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 -- Anne Chambers South Australia anne dot chambers at bigpond dot com

On Mon, 19 Aug 2013 00:42:50 +0100, Renia <renia@otenet.gr> wrote: >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. > If the actual date isn't known then I record the year if the registration is in the last 3 quarters and ABT <year> if in the first quarter to allow for it being in November or December the previous year (there are 42 days allowed to register a birth in England and Wales).

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.

On Mon, 19 Aug 2013 09:45:00 +0930, "Johnno H" <johnh4999@gmail.com> wrote: > >"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 > >I understand that 2a 538 refers to Volume 2a page 538 >The volume appears to be tied to a registration district or area. > It is larger area of England and Wales formed from several registration districts. See e.g. :- http://www.findmypast.co.uk/help-and-advice/knowledge-base/births-marriages-deaths/registration-districts >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. > Only if it is not recognised that indexes arranged by quarters which is obvious with the original books but not when a third party fails to properly represent the arrangement. >When the registration was actually done ie period in a month can also cause >the qtr shown to be in another qtr. > The quarter is when the event was registered not when it occurred. A few can be years after the event if registration was not made at/near the time or an amended record is created.

On 18/08/2013 17:05, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote: > [] >> 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 No, we can't. The above reference is direct from the General Register 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. 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.

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.

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.

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 :-) -- Frank Erskine Sunderland

Tickettyboo wrote: > for the mo I am back > at a standstill to find any info on just who she may have been. > Some people just did't want us to find them. I think she must be related to my Elizabeth Asterman ;) -- Ian The Hotmail address is my spam-bin. Real mail address is iang at austonley org uk

On Mon, 19 Aug 2013 00:03:48 +0200, Richard van Schaik <f.m.a.vanschaikREMOVE@THISgmail.com> wrote: >On 18-08-2013 23:52, Charles Ellson wrote: >> On Sun, 18 Aug 2013 17:05:21 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)" >> <G6JPG@soft255.demon.co.uk> wrote: >> >>> [] >>>> 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)? >>> >> It has been standard to refer to MAR, JUN, SEP, DEC quarters since >> 1837. > >And when I fill Jan - Mar in in my database it gives in representation >only the first month to my regret. For me clear as local database with >full data for outsiders via site confusing. > A bit of quick Googling suggests that working in quarters is not something that all databases are born with although it does get a mention in my ancient copy of Lotus 123.

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. Richard

On Sun, 18 Aug 2013 22:44:06 +0100, Richard Smith <richard@ex-parrot.com> 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? > Both, it depends on the country; further reference to "old style" or "new style" usually removes the doubt. >I rather suspect my database has a >mixture of styles, even though my convention is to rewrite dates to be >in the former style. > >Richard

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.

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. >usually if you are dealing in centuries you >refer to the 19th or 20th or whatever. Just goes to show you have to be >very careful in making sure your date references are unambiguous.

On Sun, 18 Aug 2013 17:05:21 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG@soft255.demon.co.uk> wrote: >[] >>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)? > It has been standard to refer to MAR, JUN, SEP, DEC quarters since 1837. >(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.)

On 8/18/2013 7:04 PM, Ian Goddard wrote: > Tickettyboo wrote: >> for the mo I am back >> at a standstill to find any info on just who she may have been. >> > > Some people just did't want us to find them. I think she must be > related to my Elizabeth Asterman ;) > I think some of my "disappears" are running from the law. Or their wife who wants to bring them to court for a divorce.

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. Richard

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>

On 2013-08-18 15:30:22 +0000, J. P. Gilliver (John) said: > In message <b79u2vFaqr8U1@mid.individual.net>, Tickettyboo > <tickettyboo@mail2oops.com> writes: >> Everyone gave me so much help with my quest for John Duncan Bertie >> FULTON, I thought I should update, as I now have a copy of his will. > > Thanks for coming back; interesting. > [] >> As far as finding out about the Fulton Block at RAF Cosford, the many >> enquiries I sent out were mostly replied to (no reply from Defence >> Infrastructure Organisation which is a bit disappointing). The English >> Heritage enquiry route eventually resulted in me contacting the author >> of a report on which the heritage status is based. He kindly replied >> but his sources were given as 'local knowledge' and info in the Mess. >> The fact that the block was named for JDBF does seem to be common >> knowledge as is the bequest by "Lady Fulton' to build it, but for the >> mo I am back at a standstill to find any info on just who she may have >> been. >> >> > Were you able to actually visit the block itself, to see if it had any > plaque (inside or out), "foundation" stone (not necessarily at ground > level - the one for my school is _over_ the front door!), or similar? > (Possibly overgrown/overpainted?) No, travelling isn't an option for me atm. Though I would have thought if there was a plaque then the reply to my query to the base would have mentioned that. 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? -- Tickettyboo

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. Just goes to show you have to be very careful in making sure your date references are unambiguous. -- Graeme Wall This account not read, substitute trains for rail. Railway Miscellany at <http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail>