On 03/06/2013 10:05, roy.stockdill@btinternet.com wrote: > From: stephen.hannigan@gmail.com > >> Good morning, >> >> I'm looking for descendants of Alfred Derek George, born 1923 in Stockport and >> believed to have lived out the remainder of his years in West Sussex. >> >> Thanks >> Stephen> > > FreeBMD has no Alfred Derek George born at Stockport in 1923. The nearest I can > find is an Alfred D GEORGE whose birth was registered at Salford, Lancs, in the > April-June quarter of 1923, mother's maiden name Chalmers (vol 8d 105). Is that > him? > > His death is in the GRO death indexes at Findmypast (and presumably Ancestry as > well). He died at Worthing in January 1997 and his date of birth was given as > 13 May 1923. I can find no marriage for an Alfred Derek or Alfred D George > after that year, so presumably he didn't have any descendants unless he married > without the middle initial being given, > > He appears to have had a sister Christine George, mother's maiden name > Chalmers, also born at Salford in the Jan-Mar quarter of 1919 (vol 8d page 87). > The marriage of their parents Alfred George and Nora Chalmers was at Salford in > the September quarter of 1915 (8d 302). > > Do you not know how to search the GRO indexes at FreeBMD and other sites? If > you are a beginner, post again and I will give you some advice and > instructions. > > -- > 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 > That one also appears in a Public Member tree on Ancestry. His wfe is named as Marguerita Eleanor Malone Birth 2 Jan 1927 in Georgetown, Renfrewshire Death 2006 in Paisley Marriage Information Date 8 Jun 1946 Location Johnstone to Alfred Derek George No children listed though.

On 2013-06-05 23:16:42 +0100, Charles Ellson said: > On Wed, 5 Jun 2013 22:44:20 +0100, Tickettyboo > <tickettyboo@mail2oops.com> wrote: > >> I visited a Probate office today, to consult the calendar for entries >> more recent than those currently available in the ancestry database. >> >> When I have been there before, the more recent stuff is available on a >> computer provided in the reception area. >> Today the pc had a sign on it saying the service was 'unavailable'. >> Bummer, cos I don't get to a Probate Office often, but these things >> happen. >> >> The young man at the desk told me its a server problem and has been >> going on for about 2 weeks. He also said that in 'the summer' (are we >> going to have one in England this year? that would be good!) The >> Probate Service is going to make the calendar available online and >> there will be a facility whereby you can order and download >> wills/grants online. >> Super! >> But having searched the web, I can't find current details of an ETA for >> this. Just hits about a year old that say its in the pipeline/planning >> stage. >> >> Does anyone have any further info? I would like something to look >> forward to :-) >> > Nothing seems to be lurking in *.gov.uk . They're possibly making sure > the system works before shouting about it. This, from a year ago, is one of the 'hits' I got whilst trying to find further info. The young man at the Probate Office did say that soldiers wills details may be released first. http://researchlondon.info/probate/probate-calendars-to-be-online-soon -- Tickettyboo

"Tickettyboo" <tickettyboo@mail2oops.com> wrote in message news:b19ppkFt3ntU1@mid.individual.net... >I visited a Probate office today, to consult the calendar for >entries more recent than those currently available in the >ancestry database. , cos I don't get to a Probate Office often, but these things > happen. > > The young man at the desk told me its a server problem and has > been going on for about 2 weeks. He also said that in 'the > summer' (are we going to have one in England this year? that > would be good!) The Probate Service is going to make the > calendar available online and there will be a facility whereby > you can order and download wills/grants online. > Super! Tickettyboo Cant help but wonder about payment ? As of Nov 2012 the Probate folk hadn't heard of PayPal etc All fees had to be paid in pounds sterling. That makes it a very expensive exercise for overseas genes Maybe they will consider the excellent the UK Archives documents on line service . I recently downloaded an 18 page 1849 will for 3 pounds 50p. That took no more than 10 secs. Very impressive ! I dont mind paying a reasonable fee . Its the unreasonable that gets up my nose ! Bye MargM Beautiful NSW Central Coast Australia

On Thu, 6 Jun 2013 08:18:35 +1000, "MargM" <genknut@exemail.com.au> wrote: > >"Tickettyboo" <tickettyboo@mail2oops.com> wrote in message >news:b19ppkFt3ntU1@mid.individual.net... >>I visited a Probate office today, to consult the calendar for >>entries more recent than those currently available in the >>ancestry database. >, cos I don't get to a Probate Office often, but these things >> happen. >> >> The young man at the desk told me its a server problem and has >> been going on for about 2 weeks. He also said that in 'the >> summer' (are we going to have one in England this year? that >> would be good!) The Probate Service is going to make the >> calendar available online and there will be a facility whereby >> you can order and download wills/grants online. >> Super! > > >Tickettyboo > > >Cant help but wonder about payment ? As of Nov 2012 the Probate >folk hadn't heard of PayPal > I wouldn't expect them to hear of it in the near future as payment by credit/debit card is otherwise fairly well established and Paypal presumably adds another stage into the process with no practical advantage for them. >etc >All fees had to be paid in pounds sterling. That makes it a very >expensive exercise for overseas genes > >Maybe they will consider the excellent the UK Archives documents >on line service . I recently downloaded an 18 page 1849 will >for 3 pounds 50p. That took no more than 10 secs. Very impressive >! > >I dont mind paying a reasonable fee . Its the unreasonable that >gets up my nose ! > > >Bye > > > MargM >Beautiful NSW Central Coast > Australia > >

On Wed, 5 Jun 2013 22:44:20 +0100, Tickettyboo <tickettyboo@mail2oops.com> wrote: >I visited a Probate office today, to consult the calendar for entries >more recent than those currently available in the ancestry database. > >When I have been there before, the more recent stuff is available on a >computer provided in the reception area. >Today the pc had a sign on it saying the service was 'unavailable'. >Bummer, cos I don't get to a Probate Office often, but these things >happen. > >The young man at the desk told me its a server problem and has been >going on for about 2 weeks. He also said that in 'the summer' (are we >going to have one in England this year? that would be good!) The >Probate Service is going to make the calendar available online and >there will be a facility whereby you can order and download >wills/grants online. >Super! >But having searched the web, I can't find current details of an ETA for >this. Just hits about a year old that say its in the pipeline/planning >stage. > >Does anyone have any further info? I would like something to look >forward to :-) > Nothing seems to be lurking in *.gov.uk . They're possibly making sure the system works before shouting about it.

I visited a Probate office today, to consult the calendar for entries more recent than those currently available in the ancestry database. When I have been there before, the more recent stuff is available on a computer provided in the reception area. Today the pc had a sign on it saying the service was 'unavailable'. Bummer, cos I don't get to a Probate Office often, but these things happen. The young man at the desk told me its a server problem and has been going on for about 2 weeks. He also said that in 'the summer' (are we going to have one in England this year? that would be good!) The Probate Service is going to make the calendar available online and there will be a facility whereby you can order and download wills/grants online. Super! But having searched the web, I can't find current details of an ETA for this. Just hits about a year old that say its in the pipeline/planning stage. Does anyone have any further info? I would like something to look forward to :-) -- Tickettyboo

>From the Pembrokeshire Herald and General Advertiser, 7 February 1902 Local Police Courts. ROOSE.--Saturday These sessions were held on Saturday last before Messrs R. Carrow, (chairman), W. P. Ormond, W. Davies, L. Samson, R. P. L. Penn, J. T. Fisher, and James Thomas. ALLEGED LARCENY AT BURTON. Patrick Ahern and Bartholomew McSweeny, described as tramps without any fixed abode, were charged in custody with stealing two pairs of drawers, two shirts, a razor and case, leather purse, a half sovereign and two crown pieces, the property of James Skone Sardis, on the 23rd January, value 39s. James Skone said he was a farmer living at Sardis, Burton. On Thursday, 23rd January, he and his wife left home about 10 o'clock in the morning, leaving the house unoccupied. They went to Neyland. Before leaving he fastened and bolted the doors of the house, but he left a small window upstairs in the gable end of the house open. He and his wife returned about half past one o'clock in the afternoon. He found the doors in the same state, but about 3.30 p.m. or 4 p.m. he found that some one had entered the house through the window which had been left open. He missed a pair of drawers (which he now identified and which he was positive about because he had patched it himself.) He also missed two shirts and other articles produced, including the razor, which had his name on it, as well as the sums of money named. The total value of the articles &c., taken was 39s. One man could not have gone up the wall to the window, but two could have done so, and there were marks on the wall showing that that was the way in which entrance had been gained. Two flower pots, which had been in the window, were removed. Annie Jones, Sardis, said she lived about 5 minutes walk on the Burton side of Skone's house. About a quarter to eleven on the 23rd January the two prisoners came to her house, and one of them asked for a glass of water, which she gave him. They went on towards Pembroke Ferry, but shortly afterwards she saw them go towards Skone's house. Mary Elizabeth Morgan, daughter of the landlord of the Travellers' Rest," said she was at home on the 23rd January. She identified the prisoners as two men, who came into the house about one o'clock, and had two pints of beer each. They remained in the house about an hour and a quarter and changed a five shilling piece. When they left they went in the direction of Haverfordwest. P.C. Joseph Morgan, Newport, said that from information received of a robbery at Sardis, he went in the direction of Fishguard on the afternoon of the 24th January. He met the prisoners at Jericho, in the parish of Dinas. He arrested, charged and cautioned them. Both prisoners said "we know nothing at all about it ; we have been working in Goodwick since last October." He found on them the drawers, shirts and razor (produced) but they had only 1s 9œd in money on them. The prisoners pleaded guilty and asked to be tried summarily. Supt. Francis produced a record showing that Ahern had been convicted and sentenced for larceny whilst Mc-Sweeny had been charged once before but had been acquitted. The Chairman said the prisoners were lucky in being tried only for larceny. Ahern would be sentenced to two months and McSweeny to six weeks' imprisonment with hard labour in each ease. Welsh newspapers online at National Library of Wales http://welshnewspapers.llgc.org.uk/en/home

On Tue, 04 Jun 2013 18:55:46 +0100, Renia <renia@otenet.gr> wrote: >On 04/06/2013 11:30, roy.stockdill@btinternet.com wrote: >> Here's a thought that struck me only yesterday when I was doing some research >> in the US censuses..... >> >> People often complain in this country that the census questions get more and >> more intrusive every decade, though whether there will ever be another one >> seems to be up in the air at the moment. >> >> However, I was doing some research in the US censuses in connection with the >> latest subject for my Famous family trees blog at Findmypast (a UK celebrity >> with an American connection) and looked at the censuses from 1840 to 1940 >> online. >> >> Looking at the census for Brooklyn in 1870, I suddenly noticed that there were >> two columns (8 and 9) headed "Value of Real Estate" and "Value of Personal >> Estate". The person I was looking at said they had real estate worth 10,000 >> dollars and personal estate of 3,000 dollars, which I imagine was quite a lot >> in 1870. Whether the question about personal estate related to furniture, >> household effects, etc, or actual cash was not clear. Checking further, I >> discovered the same questions about real and personal estate values were asked >> in 1860 also but in 1850 only the question about real estate value appeared. >> >> The questions about the value of real and personal estate appear to have >> disappeared by the census of 1880 - perhaps too many people objected to being >> asked such personal questions. I find it interesting that in America, the land >> of liberty and dislike of government interference, such questions could ever >> have appeared in a census at all. >> >> Someone may prove me wrong but I don't recall any UK census asking a question >> about property values and certainly not how much money you had in the bank. I >> can imagine the outcry if they did! > >The nearest, in the UK, is how many rooms a house had in the 1911. > >Earlier US censuses were specifically for heads of households, asking >the specific question of how many slaves they owned. And they remained that way until the 1850 census which for the first time listed members of the household, and also dropped the head count of slaves. The property question was reduced to the value of real estate owned . Personal questions covered literacy, school attendance within the census year, and marriages within the year. Earlier censuses were for head of household only; all other household members were grouped by age brackets, sex, and color. For white males the age related to availability for military duty, for all blacks the numbers related to both intrinsic value and taxation of the holder, in addition to the political implications of the 3/5 apportionment Dennis Ahern mentions. -- Don donsgenes@charter.net

On Wed, 05 Jun 2013 11:02:56 +0100, roy.stockdill@btinternet.com wrote: >From: Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> > >> On Tue, 04 Jun 2013 11:30:02 +0100, roy.stockdill@btinternet.com wrote: >> >> >Here's a thought that struck me only yesterday when I was doing some research >> >in the US censuses..... >> > >> >People often complain in this country that the census questions get more and >> >more intrusive every decade, though whether there will ever be another one >> >seems to be up in the air at the moment. >> >> I'm curious. >> >> In this forum you usually argue against those who are concerned about >> privacy and pooh-pooh their concerns. >> >> Have you changed your mind?> > >Not in the slightest, Steve! I was merely making the point that I don't >remember any UK census ever asking how much an individual's house was worth and >how much money they had and I was somewhat surprised to find such questions in >an American census in 1860 and 1870. They probably dropped them when they discovered that people routinely lied about them, and regarded assurances that the information would not be shared with tax collectors as so much hogwash. >On the general subject of privacy and intrusion I remain adamant that people >are too precious and paranoid about it. To give an example, my current online >"Famous family trees" blog at Findmypast is about the ancestry of the actor >Michael Kitchen, who is quite brilliant in my opinion as Detective >Superintendent Christopher Foyle in Foyle's War. It was entirely accurate and >largely innocuous but I was actually verbally attacked, would you believe, by >some members of his fan club who have set up a website devoted to him. They >thought I shouldn't have done his ancestry because apparently he is very >private and never gives interviews, etc. The irony and incongruity of being >obsessive fans to the extent of establishing a website to talk about him seems >to have escaped them utterly! Kitchen himself has made no complaint but some of >these silly people thought they had the right to complain on his behalf. There >are some very strange people about! "Foyles War" was one of the very few TV series I've ever watched. I haven't watched the latest series, but I believe there are some anachronisms in it. -- Steve Hayes Web: http://hayesgreene.wordpress.com/ http://hayesgreene.blogspot.com http://groups.yahoo.com/group/afgen/

On 6/5/2013 10:45 AM, singhals wrote: > roy.stockdill@btinternet.com wrote: >> From: Steve Hayes<hayesstw@telkomsa.net> >> >>> On Tue, 04 Jun 2013 11:30:02 +0100, roy.stockdill@btinternet.com wrote: >>> >>>> Here's a thought that struck me only yesterday when I was doing some >>>> research >>>> in the US censuses..... >>>> >>>> People often complain in this country that the census questions get >>>> more and >>>> more intrusive every decade, though whether there will ever be >>>> another one >>>> seems to be up in the air at the moment. >>> >>> I'm curious. >>> >>> In this forum you usually argue against those who are concerned about >>> privacy and pooh-pooh their concerns. >>> >>> Have you changed your mind?> >> >> Not in the slightest, Steve! I was merely making the point that I don't >> remember any UK census ever asking how much an individual's house was >> worth and >> how much money they had and I was somewhat surprised to find such >> questions in >> an American census in 1860 and 1870. > > Erm, the Personal Property question didn't involve money in the bank. > MOST folks didn't have any. It was more a "what've you got that we can > tax" question. Generally covered things like horses, cattle, carriages, > grandfather clocks, gold jewelry,slaves. It's humorous to compare the > bragging census data with the poor-mouthing local tax list for the same > year. :) > > Privacy-wise, you were born and raised in one small town, you didn't > have any. The 1850, 60, 70 census were nailed on the wall of the > courthouse for you to correct. But, generally, both your social and > economic status were pretty well known to your neighbors and your > in-laws' in-laws. > > Cheryl > > Interestingly until some time in the late 1970's and early 1980's, North Carolina still collected property tax based on the items and values that you told the county. In looking at the tax documents, you would not believe how poor the people of North Carolina were ;-)

From: Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> > On Tue, 04 Jun 2013 11:30:02 +0100, roy.stockdill@btinternet.com wrote: > > >Here's a thought that struck me only yesterday when I was doing some research > >in the US censuses..... > > > >People often complain in this country that the census questions get more and > >more intrusive every decade, though whether there will ever be another one > >seems to be up in the air at the moment. > > I'm curious. > > In this forum you usually argue against those who are concerned about > privacy and pooh-pooh their concerns. > > Have you changed your mind?> Not in the slightest, Steve! I was merely making the point that I don't remember any UK census ever asking how much an individual's house was worth and how much money they had and I was somewhat surprised to find such questions in an American census in 1860 and 1870. On the general subject of privacy and intrusion I remain adamant that people are too precious and paranoid about it. To give an example, my current online "Famous family trees" blog at Findmypast is about the ancestry of the actor Michael Kitchen, who is quite brilliant in my opinion as Detective Superintendent Christopher Foyle in Foyle's War. It was entirely accurate and largely innocuous but I was actually verbally attacked, would you believe, by some members of his fan club who have set up a website devoted to him. They thought I shouldn't have done his ancestry because apparently he is very private and never gives interviews, etc. The irony and incongruity of being obsessive fans to the extent of establishing a website to talk about him seems to have escaped them utterly! Kitchen himself has made no complaint but some of these silly people thought they had the right to complain on his behalf. There are some very strange people about! -- 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

roy.stockdill@btinternet.com wrote: > From: Steve Hayes<hayesstw@telkomsa.net> > >> On Tue, 04 Jun 2013 11:30:02 +0100, roy.stockdill@btinternet.com wrote: >> >>> Here's a thought that struck me only yesterday when I was doing some research >>> in the US censuses..... >>> >>> People often complain in this country that the census questions get more and >>> more intrusive every decade, though whether there will ever be another one >>> seems to be up in the air at the moment. >> >> I'm curious. >> >> In this forum you usually argue against those who are concerned about >> privacy and pooh-pooh their concerns. >> >> Have you changed your mind?> > > Not in the slightest, Steve! I was merely making the point that I don't > remember any UK census ever asking how much an individual's house was worth and > how much money they had and I was somewhat surprised to find such questions in > an American census in 1860 and 1870. Erm, the Personal Property question didn't involve money in the bank. MOST folks didn't have any. It was more a "what've you got that we can tax" question. Generally covered things like horses, cattle, carriages, grandfather clocks, gold jewelry,slaves. It's humorous to compare the bragging census data with the poor-mouthing local tax list for the same year. :) Privacy-wise, you were born and raised in one small town, you didn't have any. The 1850, 60, 70 census were nailed on the wall of the courthouse for you to correct. But, generally, both your social and economic status were pretty well known to your neighbors and your in-laws' in-laws. Cheryl

On Tue, 04 Jun 2013 11:30:02 +0100, roy.stockdill@btinternet.com wrote: >Here's a thought that struck me only yesterday when I was doing some research >in the US censuses..... > >People often complain in this country that the census questions get more and >more intrusive every decade, though whether there will ever be another one >seems to be up in the air at the moment. I'm curious. In this forum you usually argue against those who are concerned about privacy, and pooh-pooh their concerns. Have you changed your mind? -- Steve Hayes Web: http://hayesgreene.wordpress.com/ http://hayesgreene.blogspot.com http://groups.yahoo.com/group/afgen/

Renia <renia@otenet.gr> wrote: : Earlier US censuses were specifically for heads of households, asking : the specific question of how many slaves they owned. That was not for property value, but apportionment in Congress where each slave counted as 3/5ths of a person. This led to the Southern, slaveholding states having a greater number of seats in the House of Representatives than would otherwise be apportioned by free population. The irony is that these 3/5th persons couldn't vote. -dja

A. Lefevre wrote: > My conclusion is that this entry is false, but there is more than one > entry in public family trees, so some people are just copying without > doing their research. > That happens all the time. I used to believe that if a large number of trees had the same info, it must be factual. Not any more. Worse, that incorrect info gets into Ancestry.com's Hints database, and becomes inescapable.

In Australia, those individual figures have been turned into statistical brackets, and the individual returns destroyed. Currently, a return can be kept for the future if the person requests it, but once again, only brackets are asked for. Doug. roy.stockdill@btinternet.com wrote: > Here's a thought that struck me only yesterday when I was doing some > research in the US censuses..... > > People often complain in this country that the census questions get more > and more intrusive every decade, though whether there will ever be another > one seems to be up in the air at the moment. > > However, I was doing some research in the US censuses in connection with > the latest subject for my Famous family trees blog at Findmypast (a UK > celebrity with an American connection) and looked at the censuses from > 1840 to 1940 online. > > Looking at the census for Brooklyn in 1870, I suddenly noticed that there > were two columns (8 and 9) headed "Value of Real Estate" and "Value of > Personal Estate". The person I was looking at said they had real estate > worth 10,000 dollars and personal estate of 3,000 dollars, which I imagine > was quite a lot in 1870. Whether the question about personal estate > related to furniture, household effects, etc, or actual cash was not > clear. Checking further, I discovered the same questions about real and > personal estate values were asked in 1860 also but in 1850 only the > question about real estate value appeared. > > The questions about the value of real and personal estate appear to have > disappeared by the census of 1880 - perhaps too many people objected to > being asked such personal questions. I find it interesting that in > America, the land of liberty and dislike of government interference, such > questions could ever have appeared in a census at all. > > Someone may prove me wrong but I don't recall any UK census asking a > question about property values and certainly not how much money you had in > the bank. I can imagine the outcry if they did! > > -- > 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

On Tue, 04 Jun 2013 11:30:02 +0100, roy.stockdill@btinternet.com wrote: >Here's a thought that struck me only yesterday when I was doing some research >in the US censuses..... > >People often complain in this country that the census questions get more and >more intrusive every decade, though whether there will ever be another one >seems to be up in the air at the moment. > >However, I was doing some research in the US censuses in connection with the >latest subject for my Famous family trees blog at Findmypast (a UK celebrity >with an American connection) and looked at the censuses from 1840 to 1940 >online. > >Looking at the census for Brooklyn in 1870, I suddenly noticed that there were >two columns (8 and 9) headed "Value of Real Estate" and "Value of Personal >Estate". The person I was looking at said they had real estate worth 10,000 >dollars and personal estate of 3,000 dollars, which I imagine was quite a lot >in 1870. Whether the question about personal estate related to furniture, >household effects, etc, or actual cash was not clear. Checking further, I >discovered the same questions about real and personal estate values were asked >in 1860 also but in 1850 only the question about real estate value appeared. > >The questions about the value of real and personal estate appear to have >disappeared by the census of 1880 - perhaps too many people objected to being >asked such personal questions. I find it interesting that in America, the land >of liberty and dislike of government interference, such questions could ever >have appeared in a census at all. > >Someone may prove me wrong but I don't recall any UK census asking a question >about property values and certainly not how much money you had in the bank. I >can imagine the outcry if they did! > The property value question was probably a crude method of gauging the house size and money in the bank being a variation (how much have you got left rather than how much do you get paid) on questions on income, something which in the UK is dealt with by ONS surveys rather than the census. For Scotland :- 1861-1911 - number of rooms with one or more windows The US seems to be somewhat inconsistent with what personal information is available for people living or dead. While birth records are commonly closed for 100 years, other information which in the UK would be considered nobody else's business often seems to be available without restriction.

On 04/06/2013 11:30, roy.stockdill@btinternet.com wrote: > Here's a thought that struck me only yesterday when I was doing some research > in the US censuses..... > > People often complain in this country that the census questions get more and > more intrusive every decade, though whether there will ever be another one > seems to be up in the air at the moment. > > However, I was doing some research in the US censuses in connection with the > latest subject for my Famous family trees blog at Findmypast (a UK celebrity > with an American connection) and looked at the censuses from 1840 to 1940 > online. > > Looking at the census for Brooklyn in 1870, I suddenly noticed that there were > two columns (8 and 9) headed "Value of Real Estate" and "Value of Personal > Estate". The person I was looking at said they had real estate worth 10,000 > dollars and personal estate of 3,000 dollars, which I imagine was quite a lot > in 1870. Whether the question about personal estate related to furniture, > household effects, etc, or actual cash was not clear. Checking further, I > discovered the same questions about real and personal estate values were asked > in 1860 also but in 1850 only the question about real estate value appeared. > > The questions about the value of real and personal estate appear to have > disappeared by the census of 1880 - perhaps too many people objected to being > asked such personal questions. I find it interesting that in America, the land > of liberty and dislike of government interference, such questions could ever > have appeared in a census at all. > > Someone may prove me wrong but I don't recall any UK census asking a question > about property values and certainly not how much money you had in the bank. I > can imagine the outcry if they did! > > -- > 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 > > > > > > ------------------------------- > 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 > > *Not in the 1921 or 1931 **UK**census.* *Example schedules may be viewed here-* *1931* *http://tinyurl.com/ljrhqzx* ** *1921* *http://tinyurl.com/mccfktz* ** *The Online Historical Reports website is a mine of information * http://www.histpop.org/ohpr/servlet/Show?page=Home cheers Guy

On 04/06/2013 11:30, roy.stockdill@btinternet.com wrote: > Here's a thought that struck me only yesterday when I was doing some research > in the US censuses..... > > People often complain in this country that the census questions get more and > more intrusive every decade, though whether there will ever be another one > seems to be up in the air at the moment. > > However, I was doing some research in the US censuses in connection with the > latest subject for my Famous family trees blog at Findmypast (a UK celebrity > with an American connection) and looked at the censuses from 1840 to 1940 > online. > > Looking at the census for Brooklyn in 1870, I suddenly noticed that there were > two columns (8 and 9) headed "Value of Real Estate" and "Value of Personal > Estate". The person I was looking at said they had real estate worth 10,000 > dollars and personal estate of 3,000 dollars, which I imagine was quite a lot > in 1870. Whether the question about personal estate related to furniture, > household effects, etc, or actual cash was not clear. Checking further, I > discovered the same questions about real and personal estate values were asked > in 1860 also but in 1850 only the question about real estate value appeared. > > The questions about the value of real and personal estate appear to have > disappeared by the census of 1880 - perhaps too many people objected to being > asked such personal questions. I find it interesting that in America, the land > of liberty and dislike of government interference, such questions could ever > have appeared in a census at all. > > Someone may prove me wrong but I don't recall any UK census asking a question > about property values and certainly not how much money you had in the bank. I > can imagine the outcry if they did! The nearest, in the UK, is how many rooms a house had in the 1911. Earlier US censuses were specifically for heads of households, asking the specific question of how many slaves they owned.

From: Mick <mrcycleuk@yahoo.co.uk> > On Mon, 03 Jun 2013 10:05:00 +0100, roy.stockdill@btinternet.com > wrote: > > > > > >Do you not know how to search the GRO indexes at FreeBMD and other sites? If > >you are a beginner, post again and I will give you some advice and > >instructions. > > Hi Roy, > I could do with some instructions if you do not mind? > I consider myself the blind led by the blind, but am beginning to make > some progress! > Mick IOW> Ask away, Mick, however it would be useful if you had a specific query! -- 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