We (another interested party and myself) have been unable to find any record of Juliana Haywood's death in 1897/8. She, her maiden name was Gibbons was born c.1821 from the censuses and married, as his second wife, James Haywood on May 1866 (Burke corroborated by FreeBMD). James died in 1866, she appeared in the 1871 census in Folkestone and then vanishes from all save FamilySearch which has her burial as: Name: Juliana Haywood Gender: Female Burial Date: 16 Dec 1897 Burial Place: Charlton Near Dover, Kent, England Indexing Project (Batch) Number: I01383-9 System Origin: England-EASy GS Film number: 1786211 Burke, that unreferenced source, has her as dying on 13 Dec 1898. None of these GRO based databases show her death at all: FreeBMD, TheGenealogist and FindMyPast. Nothing found on Scotland's People either. The Kent Registration Services at <http://www.kent.gov.uk/KCC.ROIS.Web.Sites.Public/Pages/DeathSearch.aspx> does not show her death either. I have not tried Ancestry though it does show her will for 1897; I might go to the local library tomorrow. She may have died abroad. Any views on where else I might find any record of her death? -- Tim Powys-Lybbe tim@powys.org for a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org/

On 16/06/2013 12:22, roy.stockdill@btinternet.com wrote:> However, am I being unfair in thinking these showbiz > luvvies can turn on the tears and emotion to demand? Clearly, none of them can > be family historians since people such as ourselves would take it all in our > stride! Wouldn't we??? > I've watched quite a few of the WDYTYA programs and I've been suspicious of a few. For the most part I've felt they were genuine. Many have said they found the experience more moving than they expected and I can believe that. It's one thing to discover something sad when you've just had a good nights sleep. Quite another to interrupt a busy work schedule to make a long train/plane journey and have it sprung on you when you are very tired. As for getting angry, I'm afraid I can't see that unless those responsible are still alive.

There was an item on You and Yours about this today, another archive becoming available more widely. http://www.thedrum.com/news/2013/06/20/trinity-mirror-centralise-photographic-archives-one-biggest-existence 20 June 2013 - 9:58am | posted by John McCarthy | 0 comments Trinity Mirror to centralise photographic archives into one of the biggest ‘in existence’ Trinity Mirror is consolodating all its archives into oneTrinity Mirror is consolodating all its archives into one Trinity Mirror plans to combine its regional newspaper libraries to create one of the biggest photographic archives in the world. Has anyone posted that the Daily Mail archive is now on Gale and is available on free trial until later this month. http://www.galeuk.com/trials/dailymail-opentrial/

>From the Cardiff and Merthyr Guardian, 14 February 1863 - CARDIFF POLICE COURT SATURDAY. STABBING IN FRANCIS-STREET. Four Italian seaman named Francisco Traverso, Pascali Pinchall, Vincenzo Pocce, and Luigi Gafiere, were charged by John Ahern, seaman, with stabbing himself and brother the previous night, in Francis-street. Prosecutor deposed to being in company with his brother the previous night at 11 o'clock, and passing these men, who were outside of their boarding-house sitting on the window stools. He bade them good night and prisoner returned his salutation by calling him a most opprobrious name, and although he thought to parley with them, as he called it, and get clear off, one of the prisoners accused him with calling them the same epithet as they had applied to him and his brother. A row then commenced and prisoners drew their knives, and he was stabbed in the back and his brother severely cut by them. The prisoners were remanded till Wednesday. Welsh newspapers online at National Library of Wales http://welshnewspapers.llgc.org.uk/en/home

On 20/06/2013 14:40, Jenny M Benson wrote: > On 19/06/2013 17:27, Lesley Robertson wrote: >> >> It's the tears on demand that's made me very selective when watching >> "Who Do You Think You Are".. I'm going to have to watch this on the iPad >> since my cable company doesn't get the ITV stable, so it's going to have >> to be good to keep me watching... >> Thanks for the reminder, though, > > I thank Roy for the WARNING rather than the Reminder! The amount of > sentimental tosh and ridiculous tears that we get in WDYTYA drives me > mad enough, but it sounds as though the proportion of slush to good > stuff in this programme will be far too high for me. I've just watched an episode, out of curiosity. I it was quite good, as a comedy. I'd just taken a sleeping pill, so not concentrating, but I recall one luvvie wanting to rage against the system and make his ancestor into a Working Class Hero. Another's was an orphan who was at last made to feel _special_ because he served in WWI (lucky boy) and therefore qualified for one of the standard medals... <Warning. Not recommended for large screen HD TV last thing at night. Looming botoxed, emoting faces may cause nightmares.> -- Phil C.

J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote: > In message<51D09D4E.7030707@att.net>, ecunningham<ecunningham@att.net> > writes: > [] >> you KNOW he was drafted. The card you are referring to is a >> REGISTRATION CARD. It does not mean he was drafted. If he was, get his >> military records (if they didn't burn in St. Louis). However, you >> needed this card to work during the ww1 years and could be stopped on >> the street by patriotic bullies and made to show the card. Many men >> never registered but did serve. >> ecunningham@att.net >> > What could the bullies (just bullies, or some sort of official?) do if > you couldn't - or could, but didn't - show it? Draft you on the spot (in > which case they must have been some sort of official)? Just bullies. And, they'd beat you black'n'blue. As others have said, registering and serving were separate issues. ISTR being told that IF someone was drafted or enlisted after registering, their registration card was moved from one file to another, which explains why someone known to serve can't be found in the Draft Registration Cards originally housed at the Atlanta branch of our NARA. Cheryl

Hello all I am trying to find the arrival of John WARD (Chemist Druggist, 79 Bishopgate St Middlesex) in Australia c 1850-51. His Insolvency case was mentioned in the London Gazette Dec 1849 and finalized Dec 1850. The family is not on the 1851 Census. Would it have been possible for John to Leave England prior to December if all creditors monies had been placed with a Lawyer (there was one in the family he could have used)? There was a Ward, wife and seven children sailed from Plymouth August 1850 on the "Anna Maria" arriving South Australia December which sounds a possibility but finding their names is presenting a problem. If he could not leave until December then I will waste no more time on that particular ship. Any advice welcome. Regards, Kate (Sydney, Australia)

In message <V-6dncw3HpvchVLMnZ2dnUVZ8gKdnZ2d@bt.com>, MB <MB@nospam.nospam> writes: [] >I had a discussion with one of their people on the Support Communities. (What are those - forums on Ancestry?) >I think I gave an example where I could search on surname and town and >get a match but if I did the same in New Search it did not show any >matches at all. Assuming "discussion" means both of you contributed, I would like to hear what his/her response to that was. > >Why is it that online sites insist on messing things up against the >wishes of the users. Something similar has happened on Flickr and >Google so it all the time, making their sites progressively worse. > (As another has said - bottom line, and that's based on roping in as many as possible, which probably means doing things that we experienced users find infuriating.) > -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf I'm a gay man in a woman's body - and I love it! - Sheridan Smith (actress), in Radio Times, 3-9 April 2010

In message <51D09D4E.7030707@att.net>, ecunningham <ecunningham@att.net> writes: [] >you KNOW he was drafted. The card you are referring to is a >REGISTRATION CARD. It does not mean he was drafted. If he was, get his >military records (if they didn't burn in St. Louis). However, you >needed this card to work during the ww1 years and could be stopped on >the street by patriotic bullies and made to show the card. Many men >never registered but did serve. >ecunningham@att.net > What could the bullies (just bullies, or some sort of official?) do if you couldn't - or could, but didn't - show it? Draft you on the spot (in which case they must have been some sort of official)? -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf I'm a gay man in a woman's body - and I love it! - Sheridan Smith (actress), in Radio Times, 3-9 April 2010

During the VietNam war era non US citizens had to register, I believe it was called at the draft board. I recall my late British cousin's story of standing in line to register, and he overheard the person in front of him giving details of previous military service and the man's response was Ze Luftwaffe. While this does not refer to WW1 it seems as if all registered aliens had to get registered at the draft board. Now non-US citizens are in the military fighting in Iraq or Afghanistan... -----Original Message----- From: genbrit-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:genbrit-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Ann Watson Sent: Monday, 01 July, 2013 8:51 AM To: genbrit@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: Help required with handwriting please On 30/06/2013 5:04 PM, ecunningham wrote: > Matt: Hate to jump into the middle of this but need a clarification. > Do you KNOW he was drafted. The card you are referring to is a > REGISTRATION CARD. It does not mean he was drafted. If he was, get his > military records (if they didn't burn in St. Louis). However, you > needed this card to work during the > ww1 years and could be stopped on the street by patriotic bullies and > made to show the card. Many men never registered but did serve. > ecunningham@att.net > I find this interesting because the last trace I've found of one of my grandfather's half uncles (who had been born in Guelph, Canada and had been living on the west coast of the US since at least 1905) is a US draft registration card dated September 12, 1918. He's down as a "non-declarant alien, citizen or subject of Great Britain". I often wonder what the chances were that he actually served in WW I. AW ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to GENBRIT-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message ----- No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2013.0.3345 / Virus Database: 3204/6454 - Release Date: 07/01/13

On 30/06/13 05:39, Andy wrote: > I just registered and the whole process took less than 2 hours. I > completed the required fields in registration form, solved the picture > puzzle and selected the Register button. I immediately received an email > and selected the email address verification link on the email, less than > 2 hours later I received an email to say that my application was > approved, logged in and started exploring How odd. It went through first time for me too this morning. I wonder whether they've just fixed some problem with it? Anyway, thanks for the reply which caused me to go back and try again. Richard

On 30/06/2013 5:04 PM, ecunningham wrote: > Matt: Hate to jump into the middle of this but need a > clarification. Do you KNOW he was drafted. The card you are > referring to is a REGISTRATION CARD. It does not mean he was > drafted. If he was, get his military records (if they didn't burn > in St. Louis). However, you needed this card to work during the > ww1 years and could be stopped on the street by patriotic bullies > and made to show the card. Many men never registered but did serve. > ecunningham@att.net > I find this interesting because the last trace I've found of one of my grandfather's half uncles (who had been born in Guelph, Canada and had been living on the west coast of the US since at least 1905) is a US draft registration card dated September 12, 1918. He's down as a "non-declarant alien, citizen or subject of Great Britain". I often wonder what the chances were that he actually served in WW I. AW

"Gmail Genmail" <genmailnz@gmail.com> wrote in message news:mailman.0.1372667307.5878.genbrit@rootsweb.com... > > -----Original Message----- > From: genbrit-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:genbrit-bounces@rootsweb.com] > On > Behalf Of MB > Sent: Sunday, 30 June 2013 05:24 > To: genbrit@rootsweb.com > Subject: Re: Ancestry Old Search > > On 29/06/2013 08:46, John Hill wrote: >> But surely is there not a point that the way "to achieve the same >> types of results with the current search as in Old Search" requires "a >> great educational video" and "a helpful article", whereas in Old >> Search it was pretty intuitive? > > >>> It seems a lot of messing about instead of being able to do it in a much > simpler way. > >>> I had a discussion with one of their people on the Support Communities. >>> I think I gave an example where I could search on surname and town and > get a match but if I did the same in New Search it did not show any > matches > at all. > >>> Why is it that online sites insist on messing things up against the > wishes of the users. Something similar has happened on Flickr and Google > so > it all the time, making their sites progressively worse. > > Like me "old don't mean dead", and using the old search I have discovered > most of what I wanted to find. That still eluding me is unable to be found > using new search either. Often employing "least is best" gets what one is > seeking. > > Keeping both searches would not appear to be difficult with programming > skills, nor would being able to display the results in new search in a > more > "economic" with line items some 20 or 50 per page as old search does. > Instead I find umpteen pages of results in new search a challenge to my > short attention span. > > Keith Wellington, NZ > I posted earlier in this thread Keith but people may have assumed it was a duplicate of the post I was responding to. In fact, there was a link to a survey in there where the intention to merge the Old/New functionality was expressed. It makes a lot of sense to be able to achieve the same functionality with a single search tool. It would save on maintaining two sets of code and forms for a start. I often find myself performing similar searches in Ancestry (Old & New) and findmypast because different results get thrown up. Hence, there is a good use-case (as they say in software development). You mention programming skills being a necessary for some such merge but I do wonder whether the database indexes might be different too. That would be a sure-fire reason for Ancestry to want to drop the Old search and reduce their overheads. Tony Proctor

-----Original Message----- From: genbrit-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:genbrit-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of MB Sent: Sunday, 30 June 2013 05:24 To: genbrit@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: Ancestry Old Search On 29/06/2013 08:46, John Hill wrote: > But surely is there not a point that the way "to achieve the same > types of results with the current search as in Old Search" requires "a > great educational video" and "a helpful article", whereas in Old > Search it was pretty intuitive? >> It seems a lot of messing about instead of being able to do it in a much simpler way. >> I had a discussion with one of their people on the Support Communities. >> I think I gave an example where I could search on surname and town and get a match but if I did the same in New Search it did not show any matches at all. >> Why is it that online sites insist on messing things up against the wishes of the users. Something similar has happened on Flickr and Google so it all the time, making their sites progressively worse. Like me "old don't mean dead", and using the old search I have discovered most of what I wanted to find. That still eluding me is unable to be found using new search either. Often employing "least is best" gets what one is seeking. Keeping both searches would not appear to be difficult with programming skills, nor would being able to display the results in new search in a more "economic" with line items some 20 or 50 per page as old search does. Instead I find umpteen pages of results in new search a challenge to my short attention span. Keith Wellington, NZ

mllt1@le.ac.uk wrote: > I think you must not have read my last post. In 1917, when Charlie Henry was drafted, the law in force in America was the Selective Service Act of 1917. This permitted non-US citizens to be conscripted only if they had started the process of applying for US citizenship - it specifically exempted non-US citizens from conscription if they had not begun the process (ie if they were 'non-declarants'). According to his draft card Charlie Henry was a non-declarant British citizen who in 1917 was living just a short way across the border from his Canadian birthplace, yet was conscripted into the American army. > > It would be interesting to know more about the circumstances of his conscription. Matt: Hate to jump into the middle of this but need a clarification. Do you KNOW he was drafted. The card you are referring to is a REGISTRATION CARD. It does not mean he was drafted. If he was, get his military records (if they didn't burn in St. Louis). However, you needed this card to work during the ww1 years and could be stopped on the street by patriotic bullies and made to show the card. Many men never registered but did serve. ecunningham@att.net

On Sunday, June 30, 2013 10:04:14 PM UTC+1, ecunningham wrote: > Matt: Hate to jump into the middle of this but need a clarification. Do > you KNOW he was drafted. The card you are referring to is a REGISTRATION > CARD. It does not mean he was drafted. If he was, get his military > records (if they didn't burn in St. Louis). However, you needed this > card to work during the ww1 years and could be stopped on the street by > patriotic bullies and made to show the card. Many men never registered > but did serve. > ecunningh***.net A good question - all we know is that Tickettyboo's original post said 'a month later he was enlisted'. It's one of the circumstances one would like to know more about - was he conscripted unwillingly, or did he accept the draft more or less willingly, or did he simply volunteer (the last seems unlikely - his statements in the draft card do not point to much desire for service.) If Tickettyboo knows anything more it would be interesting to hear it. Matt Tompkins

On 30/06/13 10:26, Tim Powys-Lybbe wrote: > I wonder if all these copyright restrictions are valid? Anyone can copy > the data and republish it. That may be true in the US and probably used to be true here in the UK, but it isn't any longer. (Caveat emptor: IANAL.) A large database isn't usually subject to copyright for the simple reason that you cannot copyright facts. However, EU countries now have something called database rights which are similar to copyright, but not actually copyright. I'm pretty sure that a parish register transcript would be subject to database right (although they only last 15 years). The other danger is that, irrespective of whether the content is subject to copyright and/or database rights, if the site is subject to terms and conditions, failure to follow them is (effectively) a breach of contract. And (according to NLA v. Meltwater) that means the temporary copy of a web page that your browser makes while rendering the site is a copyright violation. Even if the transcripts' data itself is not copyright, the surround website will almost certainly be. So, unfortunately, I suspect the restrictions are basically valid. Richard

"Richard Smith" wrote in message news:b38trnFkq6eU1@mid.individual.net... >Has anyone had any luck registering for the Wiltshire OPC website? I've >been trying intermittently for about three months, and still haven't >managed to do it. Most of the time, the activation email never reaches me >(and, no, it's not in a spam folder); on the rare occasion it does reach >me, I get errors telling me that I can't activate my account without >logging in (and, of course, I can't log in without first activating my >account). Normally, I would contact the site maintainers to see if they >could help, but they don't publish contact information (at least, not on >the part of the site that you can access without logging in). Can anyone >help, or perhaps put me in contact with the site maintainer? I just registered and the whole process took less than 2 hours. I completed the required fields in registration form, solved the picture puzzle and selected the Register button. I immediately received an email and selected the email address verification link on the email, less than 2 hours later I received an email to say that my application was approved, logged in and started exploring Andy

On 30/06/13 02:39, Steve Hayes wrote: > I suspect that that copyright restriction was aimed at preventing companies > with a lot of money reproducing the transcriptions and then charging people to > view them. I'm sure you're right. But my point is that they've gone about it in such a heavy-handed way that they've ended up indirectly playing into the hands of exactly those companies with lots of money. These things have been looked at by people who know far more about intellectual property law than I do, and probably rather more than your typical OPC maintainer. The Creative Commons people are a good example. There are plenty of licensing strategies that allow you to prevent prevent commercial use at all, but leave non-commercial user free to reuse the transcripts. Similarly, there are plenty of licensing strategies that don't prohibit commericial use per se, but do prevent those companies from adding additional restrictions to that data. To take a concrete example, suppose the Hampshire OPCs decided to relicense all their transcripts under the cc-by-sa licence[1], a licence which does allow commercial use. Ancestry could come along and add those transcripts to their site. They could restrict access to paying customers, and they could give you (if so minded) super-advanced search facilities over it. But they couldn't stop you from republishing any Hants OPC data that you download from the site. Richard [1] http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/

"Tim Powys-Lybbe" <tim@powys.org> wrote in message news:mpro.mp78vu332w85j0l7i.tim@powys.org... > > Perhaps all Family History and Genealogy Societies should be campaigning > for funds for one Grand National Parish Register database, complete with > scans of the originals? It can't happen while Ancestry and FMP have deals with Archives.