraph > > in the bottom right beginning "Probatum fuit huiusmodi testamentum" is > > the usual probate clause. But what is the paragraph to the left? I'm > > struggling to follow what it say, and I think it might switch from > > English to Latin on the fourth line, and then back to English on the fifth. > > > > M[emoran]d[um] the [--] will is at Mr Thomas > > [---] prooved by Mr Arthd[?]: 1615] Have managed to blow it up more -line 2 probably is 'fml reg prooved by Mr Archd.' = former register OR formerly registered, proved by M(agiste)r Archdeacon so in the Archdeaconrycourt, though Archdeacons should be Ven(erable) > John Lovell was of age in 1623 Author of The McLaughlin Guides for Family Historians Secretary, Bucks Genealogical Society

://richard.genmine.com/wills/1623A_50_p2.png > >> > >> This is the last page of the will of Bridget Lovell, dated 1615, in > >> which she makes her sons James and John joint executors. The paragraph > >> in the bottom right beginning "Probatum fuit huiusmodi testamentum" is > >> the usual probate clause. But what is the paragraph to the left? I'm > >> struggling to follow what it say, and I think it might switch from > >> English to Latin on the fourth line, and then back to English on the fifth. > >> > >> M[emoran]d[um] the [--] will is at Mr Thomas > >> [---] prooved by Mr Arthd[?]: 1615 > >> & Admi[nistrati]on graunted to James Lovell > >> [--] Execut[or] [---] minor[--] Joh[ann]is Lovell > >> alternis filio [--] et exec[utor] / w[hi]ch James > >> is dead since that time > > > > M(emorandu)m the ori(gina)l will is at Mr Thorpes but was proved by Mr > > A[ck?]royd 1615 and administration granted to James lovell one of the > > executors during the minority of John Lovell the other one of the sons and > > executor which James is dead since that time. > > Thanks. Though I'd be interested to know what you actually think the > fourth and fifth lines say, rather than a translation / paraphrase. I don't think so, I know so. # The 4th line uni execut. duran' minor' Johis Lovell the 5th line alterius filio' ex'or wch James is dead since that time > if you translate it any other way, I shall be very surprised EVE Author of The McLaughlin Guides for Family Historians Secretary, Bucks Genealogical Society

Hi Thank you very much for the many helpful replies and numerous suggestions. I'm still drawn to Eve's "Snr hereof" or maybe "Sen hereof" which seems to fit the text, and makes sense in so far as Nicholas had a twenty- year-old son of the same name. But I certainly haven't ruled out other ideas given here. The notion of checking the Bishop's Transcript is a good one - I'll contact the Borthwick Institute at York (where the BTs are stored). Thanks again. -- Brian Pears (Gateshead)

Brian Pears wrote: > On 01/12/2014 13:30, Graeme Wall wrote: >> Any chance of some more of the page so letter comparisons could be made? > > Hi Graeme > > The full entry can be seen at > > http://www.bpears.org.uk/temp/marr1.jpg > It looks almost as if 'Bachelor of' might originally have been written and was then crossed out with loops instead of a straight line -- Anne Chambers South Australia anne dot chambers at bigpond dot com

On 01/12/2014 1:19 PM, Brian Pears via wrote: > On 01/12/2014 11:17, Brian Pears wrote: >> Can anyone please suggest what the word preceding "widower" might >> be on this marriage entry at St Cuthbert's, Allendale, Northumberland >> on 17 Nov 1798:http://www.bpears.org.uk/temp/marr.jpg > To avoid confusion, the unknown word(s) is not part of the groom's > name. He was was plain Nicholas Philipson. The unknown bit is between > Philipson and Widower, and is presumably some sort of description Three thoughts: 1) are there any other entries in the register where a word occurs in this position between name and status? Where does the clerk write 'of this'/'of the parish of' when both parties are not of this parish? Could he have started writing "of the parish of" and then deleted it on realising his mistake? 2) is there more than one Nicholas Philipson around at the same time 3) It is not unknown for crossings-out to be a series of loops rather than straight lines or hatching. Could we looking for a word underneath such a crossing out? Seeing how mistakes are dealt with elsewhere in the register may be a clue. Kind regards, John Henley

On 01/12/14 21:11, eve via wrote: >> http://richard.genmine.com/wills/1623A_50_p2.png >> >> This is the last page of the will of Bridget Lovell, dated 1615, in >> which she makes her sons James and John joint executors. The paragraph >> in the bottom right beginning "Probatum fuit huiusmodi testamentum" is >> the usual probate clause. But what is the paragraph to the left? I'm >> struggling to follow what it say, and I think it might switch from >> English to Latin on the fourth line, and then back to English on the fifth. >> >> M[emoran]d[um] the [--] will is at Mr Thomas >> [---] prooved by Mr Arthd[?]: 1615 >> & Admi[nistrati]on graunted to James Lovell >> [--] Execut[or] [---] minor[--] Joh[ann]is Lovell >> alternis filio [--] et exec[utor] / w[hi]ch James >> is dead since that time > > M(emorandu)m the ori(gina)l will is at Mr Thorpes but was proved by Mr > A[ck?]royd 1615 and administration granted to James lovell one of the > executors during the minority of John Lovell the other one of the sons and > executor which James is dead since that time. Thanks. Though I'd be interested to know what you actually think the fourth and fifth lines say, rather than a translation / paraphrase. (Also, I'm certain the second line doesn't begin "but was": the last letter is clearly a "g".) Richard

On 02/12/2014 16:44, ecunningham wrote: > Brian: Find another entry that says "bachelor of" and see if you can > superimpose it over/compare/match with your entry and consider that your > entry was marked out with circles and widower entered. There aren't any among the few marriages entries I have for that church at that period - every other entry has "the Son of" or "Son of" in that position. -- Brian Pears (Gateshead)