>From The Cork Examiner, 21 October 1878 - KERRY INTELLIGENCE. ------------ (FROM OUR CORRESPONDENT.) Tralee, Saturday Evening. SHIPPING CASUALTY.--On yesterday (Friday) morning the ship Red Cross, of Glasgow, 900 tons register (Milles, master), from Liverpool to New York, in ballast, went ashore during a gale of wind near Ballinaskelligs, on the west coast of Kerry, quite convenient to the telegraph station. The crew were saved, but the vessel is likely to become a total wreck. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dennis Ahern | Ireland Newspaper Abstracts Acton, Massachusetts | http://www.IrelandOldNews.com - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

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

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

Steve Hayes wrote: > On Mon, 03 Jun 2013 19:47:41 +0100, Jon Green<jonsg@deadspam.com> wrote: > >> On 03/06/2013 17:35, Phil C. wrote: >>> On 03/06/2013 13:23, Jon Green wrote: >>>> Like many others here (by the look of it), I note precisely what the >>>> original reference says - but then I add annotations in the record to >>>> clarify if, for example, the same place is called by markedly differing >>>> names, so that I don't get misled into thinking they're two separate >>>> places. >>> >>> I too agree. Apart from anything else, we can have no idea what >>> name/boundary/authority changes may come in the future. >> >> A /very/ good point. Sometimes it's easy to get so immersed in the past >> that we forget the future that will inherit our labours! > > And one that shows up the danger of trying to standardise location names (as > Ancestry.com appears to do). Great for GPS, perhaps, but imagine if they'd > done it 20 years ago, and listed all the people born in Clifton and > Bedminster, back to AD 900, as born in "Avon". The odd thing is -- the standardi()ation set out to deal with spelling, so that one didn't end up with typos in place names...and so someone looking for Snarfingdon didn't have to /remember/ to check for 42 variations. I don't know when the intention did a sea-change, but like everyone else, I do wish it hadn't! Cheryl

On Mon, 03 Jun 2013 19:47:41 +0100, Jon Green <jonsg@deadspam.com> wrote: >On 03/06/2013 17:35, Phil C. wrote: >> On 03/06/2013 13:23, Jon Green wrote: >>> Like many others here (by the look of it), I note precisely what the >>> original reference says - but then I add annotations in the record to >>> clarify if, for example, the same place is called by markedly differing >>> names, so that I don't get misled into thinking they're two separate >>> places. >> >> I too agree. Apart from anything else, we can have no idea what >> name/boundary/authority changes may come in the future. > >A /very/ good point. Sometimes it's easy to get so immersed in the past >that we forget the future that will inherit our labours! And one that shows up the danger of trying to standardise location names (as Ancestry.com appears to do). Great for GPS, perhaps, but imagine if they'd done it 20 years ago, and listed all the people born in Clifton and Bedminster, back to AD 900, as born in "Avon". -- Steve Hayes Web: http://hayesgreene.wordpress.com/ http://hayesgreene.blogspot.com http://groups.yahoo.com/group/afgen/

On 03/06/2013 17:35, Phil C. wrote: > On 03/06/2013 13:23, Jon Green wrote: >> Like many others here (by the look of it), I note precisely what the >> original reference says - but then I add annotations in the record to >> clarify if, for example, the same place is called by markedly differing >> names, so that I don't get misled into thinking they're two separate >> places. > > I too agree. Apart from anything else, we can have no idea what > name/boundary/authority changes may come in the future. A /very/ good point. Sometimes it's easy to get so immersed in the past that we forget the future that will inherit our labours! Jon -- WATCH OUT FOR THE SPAM BLOCK! Replace 'deadspam' with 'green-lines' to reply in email!

stephen.hannigan@gmail.com wrote: > 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 > Name: Alfred Derek George Birth Date: 13 May 1923 Date of Registration: Jan 1997 Age at Death: 73 Registration District: Worthing Inferred County: West Sussex Register Number: 16A District and Subdistrict: 7861 Entry number: 207 -- Anne Chambers South Australia anne dot chambers at bigpond dot com

On 03/06/2013 13:23, Jon Green wrote: > On 02/06/2013 06:41, Kiwi in Aus 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, > > Like many others here (by the look of it), I note precisely what the > original reference says - but then I add annotations in the record to > clarify if, for example, the same place is called by markedly differing > names, so that I don't get misled into thinking they're two separate > places. I too agree. Apart from anything else, we can have no idea what name/boundary/authority changes may come in the future. -- Phil C.

On 02/06/2013 06:41, Kiwi in Aus 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, Like many others here (by the look of it), I note precisely what the original reference says - but then I add annotations in the record to clarify if, for example, the same place is called by markedly differing names, so that I don't get misled into thinking they're two separate places. Jon -- WATCH OUT FOR THE SPAM BLOCK! Replace 'deadspam' with 'green-lines' to reply in email!

On 27/05/2013 21:09, brightside S9 wrote: > I (and a couple of distant relations) have struggled for many years > trying to find the death of a Dinah Wool(l)ey. Born Dinah Lenton in > 1831. > > She married Matthew Lemon Woolley at Gretton parish Northamptonshire > on 31/10/1853 and had several children. > Freereg will find that marriage with > name - Matthew Lemon WOOLLEY (note the double L) > parish - Gretton > county - Northamptonshire. > and GRO DEC 1853 LENTON Dinah Uppingham 7a 575 > > She can be found in 1861 census. > > Her last born child (AFAICT) can be found in Freebmd > GRO JUN 1863 WOOLLEY Phoebe Lenton Uppingham 7a 279 > (note the spelling of Phoebe and the double L). > So 2nd qtr 1863 is the last indication that Dinah *is* still alive. > > The baptism of this last child, on 8/12/1868, can be found Freereg. > name - Phebe WOOLEY (note the spelling of Phebe and the single L). > parish - Gretton > county - Northamptonshire > > This baptism records the parents as Dinah and Matthew. There is no > note to say that Dinah is deceased ( I have the microfiche for > Gretton parish BMDs and there is no margin note). So DEC 1868 is the > last indication that Dinah *may* still be alive. > > The next piece of information I have is that Matthew Lemon Woo(l)ley > remarries in 1870 to a Caroline INGRAM. > GRO SEP 1870 INGRAM Caroline Uppingham 7a 451 > and the marriage can be found in Freereg > name - Matthew Lemon WOOLEY (note the single L) > parish - Gretton > county - Northamptonshire > Here the grooms condition is *Widower*. > > So this tells me that Dinah is no *longer* alive. > > The mariages and births are all in a small village of Gretton and that > seems to me to rule out anything suspicious. However I cannot find > any information about Dinah Wool(l)ey's death or a burial. > > Can anyone find out when Dinah WOOL(L)ey died? Any clues would be > welcome. Thanks. > I have a similar problem with the daughter of one of my relations. She was born and then vanished! Alfred Ernest Nosworthy was married three times, the second time to Mary Ethel Austin in 1899, The marriage was short-lived because Mary Ethel died in Leicester RD in the September Q of 1900. As there was a Mary Ethel Nosworthy born in the same district in the same quarter, she almost certainly died in childbirth. But what happened to the child? She lived long enough to be named (don't know about baptised) and to have her birth registered but that appears to be the only record of her. (I don't know for *definite* that she was the child of this couple, but I'd be amazed if she wasn't.) -- Jenny M Benson

Middlesex is one that gives me lots of head scratching depending on the source, it can be anywhere, On the same note we have a cemetery here named after one suburb, but it is in the middle of a different suburb the one it is named after is a couple of suburbs away so would be fun to find if you didn't know the area i<Gordon Webb> wrote in message news:ac.58851b5355.a808e0gordonwb@argonet.co.uk... > In article <KOOdnXnM3a69RjfMnZ2dnVY3go-dnZ2d@giganews.com>, "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, >> >> > > There is no "right" way to deal with this, others have said their ways. I > think that for the purpose of "accuracy" the name at the time of the event > is recorded as this also helps locate the record source, especially parish > records. For the name change a note should be appended to the record. > > When London expanded it did so rapidly swallowing up large parts of the > bordering counties, Middlesex was completely "swallowed" by London but > it's > name refuses to "die". > > Good hunting > > Gordon > > > -- > --. --. --. --. : : --- --- > .---------------------------------------------. > |_| |_| | _ | | | | |_ | |Internet provider for all Acorn RISC > machines| > | | |\ | | | | |\| | | > '---------------------------------------------' > | | | \ |_| |_| | | |__ | gordonwb@mapsonargonet.co.uk(please remove > mapson for any reply) > > >

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

On Mon, 3 Jun 2013 10:11:35 +1000, "Kiwi in Aus" <Wwftw_98@Yahoo.com> wrote: > i<Gordon Webb> wrote in message >news:ac.58851b5355.a808e0gordonwb@argonet.co.uk... >> In article <KOOdnXnM3a69RjfMnZ2dnVY3go-dnZ2d@giganews.com>, "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, >>> >>> >> >> There is no "right" way to deal with this, others have said their ways. I >> think that for the purpose of "accuracy" the name at the time of the event >> is recorded as this also helps locate the record source, especially parish >> records. For the name change a note should be appended to the record. >> >> When London expanded it did so rapidly swallowing up large parts of the >> bordering counties, Middlesex was completely "swallowed" by London but >> it's >> name refuses to "die". >> >> Good hunting >> >> Gordon >> >Middlesex is one that gives me lots of head scratching depending on the >source, it can be anywhere, > On the same note we have a cemetery here named after one suburb, but it is >in the middle of a different suburb the one it is named after is a couple of >suburbs away so would be fun to find if you didn't know the area > Cemeteries in foreign parts have been around since at least Victorian times. ITYF the naming is not generally after a "suburb" but after the owning authority at the time a cemetery was opened thus e.g. Paddington cemetery is "out in the countryside" in Kilburn with IIRC various LCC cemeteries even further from home.

On Sun, 2 Jun 2013 16:44:46 +1000, "Kiwi in Aus" <Wwftw_98@Yahoo.com> wrote: > >"Steve Hayes" <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> wrote in message >news:j6plq8ltfjn5no5spll3pkot21bibolk6i@4ax.com... >> 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, >> >> I try, where possible, to use the name of the place when the event took >> place, >> but it isn't always possible to determine that precisely, so I'm not >> consistent about it. > >That sounds like me, one of those things probably no right or wrong way, I >just seam to have a lot of Essex places that turn into Greater London etc > IME older records will usually be indexed in a similar manner thus inviting a failure to match if e.g. you list a 1935 event as "West Ham, Greater London" or similar. While an address might now be in Greater London, there are many records which are still with the original county's (administrative or ecclesiastical) records. Ancestry (as usual) has failed to index this way resulting in some glorious mis-indexing when trying to bowdlerise locations.

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

"Steve Hayes" <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> wrote in message news:j6plq8ltfjn5no5spll3pkot21bibolk6i@4ax.com... > 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, > > I try, where possible, to use the name of the place when the event took > place, > but it isn't always possible to determine that precisely, so I'm not > consistent about it. That sounds like me, one of those things probably no right or wrong way, I just seam to have a lot of Essex places that turn into Greater London etc > > > -- > Steve Hayes > Web: http://hayesgreene.wordpress.com/ > http://hayesgreene.blogspot.com > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/afgen/ >

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, -- Cheers Jenny I DON"T do mornings!!!! Photos http://www.flickr.com/photos/jen_in_brisbane/ Family Tree http://minerstree.tribalpages.com/

."A.Lefevre" wrote in message news:52331e5553.A.Lefevre@freeuk.com... >From time to time I look at the Ancestry family trees, in the hope that >some >one has found some of my antecedants that I've missed. A week or so ago I >found one, so it seemed. I had a mini tree of Frederick and his wife Clara >and family, 9 Children between 1870 and 1885 but an ancestry tree had a >further child, Henrietta, born 1888 Bethnal Green. >This seemed odd, Frederick had died in 1885 and as frozen embryos were >unusual in the 1880,s, had Clara had a child after? >The Ancestry tree showed a date of birth, and address 16 Weaver St. the >same address shown on the baptism entry of Ann Elizabeth in 1885. All the >other children have baptism entries, but cannot find any entry for >Henrietta. She is not with Clara in the 1891, and doesn't show anywhere >else >Her marriage in 1908 doesn't appear in church marriages, seems to be >register office, or possibly synagogue, either is out of line with the rest >of the family. So I had a look at the house numbering of Weaver St to see >who was living at Number 16. >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. There is a birth for Henrietta Lefever Sept Qtr 1888 Bethnal Green Reg Dist Vol 1c Page 249. The name of one of the trees on Ancestry, James/Lefever family tree suggests Henrietta and her husband Walter James are the subjects of the tree, and as it has an actual date of birth and address of birth it seems that a source document has been accessed. I'm not sure how you can conclude that the information in the tree is false without checking it out. The birth certificate would do that. Andy

"Kiwi in Aus" <Wwftw_98@Yahoo.com> 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, > > -- > Cheers Jenny > I DON"T do mornings!!!! > Photos http://www.flickr.com/photos/jen_in_brisbane/ > Family Tree http://minerstree.tribalpages.com/ Hi Jenny. I agree with the others about not changing the data to fit with current geographical/administrative boundaries, or the names currently in use. However, there's a philosophical issue that's worth mentioning. When you encounter variant names for an ancestor person then - assuming you're sure they refer to the same person - you handle it in a particular way. You only have one instance of that person in your data but they may have several accepted alternative names for them. You probably also record the _actual_ name (as written, with any spelling errors and uncertain characters) against each source because that's part of the supporting evidence for that person. When dealing with places, though, some folks prefer to just treat them as simple names. The alternative - if your software supports it - is to treat them analogously to persons since each place can have its own history and alternative names. In your situation, this means that both your old and recent names would then refer to the same 'place entity' in your data, and that place entity holds its own details such as historical narrative, geographical/administrative parentage (analogous to lineage), boundary changes, name changes or spelling variations, etc. The analogy extends to recording the actual name in cases where the wording/spelling/interpretation is questionable as part of the supporting evidence. So, in summary, the difference is whether a "place" is simply a name in your data, or an actual entity with possibly several names, plus other properties. This was important to myself because I wanted to attach narrative, pictures, documents, etc., that referred to important places (anything from households upwards) but I don't believe this is the generally accepted approach. Tony Proctor

Kiwi in Aus 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, > Any particular place falls into a number of different hierarchies which can change over time. Ideally genealogical S/W developers would recognise this and make provision for sufficiently flexible descriptions so that one could define both the place and the hierarchies (with the dates for which they were valid) separately and then link the two. You would then be able to define separate hierarchies for Essex, Greater London, and SE Essex including their registration districts, etc, and the dates for which they were valid. Your place would then link into each of them and the S/W would be able to pick out the relevant hierarchy for a given event based on the date. You would also be able to define parallel hierarchies for parish and bishopric although this would be quite complex when a single building serves as a chapel of ease for more than one parish. In practice what I've done using Gramps is as follows: County changes are not a real problem. The only change hereabouts was in 1974 and only 4 events fall into the new county. In terms of parish records most events fall into two ancient parishes which were progressively broken up in the C19th. Prior to this marriages were almost exclusively in the ancient PCs so I have simple entries for these in Gramps' Places table. However a great many baptisms and, after the mid C18th, burials took place in a chapel of ease which served both parishes. I've put two entries for the chapel into the database, one for each parish, and select whichever was appropriate for a given event. I don't have any events for the building after it became a PC in its own right (civil registration had taken over as the primary source of information by then); if I had I'd create a third entry for it. This is still less than ideal because chapel registers don't survive prior to the mid C18th & at some periods the PRs ignore the chapels so these baptisms have to be allocated to the PC. For individual villages, farms, hamlets etc. I standardise on the modern spelling followed by the historical spelling variations in parentheses. I may also add the township. e.g. Coldwell (Callwell, Cawell, Carrel), Austonley Unfortunately Gramps follows the common US fallacy of assuming that everyone belongs to a city as a unit of administration. This leaves me with two totally useless fields in the database, City and State, and nowhere to put the the real useful unit, the township so I now have townships entered in the City field and an empty State field. There is nowhere to put the additional information such as registration areas unless I were to use the State field. There's also no means of accounting for changes to parishes so I simply use the ancient parish names - again civil registration has made the modern names less useful. -- Ian The Hotmail address is my spam-bin. Real mail address is iang at austonley org uk