On Mon, 10 Jun 2013 12:29:23 +0100, MB <MB@nospam.nospam> wrote: >On 09/06/2013 21:54, Graeme Wall wrote: >> I did think of that but I can't for the life of me see why the RA would >> need specialist projectionists in that era. Would be part of the job >> for a cameraman. The term Cinematographer is still used in the film >> industry for the principal cameraman. > > >Film cameraman seems most likely. There would be a need for films for >training, records of equipment trials and PR purposes. > >Much less demand for projectionists, perhaps a large training >establishment or headquarters (where film of secret trials might be >viewed) could have one. > Looking at various histories for the time it seems quite likely that (away from the world of entertainment) the projectionist and cameraman were quite likely to be the same person or part of the same crew.

How about a specialist in projectiles......as in rockets and/or bombs?? Just a thought......mary lou -----Original Message----- From: Charles Ellson <ce11son@yahoo.ca> To: genbrit <genbrit@rootsweb.com> Sent: Mon, Jun 10, 2013 3:00 pm Subject: Re: Royal Artillery 1914 job decription On Mon, 10 Jun 2013 12:29:23 +0100, MB <MB@nospam.nospam> wrote: >On 09/06/2013 21:54, Graeme Wall wrote: >> I did think of that but I can't for the life of me see why the RA would >> need specialist projectionists in that era. Would be part of the job >> for a cameraman. The term Cinematographer is still used in the film >> industry for the principal cameraman. > > >Film cameraman seems most likely. There would be a need for films for >training, records of equipment trials and PR purposes. > >Much less demand for projectionists, perhaps a large training >establishment or headquarters (where film of secret trials might be >viewed) could have one. > Looking at various histories for the time it seems quite likely that (away from the world of entertainment) the projectionist and cameraman were quite likely to be the same person or part of the same crew. ------------------------------- 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

On 09/06/2013 18:17, Mick wrote: > Hi all, > On a marriage certificate of 1914 the groom is described as a > Cinematograph operator in Royal Artillery (as far as I can make out) > > I have tried Goggle but I get a box to search for people and get > nothing for his name! > > Could it be a camera operator of sorts? > Mick. IOW. > This reference suggests that in 1905 a "Cinematograph operator" was a motion picture camera operator... http://archive.org/stream/opticallanternci01lond/opticallanternci01lond_djvu.txt Full text of "The Optical Lantern and Cinematograph Journal (Volume 1) Nov 1904-Oct 1905" Quote: No one will deny, but that after watching a long series of animated pictures, the projection of an ordinary slide, comes as a welcomed pause, and as a source of restfulness to the eye. We are inclined to think that a more frequent use of some of the higher class coloured photographic slides, interspersed with animated projections, would tend to the ensurance of a successful show. We may even go so far as to say, that a film subject could be rendered more complete by the addition of ordinary slides made from negatives bearing on the film subject. It sometimes happens that the cinematograph operator, at the time of taking his pictures, will fail to include in the series just those phases of the subject that are of highest interest ; hence it is that the use of an ordinary camera proves of great value in securing the missing points.

On 09/06/2013 23:53, Richard van Schaik wrote: > On 09-06-2013 15:17, Lesley Robertson wrote: >> Grrrr, >> I've just had an email from someone wanting me to send him all of the >> photos included in the burial ground section of my website! If they are already on your web site tell him to download them?

Veronica I Barr wrote, Thursday, May 16, 2013 11:20 PM > Are there any family members out there? > I know they are my great aunt and uncle. On my wife's side, there is an ancestress Elizabeth Mary Aldridge, b: 1790; d: 1848 whose mother was Jane Toll, whose father was Admiral Edmund Toll, and her mother was a Geary. More than that, I do not know. A bit before your time ;-)

I had written:- > "If you want to know your ancestry, all you need do is to stand for > public office, and "they" will do all the research for you for > free." Roy Stockdill wrote, Sunday, May 26, 2013 12:30 PM > I'm afraid I don't understand what your objection is, > if in fact you are making some sort of objection! Absolutely Not ! I just wish someone would do mine for free ! Maybe if I stood for public office.... [That's the British way, of course - in America they "run" for office - here, we "run" for a bus...]

Thank you for your message I'll keep it 'just in case' I can find a connection. A bit before my time - no, I'm into my second (or is it third) incarnation :) Regards from a former Limey, -----Original Message----- From: genbrit-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:genbrit-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Piercefield Sent: Monday, 10 June, 2013 7:08 AM To: GenBrit Subject: Re: GEAREY Lambeth area (then Surrey) London Veronica I Barr wrote, Thursday, May 16, 2013 11:20 PM > Are there any family members out there? > I know they are my great aunt and uncle. On my wife's side, there is an ancestress Elizabeth Mary Aldridge, b: 1790; d: 1848 whose mother was Jane Toll, whose father was Admiral Edmund Toll, and her mother was a Geary. More than that, I do not know. A bit before your time ;-) ------------------------------- 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: 3199/6399 - Release Date: 06/10/13

On 9 Jun at 23:53, Richard van Schaik <f.m.a.vanschaikREMOVE@THISgmail.com> wrote: > On 09-06-2013 15:17, Lesley Robertson wrote: > > Grrrr, > > I've just had an email from someone wanting me to send him all of the > > photos included in the burial ground section of my website! It's a > > complete burial ground, there's a lot of photos (and work) there. I > > politely replied that I wasn't willing to send them all, and that > > there's no way that all of the people in the burial ground are > > related. The answer's just come back that he has nearly all the > > names, so needs all the pictures, but if I don't want to send him > > all of them, could he just have those in a longish list.... > > > > I'm a bit reluctant to tell him that I know that there's several > > unrelated lines among the more common surnames because I've checked > > the families in case he demands the research notes as well! > > > > I don't mind helping people with ancestors in my OPS, but this is > > seriously over the top! > > > > Grrrrr Lesley Robertson > > Looks similar to me to one asking the whole family tree on some > surname. I then think "can be found in the archives if you are willing > to spend time". My scope here is "if he wants it he can get it at the > respective graveyards". Willing to help but not on such a major work > for own purposes. That's more like it: I don't do pictures but have been known to make an entry or two into a family tree. The issue I am faced with is that I am not immortal and our infants are not too interested to working over all this dusty stuff. But at some time in the future it is likely that someone will actually take an interest again in the family tree. Where do they find it? The only finding place that I reckon will last is the internet itself. So I put all my hard won factoids and the odd less-than-factoid on an internet site and anyone can and does copy it, thus preserving it for their lifetime as well as mine. So: be grateful to those who would copy all your stuff, they are doing your descendants a favour. -- Tim Powys-Lybbe tim@powys.org for a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org/

On 09/06/2013 22:35, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote: > The placenames themselves change as well as the counties: where it comes > to punctuation (e. g. whether it's one word, hyphenated, or two words), > then this can be so well under a century, with actual spelling > variations not much before that, until eventually you get back to a > point where there is no such thing as a "correct" form. > > Abroad, it's much more varied: Aix-la-Chapelle is now Aachen, for > example, It was Aachen first. Locally, I guess, it always has been. The "French" image is from common mistaken belief that Charlemagne was culturally and linguistically French, and from later invasion by Napoleon. and there's the (almost certainly apocryphal) tale of the > Russian grandfather, Polish father, and German son (I think I've got > those the right way round), all of whom were born in the same house. (It > is certainly true that there are places which Poland has passed through > on its travels.) I sounds credible to me, given the history of wars, power struggles and border changes in Europe. And not only abroad! Alfred Russel Wallace was born in Monmouthshire, then England <ducks>, of English parents but is now claimed as a Welsh hero. -- Phil C.

On 09/06/2013 21:54, Graeme Wall wrote: > I did think of that but I can't for the life of me see why the RA would > need specialist projectionists in that era. Would be part of the job > for a cameraman. The term Cinematographer is still used in the film > industry for the principal cameraman. Film cameraman seems most likely. There would be a need for films for training, records of equipment trials and PR purposes. Much less demand for projectionists, perhaps a large training establishment or headquarters (where film of secret trials might be viewed) could have one.

On Sun, 09 Jun 2013 22:57:25 +0100, polygonum <rmoudndgers@vrod.co.uk> wrote: >On 09/06/2013 18:17, Mick wrote: >> Hi all, >> On a marriage certificate of 1914 the groom is described as a >> Cinematograph operator in Royal Artillery (as far as I can make out) >> >> I have tried Goggle but I get a box to search for people and get >> nothing for his name! >> >> Could it be a camera operator of sorts? >> Mick. IOW. >> >I suggest this link, whilst unlikely to be exactly what you are asking >about, is possibly relevant and worth a look: > >http://archive.iwm.org.uk/server/show/nav.2206 Thank you all for your helpful and interesting answers. Mick. IOW.

On 09-06-2013 15:17, Lesley Robertson wrote: > Grrrr, > I've just had an email from someone wanting me to send him all of the > photos included in the burial ground section of my website! It's a > complete burial ground, there's a lot of photos (and work) there. I > politely replied that I wasn't willing to send them all, and that > there's no way that all of the people in the burial ground are related. > The answer's just come back that he has nearly all the names, so needs > all the pictures, but if I don't want to send him all of them, could he > just have those in a longish list.... > > I'm a bit reluctant to tell him that I know that there's several > unrelated lines among the more common surnames because I've checked the > families in case he demands the research notes as well! > > I don't mind helping people with ancestors in my OPS, but this is > seriously over the top! > > Grrrrr > Lesley Robertson Looks similar to me to one asking the whole family tree on some surname. I then think "can be found in the archives if you are willing to spend time". My scope here is "if he wants it he can get it at the respective graveyards". Willing to help but not on such a major work for own purposes. Richard -- Richard van Schaik f.m.a.vanschaikREMOVE@THISgmail.com http://www.fmavanschaik.nl/

On Sun, 09 Jun 2013 18:17:43 +0100, Mick <mrcycleuk@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: >Hi all, > On a marriage certificate of 1914 the groom is described as a >Cinematograph operator in Royal Artillery (as far as I can make out) > >I have tried Goggle but I get a box to search for people and get >nothing for his name! > >Could it be a camera operator of sorts? >Mick. IOW. For 1914 that would be a motion picture photographer, would it not? Cinematographer nowadays, probably. -- Don donsgenes@charter.net

In message <54u9r8tcmfa71vc94pmbdc8mhhrk36ppfc@4ax.com>, Charles Ellson <ce11son@yahoo.ca> writes: >On Sun, 9 Jun 2013 22:35:12 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)" ><G6JPG@soft255.demon.co.uk> wrote: [] >>I tend to agree with those who say record the placename as it was at the >>event in question; however, it's a good point that records will be now >>archived (or whatever) under the current name. >> >That is far from certain. IME records usually remain catalogued as >they were when received thus avoiding potential "translation" errors. [] Sorry, I was paraphrasing in shorthand what others had said, and lost precision while doing so. I meant, the records will be _held_ by the authority with the modern name, since the one with the old name will no longer exist. When you've actually got to the point where the records are on a shelf (or microfilm) in front of you, they will indeed likely be under the old name, since anything else involves the spending of money to do the re-cataloguing/indexing. -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf If you believe in telekinesis, raise my right hand

On 09/06/2013 18:17, Mick wrote: > Hi all, > On a marriage certificate of 1914 the groom is described as a > Cinematograph operator in Royal Artillery (as far as I can make out) > > I have tried Goggle but I get a box to search for people and get > nothing for his name! > > Could it be a camera operator of sorts? > Mick. IOW. > I suggest this link, whilst unlikely to be exactly what you are asking about, is possibly relevant and worth a look: http://archive.iwm.org.uk/server/show/nav.2206 -- Rod

On Sun, 9 Jun 2013 22:35:12 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG@soft255.demon.co.uk> wrote: >In message <51b480c1$0$15966$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl>, Lesley Robertson ><l.a.robertson@tnw.tudelft.nl> writes: >>"Kiwi in Aus" wrote in message >>news:KOOdnXnM3a69RjfMnZ2dnVY3go-dnZ2d@giganews.com... >> >>How do others deal with this, you might start off with a place that is >>in >>Essex at time of birth, but by the time a person dies same place is now >>called Greater London, or South eastern Essex or what ever do you stay >>with >>same place name or change with the passing time, I guess change with >>time is >>more correct, >> >As others have clarified, it depends what the purpose of recording the >place is. > >I tend to agree with those who say record the placename as it was at the >event in question; however, it's a good point that records will be now >archived (or whatever) under the current name. > That is far from certain. IME records usually remain catalogued as they were when received thus avoiding potential "translation" errors. >(I also like to make >lists of the places associated with my people, and to have all the >people/events for a particular location listed together, which doesn't >happen if I use the original names/counties.) > >The placenames themselves change as well as the counties: where it comes >to punctuation (e. g. whether it's one word, hyphenated, or two words), >then this can be so well under a century, with actual spelling >variations not much before that, until eventually you get back to a >point where there is no such thing as a "correct" form. > >Abroad, it's much more varied: Aix-la-Chapelle is now Aachen, for >example, and there's the (almost certainly apocryphal) tale of the >Russian grandfather, Polish father, and German son (I think I've got >those the right way round), all of whom were born in the same house. (It >is certainly true that there are places which Poland has passed through >on its travels.)

In message <51B4E51D.9030306@coper.com>, mungedaddress <kenefi@coper.com> writes: >That or fixing the cameras on the planes. I believe they were just >starting to be used about that time frame / WWI era. See >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aerial_photography for better information. I don't think _movie_ cameras were likely to have been used on planes - at least not that early in WWI. > >Mike in Ohio > >On 6/9/2013 1:17 PM, Mick wrote: >> Hi all, >> On a marriage certificate of 1914 the groom is described as a >> Cinematograph operator in Royal Artillery (as far as I can make out) >> >> I have tried Goggle but I get a box to search for people and get >> nothing for his name! >> >> Could it be a camera operator of sorts? >> Mick. IOW. >> That seems the most likely. (I can't see the RA having use for a projector operator. [I know that in the very early days of cinematography the same instrument was often used as both camera and projector, but I don't think that would have been the case in 1914.]) Newsreel-type pictures were certainly taken, as we keep being shown them, and I would imagine they'd be mostly taken by military personnel rather than independents or newspaper (etc.) employees. -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf Can you open your mind without it falling out?

In message <51b480c1$0$15966$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl>, Lesley Robertson <l.a.robertson@tnw.tudelft.nl> writes: >"Kiwi in Aus" wrote in message >news:KOOdnXnM3a69RjfMnZ2dnVY3go-dnZ2d@giganews.com... > >How do others deal with this, you might start off with a place that is >in >Essex at time of birth, but by the time a person dies same place is now >called Greater London, or South eastern Essex or what ever do you stay >with >same place name or change with the passing time, I guess change with >time is >more correct, > As others have clarified, it depends what the purpose of recording the place is. I tend to agree with those who say record the placename as it was at the event in question; however, it's a good point that records will be now archived (or whatever) under the current name. (I also like to make lists of the places associated with my people, and to have all the people/events for a particular location listed together, which doesn't happen if I use the original names/counties.) The placenames themselves change as well as the counties: where it comes to punctuation (e. g. whether it's one word, hyphenated, or two words), then this can be so well under a century, with actual spelling variations not much before that, until eventually you get back to a point where there is no such thing as a "correct" form. Abroad, it's much more varied: Aix-la-Chapelle is now Aachen, for example, and there's the (almost certainly apocryphal) tale of the Russian grandfather, Polish father, and German son (I think I've got those the right way round), all of whom were born in the same house. (It is certainly true that there are places which Poland has passed through on its travels.) -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf Can you open your mind without it falling out?

"Steven Gibbs" <stevenng4@sgibbs1.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message news:b1juhcF4im2U1@mid.individual.net... > On Sun, 2 Jun 2013 15:41:32 +1000, "Kiwi in Aus" <Wwftw_98@Yahoo.com> > wrote: > >>How do others deal with this, you might start off with a place that is in >>Essex at time of birth, but by the time a person dies same place is now >>called Greater London, or South eastern Essex or what ever do you stay >>with >>same place name or change with the passing time, I guess change with time >>is >>more correct, > > Nowadays, I try to record only what is written in the source domement. If > I wish to create a narrative from that record, I will give what I consider > to be an adequate explanation in the narrative. (I'm not fond of letting > my commercial software make the narrative, but it's usually easier to > start with that and then hand-edit it.) > > There are still problems as quite often the source document is inadequate. > For example, many of the London parish registers on Ancestry say Middlesex > long after the parish became part of the new county of London, sometimes > because the registers had the name of the church pre-printed, other times > because the vicar was, I assume, a dinosaur. In Bedford, St Pauls Parish > marriage registers refer occasionally to White Horse Street, up to 1874, > even though the road had been renamed Harpur Street sometime before (I > believe) 1841. > > Steven > > I found this a particular challenge in looking at my relatives in the Newington area of south London, particulalrly in censuses at the end of the 19th century. The older ones insisted on calling their birthplaces by the "old" area ie Surrey whereas the younger ones opted for London even when it had been Surrey when they were born. Some even put both. The census takers seem to have gome along with this rather than impose one rule. Brian Austin

On 09/06/2013 21:45, Charles Ellson wrote: > On Sun, 09 Jun 2013 18:23:59 +0100, Graeme Wall > <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote: > >> On 09/06/2013 18:17, Mick wrote: >>> Hi all, >>> On a marriage certificate of 1914 the groom is described as a >>> Cinematograph operator in Royal Artillery (as far as I can make out) >>> >>> I have tried Goggle but I get a box to search for people and get >>> nothing for his name! >>> >>> Could it be a camera operator of sorts? >>> Mick. IOW. >>> >> >> It's the early title for a cameraman. >> > Or a projectionist ? > I did think of that but I can't for the life of me see why the RA would need specialist projectionists in that era. Would be part of the job for a cameraman. The term Cinematographer is still used in the film industry for the principal cameraman. -- Graeme Wall This account not read, substitute trains for rail. Railway Miscellany at <http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail>