Mick wrote: >> > Hi all, > Thank you very much for the information you have found. > The bit I cannot find now is the birth name of the mother"Jane" > born around 1807 at Wimborn, Dorset. > > I try to get the mothers birth name from the children's birth details > but thease are that bit too early. > > Thanks again, > Mick IOW. > > www.familysearch.org Name: Harrison Harley Spouse's Name: Mary Jane Lockyer Event Date: 13 Sep 1830 Event Place: Saint James, Poole, Dorset, England Indexing Project (Batch) Number: M15980-1 System Origin: England-ODM GS Film number: 1239221 Name: Harrison Harley Gender: Male Christening Date: 06 Dec 1806 Christening Place: St. Mary, Cowes, Hampshire, England Father's Name: John Harley Mother's Name: Ann Indexing Project (Batch) Number: C16652-1 System Origin: England-EASy GS Film number: 1470805 -- Anne Chambers South Australia anne dot chambers at bigpond dot com

As has been mentioned,Ancestry are discontinuing Old Search. Can some one explain to me,how to use new search. I just checked,on one of my ancesters,by using old search,there was a listing,for his birth,marriage & death,various census and passenger list details and links to possible other connections. I can see none of this on new search and it looks like.I will have to access,the various sets of records,one by one.

"Tony Proctor" <tony@proctor_NoMore_SPAM.net> wrote in message news:krgvvu$f42$1@reader01.news.esat.net... >I have encountered an unusual item of evidence and wanted to ask how other >people would interpret it. > > My ancestor William Elliott (b. c1841 Uttoxeter) married a Sarah Woods (b. > 1859 Kensington) in Burton-on-Trent on 9/10/1881. I found that William was > previously married to a Sarah Elizabeth Wildgoose (b. c1841 Darley Dale). > I assumed that she had died, even though I could find no death record, but > something was troubling me: In the 1881 census William was lodging with > his second "wife", and their son William who was born in the January. > However, William didn't marry Sarah Woods until the October which is quite > a long time after their son's birth. > > I'd seen this pattern before, though, and started working on the theory > that he and his first wife had separated, and that he was waiting for > 7-years of complete separation (as provided for in the Offences Against > the Person Act 1861, section.57) to pass. If true then he separated from > Sarah Wildgoose around October 1874, and his move from Derbyshire to > Staffordshire may have been part of the plan. > > There was a Sarah Wildgoose of the right age, also from Darley Dale, who > married a Joseph Woodhouse in Bakewell district (Matlock parish) on > 20/4/1874. I could see that they had a child in the September so she was > already pregnant when they married. If it was the same Sarah Wildgoose > then she may have ignored the 7-year provision and got married as quickly > as possible. Joseph may have even been the cause of the split from William > Elliott. This Sarah never used any middlename but that could have been a > vague attempt to obfuscate the connection. Unfortunately, that child later > died as an infant. > > Everything seemed to fit together in the theory but I needed some evidence > that clinched it. I applied for a copy of this marriage to Joseph > Woodhouse and was rather surprised to find all the bride's-father fields > crossed out, with nothing recorded. Could it be that this was a different > Sarah who simply didn't know her father, or that the marriage was really > bigamous and she wanted muddy the trail? > > Tony Proctor > Just for the record, in case anyone is searching on Wildgoose, there were two Sarah Wildgoose births in Darley Dale c1842: a) Sarah Elizabeth Wildgoose, b. c1842 to Charles Wildgoose (b. c1797) and Elizabeth Greatorex (b. c1802) who were married on 28/8/1820 at Wirksworth, Derbys. Sarah was christened 5/6/1842. b) Sarah Wildgoose, b. c1843 to Dorothy Wildgoose, nee Allwood. No father given. Dorothy was married for a short time to George Wildgoose but it is doubtful he was Sarah's father. Sarah was christened 5/2/1843. Hence, the marriage certificate showing no father was that for Sarah-b, whereas I'm looking for Sarah-a after 1871. Still no luck there. Tony Proctor

Apologies, folks, but I'm back on one of my favourite moans again! Last Saturday's issue of the Daily Mail's Weekend magazine - the TV listings mag - blurbed right across the bottom of the front cover the headline "THE ASTONISHING SECRET IN NIGEL HAVERS' PAST". I turned to pages 4-5 and 6 to find that the feature was blurbing the new series of Who Do You Think You Are? beginning on Wednesday July 24. The main headline read: "The Skeletons In Their Closets". Naturally, as a genealogist and a fan of WDYTYA? (I even appeared in one episode) I read avidly to discover what terrible secret the researchers had discovered in the past of the actor Nigel Havers. An ancestor hanged for highway robbery or sheep-stealing perhaps? A female ancestor who was a brothel keeper? An ancestor transported to Australia and Botany Bay? Sadly, none of these! The "astonishing secret" was that Havers - described as "always the poshest of our thespian types" - actually had a great-great-great-grandfather who was - wait for it - a cabbie in Victorian Essex! "Everyone talks about how posh I am," prattled Havers, "to the point that everyone must be bored hearing it. Well, as it turns out, I'm no posher than anybody else - which is fantastic!" Woweeeee! I can hardly wait to see it. Much as I enjoy WDYTYA?, I never cease to be amazed by the reactions of the luvvies whose ancestries are traced. Having myself taken part in a number of TV documentaries, I am well aware of how the producers try to get their subjects to jump through hoops to produce an emotive reaction. A recent series about celebrities who had an ancestor in the workhouse (which we have discussed previously) produced an extraordinary range of emotions from tears to one Scottish actor who got very angry and raged about the system. Can these luvvies really be so naive as not to realise that the world was a very different place 100 and more years ago and that trying to judge things that happened long, long ago by a mindset of modern values is simply plain stupid? -- Roy Stockdill Genealogical researcher, writer & lecturer Famous family trees blog: http://blog.findmypast.co.uk/tag/roy-stockdill/ "There is only one thing in the world worse than being talked about, and that is not being talked about." OSCAR WILDE

Peter Williams was baptised in Winscombe, Somerset, in 1819, apparently married to Ann Bassett at Long Ashton in 1839, had a daughter Ann Williams, born in Wedmore about 1843, a second daughter Adelaide born in Bristol in 1846, and a third daughter Hannah born in London in 1849. Thereafter the family seems to have lived in the Marylebone area of London, where Peter Williams worked as a cordwainer/bootmaker. At the 1871 and 1881 censuses there is a grandson staying with the family, Henry Alfred Dash, who was presumably an apprentice to his grandfather as he is later also shown as a bootmaker. The 1871 census also shows an Ann Dash with a Henry Alfred Dash, hatter, and three daughters, so presumably she was Ann Williams, the eldest daughter of Peter Williams. And here is the problem :- The eldest child of Henry Alfed and Ann Dash appears to be Henrietta Alexandra Annie, born in 1863. But in 1861 Henry Alfred Dash was living with his first wife, Mary Ann Crisp, and their two daughters Frances and Laura. So some time between 1861 and 1863, Mary Ann Crisp disaapears, and is replaced by Ann Williams. Did she die? Did she run away? Did her husband desert her? I've been able to find no record of her death in FreeBMD or anywhere else, and no record of a marriage of Henry Alfred Dash to Ann Williams, yet they obviously lived together and had 8 children. Some of the children are also mysteriously absent from some of the censuses too. I know about Henry Alfred junior, who was living with his grandfather, and at one Henrietta was living with her half-sister. But some of the others just seem to vanish, and then pop up years later. -- Steve Hayes Web: http://hayesgreene.wordpress.com/ http://hayesgreene.blogspot.com http://groups.yahoo.com/group/afgen/

"Renia" <renia@otenet.gr> wrote in message news:ks789k$dt4$1@speranza.aioe.org... > > > On 17/07/2013 21:24, MB wrote: >> On 18/07/2013 13:37, n-ashby wrote: >>> As has been mentioned,Ancestry are discontinuing Old Search. >>> Can some one explain to me,how to use new search. >>> I just checked,on one of my ancesters,by using old search,there was a >>> listing,for his birth,marriage & death,various census and passenger list >>> details and links to possible other connections. >>> I can see none of this on new search and it looks like.I will have to >>> access,the various sets of records,one by one. >> >> Have they actually said they are removing it? > > Yes, I had an email from them today, as "one of the 2% who still use Old > Search". > > Q > Based on that, as a part of the work this year we will be bringing > together the two search experiences into a single search experience on > Ancestry.co.uk. We hope to bring forward the best features of both the old > and new search systems into the consolidated experience to facilitate the > transition for our users and to improve the overall search experience. We > expect to discontinue the old search function as a separate experience > within the next 6 months. > UQ My thought is they get the 2% because new users are defaulted to the new search and unless they know about and how to find old search they would not even know about it

I got that one today as well, it had a survey attached which I filled in I hate new search "Renia" <renia@otenet.gr> wrote in message news:ks789k$dt4$1@speranza.aioe.org... > > > On 17/07/2013 21:24, MB wrote: >> On 18/07/2013 13:37, n-ashby wrote: >>> As has been mentioned,Ancestry are discontinuing Old Search. >>> Can some one explain to me,how to use new search. >>> I just checked,on one of my ancesters,by using old search,there was a >>> listing,for his birth,marriage & death,various census and passenger list >>> details and links to possible other connections. >>> I can see none of this on new search and it looks like.I will have to >>> access,the various sets of records,one by one. >> >> Have they actually said they are removing it? > > Yes, I had an email from them today, as "one of the 2% who still use Old > Search". > > Q > Based on that, as a part of the work this year we will be bringing > together the two search experiences into a single search experience on > Ancestry.co.uk. We hope to bring forward the best features of both the old > and new search systems into the consolidated experience to facilitate the > transition for our users and to improve the overall search experience. We > expect to discontinue the old search function as a separate experience > within the next 6 months. > UQ

On 18/07/2013 00:10, Renia wrote: > > > On 17/07/2013 21:24, MB wrote: >> On 18/07/2013 13:37, n-ashby wrote: >>> As has been mentioned,Ancestry are discontinuing Old Search. >>> Can some one explain to me,how to use new search. >>> I just checked,on one of my ancesters,by using old search,there was a >>> listing,for his birth,marriage & death,various census and passenger list >>> details and links to possible other connections. >>> I can see none of this on new search and it looks like.I will have to >>> access,the various sets of records,one by one. >> >> Have they actually said they are removing it? > > Yes, I had an email from them today, as "one of the 2% who still use Old > Search". > > Q > Based on that, as a part of the work this year we will be bringing > together the two search experiences into a single search experience on > Ancestry.co.uk. We hope to bring forward the best features of both the > old and new search systems into the consolidated experience to > facilitate the transition for our users and to improve the overall > search experience. We expect to discontinue the old search function as a > separate experience within the next 6 months. > UQ I cringe every time I see things like 'search experience'. They presumably make their money from the people who sign up, full of enthusiasm but little knowledge, but who discontinue their subscription after a year or so.

"Anne Chambers" <anne@privacy.net> wrote in message news:b4pluiF5ss5U1@mid.individual.net... > Interesting - as one of the "2%", I have had a letter from them too. I > find it strange that Ancestry claim that only 2% use Old Search, given > that I don't recall anyone on this group saying they prefer New Search and > most posts on the subject are asking how to get back to Old Search ! > Since this group is probably pretty representative of any genealogy group, > I wonder what % actually do use Old Search. They claim that they actually analyse usage across the entire customer base. Of course, Old Search has been so well hidden for years, that it's only old-timers like us who know it's there. The problem is that their income base isn't "genealogy groups", but "everybody", and we pay the same as everybody else. So if 98% of their customers are incompetent, and 2% know what they are doing, who are Ancestry going to pander to? In their defence, it is clear that data collections need to be indexed differently for Old Search and New Search, which consumes a lot of unnecessary resources. They have claimed that Old Search users will be listened to and that the "new" New Search will include features that we need. So we'll just have to wait and see. I think I've found workarounds for all my potential problems, so I'm more hopeful now that it will be manageable once I get used to it. (As a former FamilySearch refusenik, I'm now so comfortable with the new set-up, I've more or less forgotten the old one, especially as the new one has much better search facilities - typing in place names rather than searching for batch numbers is a huge plus. So these things may sort themselves out in time.) Steven

On Wed, 17 Jul 2013 23:30:05 +0100, CWatters <colin.watters@NOturnersoakSPAM.plus.com> wrote: >This looks like them in the 1861 where Hanratta appears to be Harriett.. > > >1861 England Census about Harriett Harley >Name: Harriett Harley >Age: 19 >Estimated Birth Year: abt 1842 >Relation: Daughter >Father's Name: Harrison Harley >Mother's Name: Jane Harley >Gender: Female >Where born: Southamton, Hampshire, England >Civil Parish: Whippingham >Ecclesiastical parish: St Paul >County/Island: Hampshire >Country: England >Street Address: >Occupation: >Condition as to marriage: >View Image >Registration District: Isle Of Wight >Sub-registration District: Cowes >ED, institution, or vessel: 14 >Neighbors: >View others on page >Household Schedule Number: 50 >Piece: 653 >Folio: 70 >Page Number: 10 > >Household Members: >Name Age >Harrison Harley 54 >Jane Harley 54 >Harriett Harley 19 >Metilda Harley 17 >John Harley 15 > > Hi all, Thank you very much for the information you have found. The bit I cannot find now is the birth name of the mother"Jane" born around 1807 at Wimborn, Dorset. I try to get the mothers birth name from the children's birth details but thease are that bit too early. Thanks again, Mick IOW.

On 17/07/2013 21:24, MB wrote: > On 18/07/2013 13:37, n-ashby wrote: >> As has been mentioned,Ancestry are discontinuing Old Search. >> Can some one explain to me,how to use new search. >> I just checked,on one of my ancesters,by using old search,there was a >> listing,for his birth,marriage & death,various census and passenger list >> details and links to possible other connections. >> I can see none of this on new search and it looks like.I will have to >> access,the various sets of records,one by one. > > Have they actually said they are removing it? Yes, I had an email from them today, as "one of the 2% who still use Old Search". Q Based on that, as a part of the work this year we will be bringing together the two search experiences into a single search experience on Ancestry.co.uk. We hope to bring forward the best features of both the old and new search systems into the consolidated experience to facilitate the transition for our users and to improve the overall search experience. We expect to discontinue the old search function as a separate experience within the next 6 months. UQ

This looks like them in the 1861 where Hanratta appears to be Harriett.. 1861 England Census about Harriett Harley Name: Harriett Harley Age: 19 Estimated Birth Year: abt 1842 Relation: Daughter Father's Name: Harrison Harley Mother's Name: Jane Harley Gender: Female Where born: Southamton, Hampshire, England Civil Parish: Whippingham Ecclesiastical parish: St Paul County/Island: Hampshire Country: England Street Address: Occupation: Condition as to marriage: View Image Registration District: Isle Of Wight Sub-registration District: Cowes ED, institution, or vessel: 14 Neighbors: View others on page Household Schedule Number: 50 Piece: 653 Folio: 70 Page Number: 10 Household Members: Name Age Harrison Harley 54 Jane Harley 54 Harriett Harley 19 Metilda Harley 17 John Harley 15

On Friday, February 26, 1999 3:00:00 AM UTC-5, Janet Corriveau wrote: > Is anyone familiar with this poem? It was quoted at > the opening of a chapter of Frank Herbert's (of Dune > fame) "The White Plague". > "God of mercy! God of peace! > Make this mad confusion cease!" > ---Dr. William Drennan > "The Wake of William Orr" > As my grandfather, William Orr (born after 1868 Glasgow) > had connections to Ireland, I would be very interested to find > the provenance of this poem. If anyone can give the history or > where I could find the whole poem, I would greatly appreciate it. > Thank you in advance. > Sincerely, Jan Corriveau Here our murdered brother lies - Wake him not with women's cries; Mourn the way that manhood ought; Sit in silent trance of thought. Write his merits on your mind - Morals pure and manners kind; In his head, as on a hill, Virtue placed her citadel. Why cut off in palmy youth? Truth he spoke, and acted truth - Countrymen, 'Unite!' he cried, And died - for what his Saviour died. God of Peace, and God of Love, Let it not thy vengeance move! Let it not thy lightnings draw - A Nation guillotin'd by law! Hapless nation! rent and torn, Thou wert early taught to mourn, Warfare of six hundred years - Epochs marked with blood and tears! Hunted thro' thy native grounds, Or flung reward to human hounds; Each one pull'd and tore his share, Heedless of thy deep despair. Hapless Nation - hapless Land, Heap of uncementing sand! Crumbled by a foreign weight, And, by worse, domestic hate. God of Mercy! God of Peace! Make the mad confusion cease; O'er the mental chaos move, Through it speak the light of love. Monstrous and unhappy sight, Brothers' blood will not unite; Holy oil and holy water, Mix, and fill the world with slaughter. Who is she with aspect wild? The widow'd mother with her child - Husband waiting for the tomb! Angel of this sacred place, Calm her soul and whisper peace, Cord, or axe, or guillotin' Make the sentence - not the sin. Here we watch our brother's sleep; Watch with us, but do not weep; Watch with us thro' dead of night, But expect the morning light. Conquer fortune - persevere! - Lo! it breaks, the morning clear! The cheerful cock awakes the skies, The day is come - arise! - arise! William Drennan

On 15/07/2013 12:18, Mick wrote: > Hi all, > Spelling never was a strong thing with me! > > I am trying to pair up a marriage and think a birth name of Hanratta > Harley born 1842 in Southampton could be misspelt for Henrietta > Would this seem right? > > Or was there a christian name of: Hanratta around 1842? > Mick IOW. > The 1851 says her fathers name was Haoveian Hasley. The transcriber gives his POB as "Cowes Wight United States" but the image doesn't look like that to me. This looks like the marriage of her sister Matilda and it gives the father as Harrison Harley. Matilda Harley, "England Marriages, 1538–1973 " Name: Thomas Lacey Shephard Birth Date: Birthplace: Of Carisbrooke Age: Spouse's Name: Matilda Harley Spouse's Birth Date: Spouse's Birthplace: Of Carisbrooke Spouse's Age: Event Date: 04 Oct 1864 Event Place: St. Mary, Carisbrooke, Hampshire, England Father's Name: James Shephard Mother's Name: Spouse's Father's Name: Harrison Harley Spouse's Mother's Name: Race: Marital Status: Previous Wife's Name: Spouse's Race: Spouse's Marital Status: Spouse's Previous Husband's Name: Indexing Project (Batch) Number: M16648-2 System Origin: England-EASy GS Film number: 1470804 Reference ID: p 156 cn 311

On 18/07/2013 13:37, n-ashby wrote: > As has been mentioned,Ancestry are discontinuing Old Search. > Can some one explain to me,how to use new search. > I just checked,on one of my ancesters,by using old search,there was a > listing,for his birth,marriage & death,various census and passenger list > details and links to possible other connections. > I can see none of this on new search and it looks like.I will have to > access,the various sets of records,one by one. Have they actually said they are removing it? They had a survey and for some reason seem to not like Old Search even though just aout all serious users seem to hate New Search and many have made this very clear to Ancestry.

"Mick" wrote in message news:isl7u8592554t1rir9pcj1iict25d9l4hf@4ax.com... Hi all, > Spelling never was a strong thing with me! >I am trying to pair up a marriage and think a birth name of Hanratta >Harley born 1842 in Southampton could be misspelt for Henrietta >Would this seem right? >Or was there a christian name of: Hanratta around 1842? Pre WW1, spelling was distinctly fuzzy. One person said it, another wrote what he heard. If you say it out loud, and it sounds similar, you have a pretty good chance it's the same. It's not 100%, but good enough to work with until mopre evidence shows up. Lesley Robertson

"Jenny M Benson" <nemonews@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message news:b4ihutFjt75U1@mid.individual.net... > On 15/07/2013 13:41, Mick wrote: >> On Mon, 15 Jul 2013 07:51:37 -0400, Keith Nuttle >> <Keith_Nuttle@sbcglobal.net> wrote: >> >>> >On 7/15/2013 7:18 AM, Mick wrote: >>>> >>Hi all, >>>> >> Spelling never was a strong thing with me! >>>> >> >>>> >>I am trying to pair up a marriage and think a birth name of Hanratta >>>> >>Harley born 1842 in Southampton could be misspelt for Henrietta >>>> >>Would this seem right? >>>> >> >>>> >>Or was there a christian name of: Hanratta around 1842? >>>> >>Mick IOW. >>>> >> >>> >While I do not know if there is a Hanratta, I believe that Hanratta is >>> >a >>> >mis transcription of Henrietta. I have seen many spellings of >>> >Henrietta. >>> > >>> >Have you seen the original document? I have seen many "e" transcribed >>> >as "a" Hanratta--> Henretta >> Hi, no it was on a transcribed census, I go for them because I am >> hopeless at reading handwriting. >> >> I will go and get the original and try. > > Definitely looks more like Hanratha than Hanratta (as FMP has it)in 1851 > and Ancestry has transcribed it as Hanratha, though they have the surname > as Hasley. > > Father's name of Harrison Harley is fairly distinctive. You should know > her father's name if you have the marriage record. > > -- > Jenny M Benson The writing is actually slightly better than my own. To me, it clearly says "Hanratha", although I have never heard of it before. Tony Proctor

>From the Cardiff and Merthyr Guardian 13 October 1865 - CARDIFF POLICE COURT. FRIDAY--(Before R. O. Jones, Esq.) CURIOUS CASE OF ASSAULT.--Thomas Ahern, a labourer, was charged with an assault on a young woman, named Catherine Regan. Complainant said she was waiting for her father, about 12 o'clock on Sunday night. Her father had the care of Mr. Rees's boats, and was out late. She had no mother and about half-past 11 o'clock she went out to seek her father, and having proceeded a hundred yards from her own house, between Thomas-street and William-street, the defendant came up to her and without saying a word knocked her down and attempted to commit a rape. She screamed out and he then tried to choke her, and he swore he would take her life if he did not have his will on her. He knocked her down, kicked her, and knocked a tooth out of her month. Her screams brought a neighbour, named Margaret Sullivan to her assistance, and Sullivan pulled the defendant off her. Complainant was cross-examined by Mr. Ensor to show that she had been previously at a public house drinking. She admitted that she had been drinking with a young man and woman, but she was quite sober. She was not sitting on the pavement, but had been looking for her father, and staid a few minutes for him at the corner of the street. Margaret Sullivan, a woman about 40 years of age, said she was a neighbour of the complainant. She was in bed on Sunday night, when she was awoke by hearing some person screaming. She got up and partly dressed herself, and went to the place. She saw the complainant on the ground, and the defendant on the top of her. She appeared almost suffocated, and was scarcely able to scream. Witness went up to her and pulled the defendant off her by the hair of his head, and then picked up the girl who was bleeding at the mouth. She said he had knocked a tooth out of her mouth. Witness was carrying her home when the woman the complainant lived with, came up and assisted her. The defendant came up again and took the complainant from them and put her on the ground. This witness was cross-examined and said the girl was quite sober. Mary Stafford, the landlady, said she was alarmed by the screaming, and went out and came up as the last witness was bringing her home. When she got up the defendant again came up and knocked the complainant on the ground. She was bleeding from the mouth and was told by the complainant that he had knocked a tooth out. Complainant was very much bruised, and complained that her body was hurt all over. Was well aware that the next day the girl laid in bed, in consequence of the injuries she had received. In answer to Mr. Jones she said the girl had lived with her for 6 or 7 years, and she was always a quiet modest girl. Her father was often out late at night, and the girl went sometimes out to seek him, as he occasionally got drunk. The girl had no mother, and had had the charge of three children. The husband of the last witness was called, and said the father with the complainant and three children occupied one large room in his house. He got up when he heard her screaming, as he knew who it was screaming. The father he said, in answer to Mr. Ensor, was in the house lying on a bench when they returned. He could not say when Regan returned to the house. In order to enable, witnesses for the defence to be called, the case was adjourned till Monday, Mr. Jones stating that substantial bail would be taken for the appearance of the defendant, but at present it was an ugly case against him, as it was something more than an assault. Welsh newspapers online at National Library of Wales http://welshnewspapers.llgc.org.uk/en/home

On Wed, 17 Jul 2013 05:01:49 +0100, "Geoff Pearson" <gspearson1647@hotmail.com> wrote: > >"Charles Ellson" <ce11son@yahoo.ca> wrote in message >news:65hbu8pgkdb25fhgb4jh1sr3sfdkjdgc4a@4ax.com... >> On Tue, 16 Jul 2013 20:24:37 +1000, "Kiwi in Aus" <Wwftw_98@Yahoo.com> >> wrote: >> >>> >>>"Anne Chambers" <anne@privacy.net> wrote in message >>>news:b4kkftF31scU1@mid.individual.net... >>>> Anne Chambers wrote: >>>>> Kiwi in Aus wrote: >>>>>> Born abt 1877 in Bury St Edmunds, Suffolk, England >>>>>> married abt Sep 1908 Mutford, Suffolk, England >>>>>> Died 23 Jan 1952 Surrey South-Eastern, Surrey, England >>>>>> I can't find a birth for him on Ancestry or Free BMDs only census I >>>>>> can >>>>>> find him on is 1911 after he was >>>>>> married, I am after a birth and any census where he is with his >>>>>> parents >>>>>> Cheers Jenny >>>>>> I DON'T do Mornings!!!!! >>>>>> Photos http://www.flickr.com/photos/jen_in_brisbane/ >>>>>> Family Tree http://minerstree.tribalpages.com/ >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> The 1911 census shows him living with his parents >>>>> George Frederick Bugg 59 >>>>> Martha Milton Bugg 58 >>>>> Percival Ernest Leighton 34 >>>>> Beatrice Alice Leighton 31 >>>>> Mary Ann Cocksedge 21 >>>>> >>>>> Births Mar 1876 >>>>> Bugg Percival Ernest Bury St.E. 4a 565 >>>>> >>>>> Marriages Sep 1906 >>>>> HARVEY Beatrice Alice Mutford 4a 2167 >>>>> LEIGHTON Percival Ernest Mutford 4a 2167 >>>>> >>>>> Marriages Jun 1874 >>>>> Bugg George Frederick Bury St. E. 4a 731 >>>>> Jackaman Martha Milton Bury St. E. 4a 731 >>>>> >>>>> No idea why he changed his name - perhaps he found out that George Bugg >>>>> was not his father ? >>>>> >>>> 1881 census >>>> Class: RG11; Piece: 1842; Folio: 108; Page: 3; >>>> George F. Bugg 29 >>>> Martha M. Bugg 28 >>>> Frederick J. Bugg 6 >>>> Percival E. Bugg 5 >>>> Arthur R. Bugg 2 >>>> Herbert L. Bugg Emma Stocking 18 >>>> >>>> 1891 (according to Ancestry !) >>>> Class: RG12; Piece: 1450; Folio: 154 >>>> George T Rugg 39 >>>> Martha M Rugg 39 >>>> Percival E Rugg 15 >>>> Arthur R Rugg 12 >>>> Cecil W Rugg 8 >>>> Martha S Heckaman 66 >>>> Priscilla Suell 13 >>>> >>>> 1901 >>>> Class: RG13; Piece: 1755; Folio: 110 >>>> Geo F Bugg 49 >>>> Martha M Bugg 48 >>>> Percival E Bugg 25 >>>> Cecil W Bugg 18 >>>> Martha Wilden 32 >>>> >>>> so something happened between 1901 and 1906 to make him change his >>>> surname. There's nothing in the london Gazette to say it was an >>>> official >>>> name change... >>> >> A DIY change of name is no less "official" than publishing a notice in >> the Gazettes; it is quite possible an appropriate notice could have >> been placed in a local newspaper. >> >>>>perhaps Beatrice did not think Bugg was 'posh' enough. Who >>>> could blame her ! >>>Thanks Ann yep I would hate to be Mrs Bugg, maybe he was dodging being >>>called up for arms who knows, I will just make a note that he changed his >>>name and leave it at that his wife is a 3rd cousin twice removed so only >>>just makes the tree anyway, although I notice an eight cousin has snuck >>>in, >>>I usually stop at sixth cousins >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Anne Chambers >>>> South Australia >>>> >>>> anne dot chambers at bigpond dot com >>> >>> > >In Scotland there is no such thing as an official name change - you just do >it. > There is (as in England and Wales) in the sense that there are methods of recording such a change in government records or publications but it is still not generally compulsory to do so :- http://www.gro-scotland.gov.uk/regscot/change-of-name.html This amends a person's original birth record but does not remove the original name(s) from it. In England and Wales and in Northern Ireland there is no general equivalent procedure for adults with name changes on birth records usually involving corrections, young children (e.g. name changed in baptism) or re-registration of a birth consequent to parents marrying.

"Charles Ellson" <ce11son@yahoo.ca> wrote in message news:65hbu8pgkdb25fhgb4jh1sr3sfdkjdgc4a@4ax.com... > On Tue, 16 Jul 2013 20:24:37 +1000, "Kiwi in Aus" <Wwftw_98@Yahoo.com> > wrote: > >> >>"Anne Chambers" <anne@privacy.net> wrote in message >>news:b4kkftF31scU1@mid.individual.net... >>> Anne Chambers wrote: >>>> Kiwi in Aus wrote: >>>>> Born abt 1877 in Bury St Edmunds, Suffolk, England >>>>> married abt Sep 1908 Mutford, Suffolk, England >>>>> Died 23 Jan 1952 Surrey South-Eastern, Surrey, England >>>>> I can't find a birth for him on Ancestry or Free BMDs only census I >>>>> can >>>>> find him on is 1911 after he was >>>>> married, I am after a birth and any census where he is with his >>>>> parents >>>>> Cheers Jenny >>>>> I DON'T do Mornings!!!!! >>>>> Photos http://www.flickr.com/photos/jen_in_brisbane/ >>>>> Family Tree http://minerstree.tribalpages.com/ >>>>> >>>>> >>>> The 1911 census shows him living with his parents >>>> George Frederick Bugg 59 >>>> Martha Milton Bugg 58 >>>> Percival Ernest Leighton 34 >>>> Beatrice Alice Leighton 31 >>>> Mary Ann Cocksedge 21 >>>> >>>> Births Mar 1876 >>>> Bugg Percival Ernest Bury St.E. 4a 565 >>>> >>>> Marriages Sep 1906 >>>> HARVEY Beatrice Alice Mutford 4a 2167 >>>> LEIGHTON Percival Ernest Mutford 4a 2167 >>>> >>>> Marriages Jun 1874 >>>> Bugg George Frederick Bury St. E. 4a 731 >>>> Jackaman Martha Milton Bury St. E. 4a 731 >>>> >>>> No idea why he changed his name - perhaps he found out that George Bugg >>>> was not his father ? >>>> >>> 1881 census >>> Class: RG11; Piece: 1842; Folio: 108; Page: 3; >>> George F. Bugg 29 >>> Martha M. Bugg 28 >>> Frederick J. Bugg 6 >>> Percival E. Bugg 5 >>> Arthur R. Bugg 2 >>> Herbert L. Bugg Emma Stocking 18 >>> >>> 1891 (according to Ancestry !) >>> Class: RG12; Piece: 1450; Folio: 154 >>> George T Rugg 39 >>> Martha M Rugg 39 >>> Percival E Rugg 15 >>> Arthur R Rugg 12 >>> Cecil W Rugg 8 >>> Martha S Heckaman 66 >>> Priscilla Suell 13 >>> >>> 1901 >>> Class: RG13; Piece: 1755; Folio: 110 >>> Geo F Bugg 49 >>> Martha M Bugg 48 >>> Percival E Bugg 25 >>> Cecil W Bugg 18 >>> Martha Wilden 32 >>> >>> so something happened between 1901 and 1906 to make him change his >>> surname. There's nothing in the london Gazette to say it was an >>> official >>> name change... >> > A DIY change of name is no less "official" than publishing a notice in > the Gazettes; it is quite possible an appropriate notice could have > been placed in a local newspaper. > >>>perhaps Beatrice did not think Bugg was 'posh' enough. Who >>> could blame her ! >>Thanks Ann yep I would hate to be Mrs Bugg, maybe he was dodging being >>called up for arms who knows, I will just make a note that he changed his >>name and leave it at that his wife is a 3rd cousin twice removed so only >>just makes the tree anyway, although I notice an eight cousin has snuck >>in, >>I usually stop at sixth cousins >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Anne Chambers >>> South Australia >>> >>> anne dot chambers at bigpond dot com >> >> In Scotland there is no such thing as an official name change - you just do it.