> 11. Re: Quarter years (Renia) > > > As I said, different rules for different areas at different times. Late > 18th century Yorkshire, for example, for a short period, gives the birth > date, baptism date, parents' names, mother's maiden name, and name of > grandparents! > > > That sounds to me like a so-called "Dade Register" - see here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parish_register These genealogists dreams are largely confirmed to the North of England, though not exclusively - at least one Essex parish had one, though I cannot remember which parish. Adrian

The Guru`s New Pick is Here! Open Sesame! It Is Still The Best Play!!! Date: Aug, 27th Name: MON_A R_CHY RE_SOU-RC-E_S INC-. Stock: M_O_N-K Short Term Target Price: $0.90 It is now: 0.175 It Has Formed A Double-Bottom And More. You Know We Can Call A Chart. It Makes a COMEBACK!

In message <b7uvh4Fp3d7U1@mid.individual.net>, Ian Goddard <goddai01@hotmail.co.uk> writes: [] >And note questions 3 h et seq on the application form here: >https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/fil >e/28419/Form_NSV001.pdf They simply ask for the applicant to explain >any name changes! > > In the OP's (friend's) case, the actual explanation is the problem! Though just _describing_ the change might work, even though that's not actually an _explanation_ here. -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf "To YOU I'm an atheist; to God, I'm the Loyal Opposition." - Woody Allen

On 26/08/2013 21:46, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote: > In message <kvbcab$etr$1@speranza.aioe.org>, Renia <renia@otenet.gr> > >>> I think I'd disagree there - I would never deliberately throw >>> away information. >> >> No, of course not, but you'd log the quarter in the notes section >> of > > I do, but I log it as "Q2" not "Jun". Same here, as I said earlier. > >> your program along with the district and page number. Surely? > > (Well, by prog. - BK - has a location field, so I put the district in > that, until/unless I have more precise information.) In the location, I put, e.g. Brighton area, Sussex (etc) >>>> quarter references. (And don't let's start on events in >>>> December not registered till the following March.) It's on a >>>> par with the date of >>> >>> Hoised by your own petard there I think - you meant "the >>> following March quarter", but that's not what you wrote (-:. >>> (Apart from where the registration delay was longer than >>> permitted over most of the period we're discussing, a December >>> event couldn't be registered as late as March.) >> >> Oh, yes it could. Events registered late in one quarter are often >> not registered until the next quarter's registers. >> > No, you're not getting what I'm saying: without going beyond the > delay that's allowed, the _registration_ of a December event should > happen _before_ March. Granted, for _our_ purposes, that's not all > that relevant, because the registers are only _indexed_ quarterly. > But the actual _date of the registration_ is supposed to be sooner > than that. Indeed, but it often isn't, especially if the event took place late in the last month of the previous registration. It's also the case that many events weren't actually registered at all. >>> >>>> baptism, which is not the same as a date of birth. There could >>>> be twenty years between the two. >>> >>> Indeed! And baptism registers more often _didn't_ record the DOB >>> than do. (Though sometimes even a curate who usually didn't would >>> do so for an adult baptism, or even one just a few years after >>> birth. But you certainly can't rely on him doing so.) >> >> Comparatively few baptisms register the date of birth. There were >> rules and regulations for these things, and they changed over >> time. > > You're probably right there - in the few cases where I've had to > delve into older free-form registers, you're right, the birth is > rarely mentioned. Most of the baptisms records I've been working with > have been the ones in preprinted books in Medway in the 19th and 20th > centuries. The preprinted books mostly indeed _don't_ have a column > for the birth date, only the baptism date (though a small number > actually do); however, I'd say in about a quarter or a third of the > records I've been looking at, more if the birth is significantly > earlier than the baptism, the curate has written it in, usually in > the left margin. Whether this is a Medway peculiarity, I have no > idea. As I said, different rules for different areas at different times. Late 18th century Yorkshire, for example, for a short period, gives the birth date, baptism date, parents' names, mother's maiden name, and name of grandparents!

On Sun, 25 Aug 2013 23:06:42 +0100, Charles Ellson <ce11son@yahoo.ca> wrote: >[...] If you were born in >England and Wales in the 1940/1950s you should find that your birth >registration entry number matches the terminating digits of your >1940s/50s ID card and old style NHS number. I had not noticed that! Thanks.

On Sun, 25 Aug 2013 19:15:01 +0100, Charles Ellson <ce11son@yahoo.ca> wrote: >[...] a GP might often never have the >opportunity to gain relevant knowledge of patients to truthfully >verify their identity if either or both of the patients or doctors >tend not to be permanently established in the area; they must have >"personally known the applicant for at least two years" to be able to >sign which should automatically disqualify many new/younger doctors. And very healthy patients, as a friend of mine discovered after 5 years as a person who had not visited the GP in that time.

In message <kvbcab$etr$1@speranza.aioe.org>, Renia <renia@otenet.gr> writes: >On 24/08/2013 15:29, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote: [] >> You're also assuming that anyone via whom the data has passed has >> also maintained clearly that it is a quarter. It only takes one link >> in the chain to record something as "Jun 1888" rather than "Jun Qtr >> 1888" (or _any_ acceptable variation thereon), and everyone who uses >> the data after that will at best not know whether it means month or >> quarter, at worst assume something that is incorrect (or at least >> approx. 2/3 chance of being anyway). > >It happens all the time. The internet is full of dud data because people >don't actually understand how the sources work. > Indeed. So I don't promulgate the ambiguous version of quarter identification. > >>> month of an event. Best to leave it as the year only, without >>> mentioning >> >> I think I'd disagree there - I would never deliberately throw away >> information. > >No, of course not, but you'd log the quarter in the notes section of I do, but I log it as "Q2" not "Jun". >your program along with the district and page number. Surely? (Well, by prog. - BK - has a location field, so I put the district in that, until/unless I have more precise information.) > >>> quarter references. (And don't let's start on events in December >>> not registered till the following March.) It's on a par with the >>> date of >> >> Hoised by your own petard there I think - you meant "the following >> March quarter", but that's not what you wrote (-:. (Apart from where >> the registration delay was longer than permitted over most of the >> period we're discussing, a December event couldn't be registered as >> late as March.) > >Oh, yes it could. Events registered late in one quarter are often not >registered until the next quarter's registers. > No, you're not getting what I'm saying: without going beyond the delay that's allowed, the _registration_ of a December event should happen _before_ March. Granted, for _our_ purposes, that's not all that relevant, because the registers are only _indexed_ quarterly. But the actual _date of the registration_ is supposed to be sooner than that. > >> >>> baptism, which is not the same as a date of birth. There could be >>> twenty years between the two. >> >> Indeed! And baptism registers more often _didn't_ record the DOB than >> do. (Though sometimes even a curate who usually didn't would do so >> for an adult baptism, or even one just a few years after birth. But >> you certainly can't rely on him doing so.) > >Comparatively few baptisms register the date of birth. There were rules >and regulations for these things, and they changed over time. You're probably right there - in the few cases where I've had to delve into older free-form registers, you're right, the birth is rarely mentioned. Most of the baptisms records I've been working with have been the ones in preprinted books in Medway in the 19th and 20th centuries. The preprinted books mostly indeed _don't_ have a column for the birth date, only the baptism date (though a small number actually do); however, I'd say in about a quarter or a third of the records I've been looking at, more if the birth is significantly earlier than the baptism, the curate has written it in, usually in the left margin. Whether this is a Medway peculiarity, I have no idea. -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf Who can refute a sneer? - Archdeacon Paley, in his book Moral Philosophy

Jenny M Benson wrote: > On 25/08/2013 00:14, Kiwi in Aus wrote: >> Yes thanks I had found that, on a later census she is Melinda, 1871 they >> get it right ;-) and he is a Marble Mason, thanks for looking > > He is probably the Stone Mason in Keynsham, Glos (HO107 piece 361 folio > 18 page 5 ). > In which case the indecipherable word in his wife's Falmouth entry may be "away". A stone mason may well have had to work on projects away from home. -- Ian The Hotmail address is my spam-bin. Real mail address is iang at austonley org uk

On 25/08/2013 00:14, Kiwi in Aus wrote: > Yes thanks I had found that, on a later census she is Melinda, 1871 they > get it right ;-) and he is a Marble Mason, thanks for looking He is probably the Stone Mason in Keynsham, Glos (HO107 piece 361 folio 18 page 5 ). -- Jenny M Benson

On 26/08/2013 13:21, Ian Goddard wrote: > Naomi W wrote: >> On 26/08/2013 12:40, Graeme Wall wrote: >>> Can anyone help? >>> >>> I'm trying to read the occupation of John Kenrick, it looks like >>> <something> banking clerk. >>> >>> <http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/Kenrick_1861.jpg> >>> >> >> Formerly banking clerk retired > > Agreed - "Formerly". > Obvious now I know! Thanks -- Graeme Wall This account not read, substitute trains for rail. Railway Miscellany at <http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail>

On 26/08/2013 13:01, Naomi W wrote: > On 26/08/2013 12:40, Graeme Wall wrote: >> Can anyone help? >> >> I'm trying to read the occupation of John Kenrick, it looks like >> <something> banking clerk. >> >> <http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/Kenrick_1861.jpg> >> > > Formerly banking clerk retired Thanks. -- Graeme Wall This account not read, substitute trains for rail. Railway Miscellany at <http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail>

Naomi W wrote: > On 26/08/2013 12:40, Graeme Wall wrote: >> Can anyone help? >> >> I'm trying to read the occupation of John Kenrick, it looks like >> <something> banking clerk. >> >> <http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/Kenrick_1861.jpg> >> > > Formerly banking clerk retired Agreed - "Formerly". -- Ian The Hotmail address is my spam-bin. Real mail address is iang at austonley org uk

On 26/08/2013 12:40, Graeme Wall wrote: > Can anyone help? > > I'm trying to read the occupation of John Kenrick, it looks like > <something> banking clerk. > > <http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/Kenrick_1861.jpg> > Formerly banking clerk retired

Can anyone help? I'm trying to read the occupation of John Kenrick, it looks like <something> banking clerk. <http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/Kenrick_1861.jpg> -- Graeme Wall This account not read, substitute trains for rail. Railway Miscellany at <http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail>

Family History Listers, The Guild of One-Name Studies is the worldwide centre of excellence in one-name studies, and promotes the interests of both individuals and groups who are engaged in them. Through its programme of activities it provides the means to share, exchange and publish information about one-name studies. It also encourages and assists those interested in one-name studies by means of conferences, seminars, and many other activities and projects. Following on from the recent sell out "Art of One Name Studies" seminar at Amersham (when we had to close bookings a week early, to the disappointment of a number of potential delegates) I am pleased to let you know that booking has now opened for the "Colonial Records" seminar at TNA on Saturday November 16th 2013. Full details are on the Guild website events page <http://www.one-name.org/seminar_2013nov_colonial.html>http://www.one-name.org/seminar_2013nov_colonial.html If you have any particular questions about this seminar please do not hesitate to contact Alan Moorhouse, Seminar Bookings. Book early to avoid disappointment! Alan Moorhouse Seminar Bookings 8 Strachans Close, Stroud, Gloucestershire, GL5 3EB tel: 07970 770546 <mailto:seminar-booking@one-name.org>seminar-booking@one-name.org Thank you very much Rod Clayburn Secretary, Seminar Sub-Committee, Guild of One-Name Studies

polygonum wrote: > On 25/08/2013 22:18, Renia wrote: >> On 25/08/2013 21:53, Charles Ellson wrote: >>> On Sun, 25 Aug 2013 19:08:36 +0100, Ian Goddard >> >> >>> Probably in most cases (e.g. married woman) the information supplied >> >> As a newly married woman applying for a passport in the UK, you have to >> send in your old passport, your birth certificate and your marriage >> certificate. > > Is the marriage certificate required even if you do not change your name? > If you don't change your name, you don't need a new passport, surely ? -- Anne Chambers South Australia anne dot chambers at bigpond dot com

Richard Heaton wrote: > Hi, > I have put together a series of lists of all the titles in all of the Digitalised Online British and Irish Newspaper snip Possibly this will be seen by more people if you start a new thread rather than posting in the middle of a different one. My newsreader shows threads and subthreads in tree form and this was buried deep. -- Anne Chambers South Australia anne dot chambers at bigpond dot com

On Sun, 25 Aug 2013 22:18:02 +0100, Renia <renia@otenet.gr> wrote: >On 25/08/2013 21:53, Charles Ellson wrote: >> On Sun, 25 Aug 2013 19:08:36 +0100, Ian Goddard > > >> Probably in most cases (e.g. married woman) the information supplied > >As a newly married woman applying for a passport in the UK, you have to >send in your old passport, your birth certificate and your marriage >certificate. > Only if you choose to be known by your husband's surname otherwise you can carry on as you were. A married woman who continues to use her own surname can request that an observation is entered on her passport that ' THE HOLDER IS THE WIFE OF ................. (name of husband)' or if she uses both surnames that 'THE HOLDER IS ALSO KNOWN AS...................'. The latter case requires corroborative evidence of such use. [https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/118565/marriage.pdf]

On Sun, 25 Aug 2013 22:10:39 +0100, Renia <renia@otenet.gr> wrote: > > >On 25/08/2013 18:18, Charles Ellson wrote: >> On Sun, 25 Aug 2013 19:02:54 +0930, Anne Chambers <anne@privacy.net> >> wrote: >> >>> brightside S9 wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> My original post stated clearly that his passport has the >>>> ZZZ-surname. >>>> >>> I thought a birth certificate wasn't proof of identity anyway. >>> >> It is the start of a chain of information which should end at your >> current address and physical identity. For a living person born in >> the UK, the birth registration should match to an identity card >> number > >We don't have identity cards in the UK. > We had them until 1952 and again from 2006 to 2011 but the latter version was abolished before it became compulsory for all. > >> (which later became an NHS number) > from 1948 using the identity card numbering system until a replacement numbering system was introduced a few years ago. If you were born in England and Wales in the 1940/1950s you should find that your birth registration entry number matches the terminating digits of your 1940s/50s ID card and old style NHS number. >> and if a person's medical records >> are complete from birth to the present day then that (in conjunction >> with your GP endorsing your photograph) is possibly the least likely >> chain of information to be defeated by impersonation but not the >> only one available. Current passport applications only seem to ask >> for a copy of the birth registration and the photograph but what you >> don't > >Two passport photographs must be signed by a person in authority who has >known you for at least two years, such as a doctor or police officer. If >it is a second or subsequent passport, it is required that you submit >the old one for ID verification, which they return to you. It is more >than 40 years since I applied for my first passport, which was by the >same process, but, of course, I had no previous passport to send them. I >don't know, but my ID may have been self-verified by my parents' >application for their first passports at the same time. > > >> see at a passport interview is what other information is being >> accessed on the interviewing officer's computer screen; this can be >> expected to be rather more databases than the many that we mere >> mortals have available to find someone. > >I have never had a passport interview. Not even when one of my passports >was renewed by the British Embassy in Athens. I just go and collect them. > >When my husband lost his driving licence in Rome a couple years ago >through the action of a pick-pocket who acquired his wallet, the new >licence was sent without him having to send a new photo. They accessed >his passport details and used that photo.

On 25/08/2013 22:40, Anne Chambers wrote: > polygonum wrote: >> On 25/08/2013 22:18, Renia wrote: >>> On 25/08/2013 21:53, Charles Ellson wrote: >>>> On Sun, 25 Aug 2013 19:08:36 +0100, Ian Goddard >>> >>> >>>> Probably in most cases (e.g. married woman) the information supplied >>> >>> As a newly married woman applying for a passport in the UK, you have to >>> send in your old passport, your birth certificate and your marriage >>> certificate. >> >> Is the marriage certificate required even if you do not change your name? >> > If you don't change your name, you don't need a new passport, surely ? > Might need one because of its age! That is, ten years or whatever. I couldn't remember if marital status was recorded on a passport at all. -- Rod