In message <kurmqk$pab$1@speranza.aioe.org>, Renia <renia@otenet.gr> writes: >On 18/08/2013 17:05, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote: [] >> Can we as a hobby/profession start to abandon using only a month to >> refer to a quarter, when further precision isn't known? I'd suggest any of >> >> Apr-Jun 1891 >> 1891, Apr-Jun >> Q2 1891 >> 1891Q2 > >No, we can't. The above reference is direct from the General Register Why not? Just because a bad (I think more posters have agreed with me than disagreed) way of identifying the quarters, I see no reason to continue to do so. >Office index of Births, which holds its Births, Marriage and Deaths >indexes to the registers in quarters, March, June, September and >December. > >And this is something any newbie genealogist just has to learn and >understand. > >Just as they have to learn that this particular birth did not >necessarily take place in Gravesend, but took place within the >Gravesend registration district, which included many different towns >and parishes. Agreed: any new genealogist has to learn both of those points, since there are so many such references around. (They also have to learn about registration delay.) But I see no reason to continue to use a misleading method in any _new_ reference I/we make. > >Any newbie should go to the Genuki web site to learn about sources for >British and Irish genealogy.. > >Here, for example, are the registration districts for Kent: > >http://www.ukbmd.org.uk/genuki/reg/ken.html > >2a is the volume and 538 is the page. > (I knew that - I only mentioned those as evidence that the reference I was quoting _was_ from the indexes.) -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf A man is not contemptible because he thinks science explains everything, and a man is not contempptible because he doesn't. - Howard Jacobson, in Radio Times 2010/1/23-29.

In message <7cg2199tu6fegerv7hpfrj1mlsb4llp2jp@4ax.com>, Charles Ellson <ce11son@yahoo.ca> writes: >On Sun, 18 Aug 2013 17:05:21 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)" ><G6JPG@soft255.demon.co.uk> wrote: [] >>What does the house think (about the suggestion we try to stop using >>just one month to indicate a quarter)? >> >It has been standard to refer to MAR, JUN, SEP, DEC quarters since >1837. [] It may have been, but (as well as the fact that I _have_ seen them referred to as Jan, Apr, July, and Oct), there are lots of cases where the word - or concept - of "quarter" gets dropped/lost, so what was "Jun Qtr 1897" gets recorded/shown as "Jun 1897". If we used "Q2" rather than "Jun", I think that would be less _likely_ to happen. -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf A man is not contemptible because he thinks science explains everything, and a man is not contempptible because he doesn't. - Howard Jacobson, in Radio Times 2010/1/23-29.

In message <mailman.2.1376949654.29631.genbrit@rootsweb.com>, singhals <singhals@erols.com> writes: [] >I've found that saying "18th century" when meaning the years between >1700 and 1800 confuses the casual reader, and most of the people who >read my family histories ARE fairly casual about it. Stopping a minute >to think, to remember, interupts the flow of the narrative. It >therefore makes the life of my reader easier (and my point easier to >find) when I say "The 1700s..." instead "The 18th century". > >Your readers may be less casual than mine, of course. > >Cheryl > Yes; when I was little, I couldn't understand why everyone said we were in the 20th century, since all the dates were 19xx. Though I obviously understand it now, I still avoid talking about xxth century if I can: I say 17xx or whatever, if possible. -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf A man is not contemptible because he thinks science explains everything, and a man is not contempptible because he doesn't. - Howard Jacobson, in Radio Times 2010/1/23-29.

In message <kurm5p$ns6$1@speranza.aioe.org>, Renia <renia@otenet.gr> writes: >On 18/08/2013 17:25, Graeme Wall wrote: >> On 18/08/2013 17:05, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote: >>> Can we as a hobby/profession start to abandon using only a month to >>> refer to a quarter, when further precision isn't known? I'd suggest >>> any of >>> >>> Apr-Jun 1891 >>> 1891, Apr-Jun >>> Q2 1891 >>> 1891Q2 >> >> I tend to use <year> Mar/4, Jun/4, Sep/4 and Dec/4 > > >I tend to use 1891Q3, but not in databases, only in notes. In databases >I just use 1891. In Brother's Keeper (which does not acknowledge quarters), I record the year in the date field, and "Q3" in the comment field for that event. (I don't usually allow for the registration delay, as _I_ know about that possibility. But I do realise that's going against what I'm saying!) -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf A man is not contemptible because he thinks science explains everything, and a man is not contempptible because he doesn't. - Howard Jacobson, in Radio Times 2010/1/23-29.

In message <b7crheFto7dU1@mid.individual.net>, Tickettyboo <tickettyboo@mail2oops.com> writes: [] >No, travelling isn't an option for me atm. Though I would have thought Sorry to hear that. >if there was a plaque then the reply to my query to the base would have >mentioned that. Yes if it's well-maintained; however, it might have been painted over, some piece of furniture moved in front of it, or similar, such that nobody knows it's there. A foundation stone might again have been painted enough times that nobody knows it is one, and/or had things placed in front of it. >Not too sure that they actually allow civilians to wander into an RAF >base anyway, I would have thought they were pretty hot on security? I very much doubt you'd be able to just walk in! You'd need to get special permission. I would have thought it ought to be possible to obtain it though, though it might take a while to find the right person to ask (the base commander perhaps! Especially if he's an older person). You might have to offer to produce a history of the building/base for them, or - though I don't like to suggest such dishonesty - lead them to believe that's what you're doing. With the help of local historical society, perhaps: presumably there is one. (I'd look on noticeboards in the nearest main public library; such organisations often have a card there.) -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf A man is not contemptible because he thinks science explains everything, and a man is not contempptible because he doesn't. - Howard Jacobson, in Radio Times 2010/1/23-29.

In message <QcidnTgKHKjGCY_PnZ2dnUVZ8lSdnZ2d@bt.com>, MB <MB@nospam.nospam> writes: >On 18/08/2013 16:23, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote: >> Surely a film viewer is basically a projector? Won't any sort of extra >> lighting just reduce the contrast, like in the old days when people >> tried to photograph their TV screens with flashbulbs? > > >I was talking of photographing a document like a newspaper. Ah. I was reading the subject line (-:. -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf A man is not contemptible because he thinks science explains everything, and a man is not contempptible because he doesn't. - Howard Jacobson, in Radio Times 2010/1/23-29.

On Mon, 19 Aug 2013 15:42:44 +0100, Ian Goddard <goddai01@hotmail.co.uk> wrote: >J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote: >> [] >>> Births Jun 1891 >>> Martin James Elias Gravesend 2a 538 >> What does the house think (about the suggestion we try to stop using >> just one month to indicate a quarter)? >> >> (And yes, I do know that there's further ambiguity in that a BMD may be >> registered in the following quarter. I feel my preferred option of >> 1891Q2 makes that possibility very slightly more obvious, though I'm not >> sure why I feel that.) > >This member of the house agrees. Depending on circumstances I'll use >the Q2 1891 style in a text account or, using Gramps, set the date >format to range and enter the beginning and terminal dates of the range. > >I'm not so concerned with confusing newcomers, it's just that using a >single month has a two thirds chance of being wrong even if it's what >the official lists say. > Using the quarter of registration to indicate the birthdate only drops the potential error from c.66% to c.47% (assuming for simple convenience an even distribution across the time available for registration).

On Mon, 19 Aug 2013 09:50:12 +0100, Ian Goddard <goddai01@hotmail.co.uk> wrote: >Charles Ellson wrote: >> On Mon, 19 Aug 2013 00:44:29 +0100, Renia <renia@otenet.gr> wrote: >> >>> On 18/08/2013 20:30, Richard Smith wrote: >>>> On 18/08/13 20:24, Graeme Wall wrote: >>>> >>>>> 1900s plural is the decade, just as 1920s plural is the decade. >>>> >>>> You may use that convention, but a lot of people do use 1900s to mean >>>> the century, so the ambiguity is still there. >>> >>> >>> I have never heard of 1900s to refer to the whole century. It is usually >>> called the twentieth century or 20th C. 1900s refers to the first decade >>> of the 20th century. >>> >> .. and the last year of the 19th. >> >.. and, of course, it's only the first 9 years of the 20th. I take it >that, like me, you were irritated about all the fuss at the start of 2000. > More a case of no longer being surprised at the number of people willing to believe a blatant untruth broadcast by officialdom.

On 18/08/2013 16:23, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote: > Surely a film viewer is basically a projector? Won't any sort of extra > lighting just reduce the contrast, like in the old days when people > tried to photograph their TV screens with flashbulbs? I was talking of photographing a document like a newspaper.

On Sunday, August 2, 1998 5:00:00 PM UTC+10, Dave & Ria Lenard wrote: > Hi > I am new to the list and am feeling my way around. My grandmother, Violet > Getrude CAIL and her parents, > William CAIL and Sarah Jane HARRISON immigrated to South Africa after 1893. > On William CAIL's death notice it states that his parents were William CAIL > and Margaret CAIL. I cannot fit these two grandparents in and I cannot find > any trace of their records. I had an idea that maybe the Magaret was wrong > and it could be Mary but I cannot find anyone who could confirm this. > > My grandmother was born on 29 May 1893 at 33 Third Street,Bensham,ENG. Her > father was born about 1866 and died in South Africa on 25 May 1927. I am > sure there must be some CAIL that could point me in the right direction. I > know that my grandmother had a cousin, Hilda Smith born in ENG, a chemist > and she also later immigrated to South Africa and married my grandfather > after my grandmother died. Then there was another cousin, Amy Whyte whom > immigrated to South Africa and also died here. I do not know how they all > fit in. > > I would appreciate any pointers in the right direction. > > Regards > Ria Lenard Dear Dave & Ria, I am not sure if you are still after information in regards to the Cail Family, l have been working on the Cail Family Tree for the past 5 years. I have been able to trace the family, not only in Australia, but also England & Canada, l also was given the family tree to the Cail family in South Africa, from your great-great grandfather William Cail (1825-1892) & his 1st wife Mary Ann Burrell & 2nd wife Jane Johnston. I am told they are connected to my family, but am having trouble with this, as l need to know William's parents names. My email address is d.cail@yahoo.com, if you are still interested in information on the Cail's, maybe we can help each other. Regards David Cail Melbourne, Australia

Frank Erskine wrote: > On Sun, 18 Aug 2013 23:35:09 +0100, Richard Smith > <richard@ex-parrot.com> wrote: > >> On 18/08/13 22:53, Charles Ellson wrote: >>> On Sun, 18 Aug 2013 22:06:19 +0100, Graeme Wall >>> <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote: >>> >>>> On 18/08/2013 20:30, Richard Smith wrote: >>>>> On 18/08/13 20:24, Graeme Wall wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> 1900s plural is the decade, just as 1920s plural is the decade. >>>>> >>>>> You may use that convention, but a lot of people do use 1900s to mean >>>>> the century, so the ambiguity is still there. >>>> >>>> Not something I've noticed, >>>> >>> Nor me. >> >> Whilst I don't doubt you, it really does surprise me. "1900s" is >> perhaps not the best example, but have you really never heard or seen >> "In the 1700s ..." and thought it probably mean the whole century rather >> than just its first decade? I think if I heard that, I'd assume it >> meant the century by default. >> >> Perhaps there's some sort of regional or generational difference in >> usage that I've not noticed before. >> > I'd have thought that for a family tree or any family history, > precision to merely the century would be fairly insignificant in the > light of other related data :-) > Not if the sentence reads something along the lines of ..."In the 1700s, one did not have electricity, telephones, or TVs." Those facts were true for all dwellings through about 1880 or so, not just in 1700-1710. I've found that saying "18th century" when meaning the years between 1700 and 1800 confuses the casual reader, and most of the people who read my family histories ARE fairly casual about it. Stopping a minute to think, to remember, interupts the flow of the narrative. It therefore makes the life of my reader easier (and my point easier to find) when I say "The 1700s..." instead "The 18th century". Your readers may be less casual than mine, of course. Cheryl

Graeme Wall wrote: > For exact dates I use the form 18 Aug 2013, saves confusing the > rebel colonies. > Agreed. And pad out single digits with a leading zero, e.g. 01 Aug 2013 to give a constant field length. -- Ian The Hotmail address is my spam-bin. Real mail address is iang at austonley org uk

J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote: > [] >> Births Jun 1891 >> Martin James Elias Gravesend 2a 538 > What does the house think (about the suggestion we try to stop using > just one month to indicate a quarter)? > > (And yes, I do know that there's further ambiguity in that a BMD may be > registered in the following quarter. I feel my preferred option of > 1891Q2 makes that possibility very slightly more obvious, though I'm not > sure why I feel that.) This member of the house agrees. Depending on circumstances I'll use the Q2 1891 style in a text account or, using Gramps, set the date format to range and enter the beginning and terminal dates of the range. I'm not so concerned with confusing newcomers, it's just that using a single month has a two thirds chance of being wrong even if it's what the official lists say. -- Ian The Hotmail address is my spam-bin. Real mail address is iang at austonley org uk

All baptised in the Market Harborough parish church Lockline McDONALD Daniel Agnes Kinnaway, Fifeshire, Scotland artist 1850 20-Oct Mary STEWART John Margaret Paisley, Scotland traveller 1851 19-Apr Sarah Ann TOMLINSON Thomas Elizabeth Oswald Kirk, Yorkshire gamekeeper 1854 2-Jul Kate LEMON George Mary Ann London dyer 1865 12-Feb John Edwin George GUTTERIDGE James Edwin Emma Uppingham coach painter 1866 9-Dec Lizzie Florence CHAMBERLAIN Alfred Eliza London St Pancras glass cutter 1867 22-Apr Mary Jane LYNE Samuel Emma Halifax weaver 1868 13-Sep Alfred SMITH George Elizabeth Coventry painter 1870 28-Jan pr Louisa COLEMAN Jonathan Amadine Poplar, Middlesex hawker 1870 6-Feb 2 yrs Leanda COLEMAN Jonathan Amadine Poplar, Middlesex hawker 1870 6-Feb Amy COLEMAN Edmund Amy Poplar, Middlesex hawker 1870 6-Feb Thomas Henry LEWIS Thomas Mary Ann Kentish Town, London fireman 1870 17-Apr Ellen STYLES William Elizabeth Chatham prison warder 1870 21-Aug John Isaac SOANS Richard Sarah Stockton on Tees commercial traveller 1870 16-Dec aged 20 yrs Alfred Edward SEAL Edward Marcha Cambden Town, London labourer 1871 1-Oct Robert PARSONS Elias [blank] London & Market Harborough 1872 30-Mar 16 yrs William LEWIS Thomas Mary Ann Sandiacre, Derbyshire engine driver 1872 21-Jul Charles Robert DILCOCK Charles Annie Fulham, Middlesex groom 1872 6-Oct John William HAINES Francis Elizabeth Bedford engine driver 1873 13-Jul William HALE Charles Ann Reading labourer 1874 12-Feb pr John Henry COOPER Thomas Emma Mansfield labourer 1874 20-Feb Mary Elizabeth COOPER Thomas Emma Mansfield labourer 1874 20-Feb Currently transcribing Market Harborough register for Free Reg Marilyn http://www.familyhistorynorthants.co.uk

Charles Ellson wrote: > On Mon, 19 Aug 2013 00:44:29 +0100, Renia <renia@otenet.gr> wrote: > >> On 18/08/2013 20:30, Richard Smith wrote: >>> On 18/08/13 20:24, Graeme Wall wrote: >>> >>>> 1900s plural is the decade, just as 1920s plural is the decade. >>> >>> You may use that convention, but a lot of people do use 1900s to mean >>> the century, so the ambiguity is still there. >> >> >> I have never heard of 1900s to refer to the whole century. It is usually >> called the twentieth century or 20th C. 1900s refers to the first decade >> of the 20th century. >> > .. and the last year of the 19th. > .. and, of course, it's only the first 9 years of the 20th. I take it that, like me, you were irritated about all the fuss at the start of 2000. -- Ian The Hotmail address is my spam-bin. Real mail address is iang at austonley org uk

Graeme Wall wrote: > On 18/08/2013 22:44, Richard Smith wrote: >> On 18/08/13 22:06, Graeme Wall wrote: >>> On 18/08/2013 20:30, Richard Smith wrote: >>>> On 18/08/13 20:24, Graeme Wall wrote: >>>> >>>>> 1900s plural is the decade, just as 1920s plural is the decade. >>>> >>>> You may use that convention, but a lot of people do use 1900s to mean >>>> the century, so the ambiguity is still there. >>> >>> Not something I've noticed, usually if you are dealing in centuries you >>> refer to the 19th or 20th or whatever. >> >> That's what I do too. (Though even that is open to a certain degree of >> ambiguity -- in the ISO 8601 format for centuries, "19" denotes the 20th >> century. Fortunately the ISO 8061 century format is pretty rarely used.) >> >>> Just goes to show you have to be very careful in making sure your date >>> references are unambiguous. >> >> Absolutely. The whole subject is riddled with ambiguities. Just to >> take one other example, does 1 Jan 1700 refer to the day after 31 Dec >> 1699, or the day after 31 Dec 1700? I rather suspect my database has a >> mixture of styles, even though my convention is to rewrite dates to be >> in the former style. >> > > > Convention is to write 1699/00 or 1700/01 as appropriate though, like > you, I convert to new date format to avoid the ambiguity. Same here but there's then a problem with published sources where it's not made clear whether such conversion has been done. -- Ian The Hotmail address is my spam-bin. Real mail address is iang at austonley org uk

I understand that 2a 538 refers to Volume 2a page 538 The volume appears to be tied to a registration district or area. When entering records as coming from such source, I enter 2nd Qtr 1853 or 4th Qtr 1853 I often see Mar 1853 and this (as was stated) is misleading as actual month can be Jan, Feb or Mar in actuality. When the registration was actually done ie period in a month can also cause the qtr shown to be in another qtr. John H "J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG@soft255.demon.co.uk> wrote in message news:NY7Tr1ZBDPESFwDs@soft255.demon.co.uk... > [] >>Births Jun 1891 >>Martin James Elias Gravesend 2a 538 > [] > (Deliberately deleted poster details as this isn't specific to that > poster.) > > I presume from the "2a 538" that this is from a BMD index. > > I'm sure most of us here know this, but it will mislead newcomers to the > hobby: these indexes are divided into quarter years, so the above really > means "April, May, or June 1891" (plus see last paragraph below). > > Unfortunately, I have seen such referred to as both "Apr 1891" and "Jun > 1891", so there isn't any consistency. > > Can we as a hobby/profession start to abandon using only a month to refer > to a quarter, when further precision isn't known? I'd suggest any of > > Apr-Jun 1891 > 1891, Apr-Jun > Q2 1891 > 1891Q2 > > (with my personal preference being for the last one). > > It'll be a long haul, not least because both Ancestry and FreeBMD use this > form in _some_ of their output (I'm not sure whether FMP do). > > [Ancestry have even mangled it further: they've _tried_ to fix it, but > then let it pass through another interpreter stage that turned "1" into > "Jan", so I've sometimes seen "QJan-Jan-Feb-Mar" (or something very like > that) in Ancestry output.] > > > What does the house think (about the suggestion we try to stop using just > one month to indicate a quarter)? > > (And yes, I do know that there's further ambiguity in that a BMD may be > registered in the following quarter. I feel my preferred option of 1891Q2 > makes that possibility very slightly more obvious, though I'm not sure why > I feel that.) > -- > J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf > > There's nothing wrong with looking at cake. - Sarah Millican, Radio Times > 10-16 December 2011

Charles Ellson wrote: > On Mon, 19 Aug 2013 07:15:11 +0930, Anne Chambers <anne@privacy.net> > wrote: > >> Charles Ellson wrote: >>> On Sun, 18 Aug 2013 16:31:52 +0930, Anne Chambers <anne@privacy.net> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> David Love wrote: >>>> >>>>> (b) his marriage in Ireland? >>>>> >>>> >>>> The Buffs were, according to their regimental history, only in Ireland (Fermoy) between 1920 and January 1922, >>>> so that limits the date of his marriage >>>> >>> Where did they go next ? >>> <snip> >>> >> http://www.britisharmedforces.org/i_regiments/buffs_index.htm >> > Ta. That puts them out of reach (except for the first three months of > 1922) of any registration system in the British Isles for years unless > anyone was left behind or on home leave. As they had gone before > partition then we can probably not worry about a late marriage in > Northern Ireland with no online index access. > He must have been back in the UK by 1926 as he married his second wife in the Dartford RD then. Some of the 2nd Battalion were in the UK between 1923 and 1927; if he were senior enough by then, he may have been transferred to them as an instructor. It might pay to look for a death of a female MARTIN of an appropriate age in either Portland or Aldershot between 1922/3 and 1925/6. -- Anne Chambers South Australia anne dot chambers at bigpond dot com

David Love <zed@zed.net.nz> wrote: > I am doing some research for a friend in England. It is proving a tad > difficult to unravel fact from fiction with husband's grandfather. > > His name was James Elias MARTIN and he was born in 1891, in Kent. Family > recollections recall he served with "The Buffs" in WW1 and took part in > some of the major battles. It is said that in the 1920s he was posted to > Ireland. > While there he married and that resulted in two/three children. His wife > died and in 1926 he married Lucy Maud PAGETT, in Kent. He continued in > the Army and at one stage was a Sergeant Major. > > Where can I find information about: > > (a) his military service? > > (b) his marriage in Ireland? > > I have been into familysearch and looked at the Births and Marriages for > MARTIN but James Elias I cannot find. > > Any assistance is most welcome. Thanks you to all who replied to my questions, expecially Anne Chambers for her comprehensive answers. I am now much further forward in my research. David -- David Love

On 18/08/2013 22:44, Richard Smith wrote: > On 18/08/13 22:06, Graeme Wall wrote: >> On 18/08/2013 20:30, Richard Smith wrote: >>> On 18/08/13 20:24, Graeme Wall wrote: >>> >>>> 1900s plural is the decade, just as 1920s plural is the decade. >>> >>> You may use that convention, but a lot of people do use 1900s to mean >>> the century, so the ambiguity is still there. >> >> Not something I've noticed, usually if you are dealing in centuries you >> refer to the 19th or 20th or whatever. > > That's what I do too. (Though even that is open to a certain degree of > ambiguity -- in the ISO 8601 format for centuries, "19" denotes the 20th > century. Fortunately the ISO 8061 century format is pretty rarely used.) > >> Just goes to show you have to be very careful in making sure your date >> references are unambiguous. > > Absolutely. The whole subject is riddled with ambiguities. Just to > take one other example, does 1 Jan 1700 refer to the day after 31 Dec > 1699, or the day after 31 Dec 1700? I rather suspect my database has a > mixture of styles, even though my convention is to rewrite dates to be > in the former style. > Convention is to write 1699/00 or 1700/01 as appropriate though, like you, I convert to new date format to avoid the ambiguity. Mind you I haven't actually got back that far on my primary line so the situation only arises on the wife's ancestors. I'm currently stuck in Berkshire on the mid 18th century trying to work out where a miller came from who could afford the lease on a 3 wheel mill and a large farm. -- Graeme Wall This account not read, substitute trains for rail. Railway Miscellany at <http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail>