On 02/06/2013 10:08, Jenny M Benson wrote: > 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 record what was correct at the time of the event'. For example, have > several people born in Kent and dying in London' though the place is the > same. I believe one should NOT "update". > Like the classic story of the Russian born in St Petersburgh, went to school in Petrograd, married in Leningrad and died in St Petersburgh. -- Graeme Wall This account not read, substitute trains for rail. Railway Miscellany at <http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail>

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 record what was correct at the time of the event'. For example, have several people born in Kent and dying in London' though the place is the same. I believe one should NOT "update". -- Jenny M Benson

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. -- Steve Hayes Web: http://hayesgreene.wordpress.com/ http://hayesgreene.blogspot.com http://groups.yahoo.com/group/afgen/

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, > I use the name of the place at the time. Though I tend to use ceremonial counties for recent events rather than the more correct unitary authority/Greater Urban Area designations. -- Graeme Wall This account not read, substitute trains for rail. Railway Miscellany at <http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail>

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, It's a personal matter, but I try on the whole to record the place name as it was at the time of the event in question - such that a person might be christened in Sheffield parish church but married in Sheffield cathedral - same building. John. -- Please reply to john at yclept dot wanadoo dot co dot uk.

On Sat, 01 Jun 2013 20:21:21 +0100, A.Lefevre <lefev@freeuk.com> 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. We have found numerous instances of that kind of thing. And, for some unknown reason, trees with errors seem to get copied more than trees without errors. -- Steve Hayes Web: http://hayesgreene.wordpress.com/ http://hayesgreene.blogspot.com http://groups.yahoo.com/group/afgen/

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, At the tree-building stage I make a pretty conscientious attempt to include, in my "published" work, notes on variant names of persons, localities, countries, sources, et. al., as a small contribution to making the next searcher's task easier. The form I choose for the master copy I generally base on how the individual styled himself/herself, or official documents if any. -- Don donsgenes@charter.net

>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. On the 1881 census the house numbers of Weaver St in Bethnal Green run from 1 to 30. They also run, 1 to 8, 12 to 25 and another 4. In the 1891 census the numbering has been changed, it looks like odd side and even side numbering, 1 to 53 and 2 to 66 with a few blanks, and a misplaced No.9 Comparing the electoral lists over that period it looks as though the change came between 1885 and 1888. The last four children baptised were living at:- 1879, No.5 Weaver St, 1880 No.25, 1882 No.25, 1885, No.16 Weaver St. The first of these was most certainly an error for 25 and the last is an error for No.36, the address of the family in 1891. 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. By the way, in case any of the tree owners is reading this, Clara Elizabeth was ATHERTON, she signed the marriage register in rather spidery hand, with a name that has extra letters between the H and the T and a bit of cross checking showed it should be Atherton and because the entry read Atheton somebody has written under her signature, Clara Elizabeth Atheton her mark X Her father has a bit of a mix up as well, the marriage entry reads Etherton, this has been over written Ellerton,and has been transcribed Robert Elle Etherton so we may never know what his name really was. Alec Lefevre

"CWatters" <colin.watters@NOturnersoakSPAM.plus.com> wrote in message news:sdudnd29T5LSvTTMnZ2dnUVZ7tKdnZ2d@brightview.co.uk... > 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. > > There is a Charles Wooley death registered in Uppingham Q3 1863. Perhaps > rule out an error with the first name ?? He was a child of 17m. Gretton registers are fully covered on FreeREG. If only FreeREG allowed searches without a surname ... My own view is that if Dinah had done a runner, and Charles was not a widower, he would not be remarrying in Gretton, but somewhere his circumstances were unknown. This doesn't help with Dinah's dath though.

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. There is a Charles Wooley death registered in Uppingham Q3 1863. Perhaps rule out an error with the first name ??

On Fri, 31 May 2013 13:34:36 +0200, "Lesley Robertson" <l.a.robertson@tnw.tudelft.nl> wrote: >wrote in message >news:mailman.0.1369820757.15348.genbrit@rootsweb.com... > >>I am drawn to the possibility that Dinah Woolley left her husband and >>died >>somewhere away from the area, perhaps in Scotland, Ireland or abroad. >>Another >>possibility is that she changed her name and remarried in another >>name. As I >>pointed out yesterday, the fact that Matthew Woolley said he was a >>widower when >>he remarried is NOT proof that he was! If his wife had gone he might >>well have >>thought she was dead. > No Di* Lenton (or Linton) either as she should also be indexed under her own surname (if known to the informant) as well as any later one.

On Fri, 31 May 2013 18:41:29 +0100, "Phil C." <philtrum@fsmail.net> wrote: >On 26/05/2013 09:59, Piercefield wrote: >> Phil C. wrote, Friday, May 24, 2013 4:15 PM >> >>> They are both from GRO. I notice that the >>> number in far left hand column are different - >>> 152 and 172. Same registrar for both. >> >> What did the GRO have to say about them ? >> >I've received reply - ><<I have checked both entries and 152 should not be issued as it was >superceded by the entry at 172. >Entry 172 was issued by the Coroner. >There is also a slight discrepancy on the age of death too? >There is no information available to explain the actions which happened >so long ago. >Possibly someone queried her cause of death? >> > >That's as far as we'll get then. Perhaps a relative was disappointed not >to receive a legacy, or something <shrug>. Still, it was useful for me >to get info from both certs. Confirms husband's name and now I know he >was in the army - I suppose that's serendipitous. > Do you know where she was buried ? If there was need for an "out of England" certificate from the Coroner then that could have prompted an inquest.

On 26/05/2013 09:59, Piercefield wrote: > Phil C. wrote, Friday, May 24, 2013 4:15 PM > >> They are both from GRO. I notice that the >> number in far left hand column are different - >> 152 and 172. Same registrar for both. > > What did the GRO have to say about them ? > I've received reply - <<I have checked both entries and 152 should not be issued as it was superceded by the entry at 172. Entry 172 was issued by the Coroner. There is also a slight discrepancy on the age of death too? There is no information available to explain the actions which happened so long ago. Possibly someone queried her cause of death? >> That's as far as we'll get then. Perhaps a relative was disappointed not to receive a legacy, or something <shrug>. Still, it was useful for me to get info from both certs. Confirms husband's name and now I know he was in the army - I suppose that's serendipitous. -- Phil C.

wrote in message news:mailman.0.1369820757.15348.genbrit@rootsweb.com... >I am drawn to the possibility that Dinah Woolley left her husband and >died >somewhere away from the area, perhaps in Scotland, Ireland or abroad. >Another >possibility is that she changed her name and remarried in another >name. As I >pointed out yesterday, the fact that Matthew Woolley said he was a >widower when >he remarried is NOT proof that he was! If his wife had gone he might >well have >thought she was dead. -- >Roy Stockdill >Genealogical researcher, writer & lecturer There's no Di* Wool(l)ey from 1863-1890 in Scotlands People deaths. Lesley Robertson

On Thu, 30 May 2013 11:11:47 +0100, Roger Mills <watt.tyler@gmail.com> wrote: >On 29/05/2013 07:48, Peter Goodey wrote: >> On Tue, 2013-05-28 at 21:46 +0100, Roger Mills wrote: >>> Pity they didn't record the age at >>> death in those days! >> >> Yes they did! >> >> It just didn't start appearing in the index until 1866. >> > >Fair enough. But the effect is the same unless you purchase a death >certificate. > Not in areas such as e.g. Cheshire where access has been allowed to produce indexes including age, sub-district and entry number for BMDs.

On 29/05/2013 07:48, Peter Goodey wrote: > On Tue, 2013-05-28 at 21:46 +0100, Roger Mills wrote: >> Pity they didn't record the age at >> death in those days! > > Yes they did! > > It just didn't start appearing in the index until 1866. > Fair enough. But the effect is the same unless you purchase a death certificate. -- Cheers, Roger ____________ Please reply to Newsgroup. Whilst email address is valid, it is seldom checked.

>From the Illustrated Usk Observer and Raglan Herald, 2 July 1864 - MONMOUTHSHIRE QUARTER SESSIONS ABERSYCHAN.--A WEAK CASE. Mary Macarthy, 19, servant, was charged with stealing half a sovereign, the money of James Phillips, on the 29th May, and Timothy Ahern was charged with receiving the same, well knowing it to have been stolen. Mr. Smythies, for the prosecution, withdrew the charge against Ahern. Prosecutor deposed that he was a beer-house keeper and butcher, at Abersychan, and the female prisoner lived with him as servant; on the day named he received half a sovereign, which he marked and placed in his trowsers pocket; he saw it in the pocket on the following morning, which was Sunday, before going to church, but on his return it was gone; he marked it when he placed it in his pocket. On Sunday evening the same half-sovereign was given to him by prisoner in payment for beer, and on Monday morning he found the same coin in his waistcoat pocket, he having left it the night before in his trowsers pocket. The learned chairman, in putting the case to the jury, said he did not see the slightest evidence against the prisoner, and she was acquitted, as also was Ahern. Welsh newspapers online at National Library of Wales http://welshnewspapers.llgc.org.uk/en/home

From: Self <roy.stockdill@btinternet.com> > From: brightside S9 <address@replyto_is_not.invalid> > > > 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.> A somewhat annoying family, these Lentons! I have found Dinah Lenton in 1841 and 1851, in 1841 living with her parents Thomas & Mary Lenton (both b 1794 or about) and four siblings - Allen 26, Jonathan 12, Ephraim 6 and Amos 4 - at Gretton. In 1851 Thomas & Mary and Allen, Ephraim and Amos were still at Gretton but Dinah was with her sister and brother-in-law Henry Dorman who married Elizabeth (Betsy) Lenton at Uppingham in 1848. They were at Hog Hill, Uppingham. I then find Dinah as Dinah Wooley with Mathew and 5 children at Gretton in 1861, her two youngest being Ephraim and Amos, aged 3 and 1, no doubt named after her brothers. But can I find any trace of Ephraim Lenton senior after 1851 - no, I cannot! I can find no marriage, death or an immigration record for him. He disappears into thin air, like Dinah later! The only Ephraim Lenton I can find after 1851 is an Ephraim Lenton, son of Amos, who was born in 1865, married at Uppingham in 1886 to (I think) Elizabeth Warner and died at Kettering in 1917, aged 51. This Ephraim Lenton appears to have been a bit of a bad lot, since there are TEN reports for him in the British Newspapers records on Findmypast for being involved in various petty crimes. But what happened to Ephraim Lenton senior, his uncle and Dinah's brother? Anyone else done any better? -- 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

From: Roger Mills <watt.tyler@gmail.com> > > Have you seen that there is a death in the GRO death indexes (FreeBMD and > > Findmypast) in the June quarter of 1865 at Peterborough of a WOOLLEY > Female (unnamed) , vol 3b page 143? Could it just possibly be that this was your > > Dinah? > > > > Gretton is not far from Peterborough and Peterborough registration > district probably came fairly close to Gretton. The fact that this female who died > was unnamed suggests she may have died either in hospital or a workhouse and > nobody knew her full name. Perhaps she had left her husband? > > > > I note her daughter Phoebe was born in 1863 but not baptised until 1868. > The fact that the baptismal record didn't say her mother was deceased is not > proof that she wasn't. > > > > I think I might just be tempted to get that death certificate but it's up > to you. > > > It's possible. I've tended to think of "unamed" as referring to a new > baby who hadn't been given a name. Pity they didn't record the age at > death in those days! Are there any statistics which show what proportion > of "unnameds" are *not* young babies?> Of course I considered the possibility that it might have been a child and, since posting, I have taken another look at the FreeBMD indexes and, in fact, there is the birth of an unnamed female child at Peterborough in the same June quarter of 1865, so that is very likely the explanation of the death and Roger is right. I find it rather curious that this woman's death cannot be found. It is more common not to be able to find a birth or a marriage, but an unfound death is rarer for there would have to be legal paperwork and a burial somewhere. I am drawn to the possibility that Dinah Woolley left her husband and died somewhere away from the area, perhaps in Scotland, Ireland or abroad. Another possibility is that she changed her name and remarried in another name. As I pointed out yesterday, the fact that Matthew Woolley said he was a widower when he remarried is NOT proof that he was! If his wife had gone he might well have thought she was dead. -- 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

"Charles Ellson" <ce11son@yahoo.ca> wrote in message news:rajaq8lk4bevqc8nh3l69va32ct3j0j171@4ax.com... > On Tue, 28 May 2013 17:05:48 +0100, "Tony Proctor" > <tony@proctor_NoMore_SPAM.net> wrote: > >> >>"Charles Ellson" <ce11son@yahoo.ca> wrote in message >>news:a5k5q8d8irlpknj8tt47hevpsnh88l5s4q@4ax.com... >>> On Sun, 26 May 2013 20:52:20 +0200, john >>> <john1@s145802280.onlinehome.fr> wrote: >>> >>>>On 26/05/2013 19:34, Tony Proctor wrote: >>>>> I picked up a copy of an old "Bacon's New Large Print Map of London >>>>> and >>>>> Suburbs" from a second-hand book shop the other day. The map is in >>>>> poor >>>>> condition but I intend to try and rescue as much as I can of it. >>>>> >>>>> There is no visible date printed anywhere so I need a little help or >>>>> advice >>>>> on dating it. There is a "1900" pencilled on one of the remaining >>>>> index >>>>> pages but I'm sceptical of that - it must be a guess at best. >>>>> >>>>> Tony Proctor >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>A quick online search will give you the dates of various versions. >>>>There is full scanned version online http://nla.gov.au/nla.map-rm2478 >>>>for comparison which might help? >>>>The advertisements may contain dates/prices which could vary with >>>>editions so it might be worth checking those. >>>> >>> Some of the railway stations might also give a clue if you can dig out >>> information on what might have been under construction at the time. >>> The Central London Railway had opened between Bank and Shepherds Bush >>> in 1900, IIRC the depot at Wood Lane should have been hard to miss by >>> mapmakers from 1895 onward. The "New Line" from Camden to Watford >>> Junction opened in sections from about 1910-1912 so if e.g. Kensal >>> Green and Harlesden (NOT the one in Gladstone Park) stations aren't >>> there then the book should be before those years. >> >> >>Thanks Charles. The Shepherds-Bush to Bank line is clearly visible. I'm >>not >>sure about the Camden one though. >> > It was built alongside the existing railway so on the average map it > is identifiable by the new stations (distinct from those already in > use on the existing line), the first of which was Kensal Green then > Harlesden and Stonebridge Park on what is now the DC line in the > London Overground group of services. > >>There's a Great Northern Railway line goes >>from Camden and eventually disappears off my map at Highgate but it >>doesn't >>look very direct, or very new. >> >> Tony Proctor >> OK, the "New Line" isn't there so it looks like the map is between 1900-1910 Charles. There wasn't much around Stonebridge back in those days. It's interesting to see the lines in conjunction with the roads. I'm so used to seeing the rail (& underground) maps as something separate from the street maps that I'm rarely aware of where they intersect. Tony Proctor