On Tue, 22 Dec 2015 19:18:47 +0000, Charles Ellson <ce11son@yahoo.ca> wrote: >Some people missed the census by being away from home overnight and >apparently not being somewhere that was enumerated (my grandmother, >her aunt and two or three cousins); others had a household that was >listed for enumeration but no trace of the schedule in the available >records (my great-grandfather's family whose house had the front door >on a different street and seems to have been missed by both potential >enumerators). Jenny & Charles, Thank you very much for replying and advising me. Jenny has given me tracks to try and follow. Mick.IOW.

On Tue, 22 Dec 2015 15:34:32 +0000, Jenny M Benson <nemonews@hotmail.co.uk> wrote: >On 22/12/2015 09:40, Mick IOW wrote: >> Hi all, >> Did some people dodge the 1911 census or would the records >> have gone missing? >> >> Frederick Samuel Bartlett was born 1870 at: Dorchester, Dorset. >> His wife: Mary Burt was born 1877 at: Whitwell, Isle of Wight, >> Hampshire. >> They married at: St Thomas, Newport, IOW, Hampshire, in 1896. >> >> Children: >> Dorothy Amelia Bartlett born & died 1897 at: Isle of Wight, Hampshire. >> >> Lilian Mabel Bartlett born: 1898 died: 1979 at: Isle of >> Wight,Hampshire. (did not marry) >> >> Frederick Samuel Bartlett born: 1900 at: Isle of Wight, Hampshire. >> died: 1975 Isle of Wight, Hampshire. (did marry) >> >> Mary Violet Bartlett born: 1903 at: : Isle of Wight, Hampshire. died: >> 1991 at: Isle of Wight, Hampshire. (did marry) >> >> >> I have found a 1901 census with the family at: Fairlee Cottages, >> 10, Fairlee Rd, Newport, Isle of Wight, Hampshire. >> >> The father: Frederick Samuel Bartlett occupation is: Wheelwright. >> >> I can find no census for any of them in 1911 yet all were alive. >> >> I thought I found one for the youngest child: Mary Violet Bartlett >> born: 1903 At: Withy Bed Cottage, Pan Lane, Newport, IOW. >> (with a grandfather) Charles Sivier a Widowed Male Occupation: >> Cowman On Farm aged: 52 born: 1859 At: Cowes I O W >> (Mary Bartlett Granddaughter - Female aged: 7born: 1904at: Newport >> I of W.) >> >> But her Maternal grandparents are: Leonard Alfred Burt & Fanny >> Russell. >> >> I have as yet found no parents for her father: Frederick Samuel >> Bartlett born 1870 at: Dorchester, Dorset. >> >> Can anyone suggest where I am going wrong please? >> Mick. IOW. >> >I think you may be on the right track with the granddaughter Mary in the >1911 Census. > >You will find Charles Sivier in 1901 with his wife, named Mary. You >will then find a marriage in 1886 in the Isle of Wight of Charles >Richard Sivier marrying either Ellen Bartlett or Mary Marshall. > >If I were you, I would dig a little deeper into the Sivier family to see >if/where they connect with your Bartletts. > Some people missed the census by being away from home overnight and apparently not being somewhere that was enumerated (my grandmother, her aunt and two or three cousins); others had a household that was listed for enumeration but no trace of the schedule in the available records (my great-grandfather's family whose house had the front door on a different street and seems to have been missed by both potential enumerators).

On 22/12/2015 09:40, Mick IOW wrote: > Hi all, > Did some people dodge the 1911 census or would the records > have gone missing? > > Frederick Samuel Bartlett was born 1870 at: Dorchester, Dorset. > His wife: Mary Burt was born 1877 at: Whitwell, Isle of Wight, > Hampshire. > They married at: St Thomas, Newport, IOW, Hampshire, in 1896. > > Children: > Dorothy Amelia Bartlett born & died 1897 at: Isle of Wight, Hampshire. > > Lilian Mabel Bartlett born: 1898 died: 1979 at: Isle of > Wight,Hampshire. (did not marry) > > Frederick Samuel Bartlett born: 1900 at: Isle of Wight, Hampshire. > died: 1975 Isle of Wight, Hampshire. (did marry) > > Mary Violet Bartlett born: 1903 at: : Isle of Wight, Hampshire. died: > 1991 at: Isle of Wight, Hampshire. (did marry) > > > I have found a 1901 census with the family at: Fairlee Cottages, > 10, Fairlee Rd, Newport, Isle of Wight, Hampshire. > > The father: Frederick Samuel Bartlett occupation is: Wheelwright. > > I can find no census for any of them in 1911 yet all were alive. > > I thought I found one for the youngest child: Mary Violet Bartlett > born: 1903 At: Withy Bed Cottage, Pan Lane, Newport, IOW. > (with a grandfather) Charles Sivier a Widowed Male Occupation: > Cowman On Farm aged: 52 born: 1859 At: Cowes I O W > (Mary Bartlett Granddaughter - Female aged: 7born: 1904at: Newport > I of W.) > > But her Maternal grandparents are: Leonard Alfred Burt & Fanny > Russell. > > I have as yet found no parents for her father: Frederick Samuel > Bartlett born 1870 at: Dorchester, Dorset. > > Can anyone suggest where I am going wrong please? > Mick. IOW. > I think you may be on the right track with the granddaughter Mary in the 1911 Census. You will find Charles Sivier in 1901 with his wife, named Mary. You will then find a marriage in 1886 in the Isle of Wight of Charles Richard Sivier marrying either Ellen Bartlett or Mary Marshall. If I were you, I would dig a little deeper into the Sivier family to see if/where they connect with your Bartletts. -- Jenny M Benson

Hi all, Did some people dodge the 1911 census or would the records have gone missing? Frederick Samuel Bartlett was born 1870 at: Dorchester, Dorset. His wife: Mary Burt was born 1877 at: Whitwell, Isle of Wight, Hampshire. They married at: St Thomas, Newport, IOW, Hampshire, in 1896. Children: Dorothy Amelia Bartlett born & died 1897 at: Isle of Wight, Hampshire. Lilian Mabel Bartlett born: 1898 died: 1979 at: Isle of Wight,Hampshire. (did not marry) Frederick Samuel Bartlett born: 1900 at: Isle of Wight, Hampshire. died: 1975 Isle of Wight, Hampshire. (did marry) Mary Violet Bartlett born: 1903 at: : Isle of Wight, Hampshire. died: 1991 at: Isle of Wight, Hampshire. (did marry) I have found a 1901 census with the family at: Fairlee Cottages, 10, Fairlee Rd, Newport, Isle of Wight, Hampshire. The father: Frederick Samuel Bartlett occupation is: Wheelwright. I can find no census for any of them in 1911 yet all were alive. I thought I found one for the youngest child: Mary Violet Bartlett born: 1903 At: Withy Bed Cottage, Pan Lane, Newport, IOW. (with a grandfather) Charles Sivier a Widowed Male Occupation: Cowman On Farm aged: 52 born: 1859 At: Cowes I O W (Mary Bartlett Granddaughter - Female aged: 7born: 1904at: Newport I of W.) But her Maternal grandparents are: Leonard Alfred Burt & Fanny Russell. I have as yet found no parents for her father: Frederick Samuel Bartlett born 1870 at: Dorchester, Dorset. Can anyone suggest where I am going wrong please? Mick. IOW.

"Richard Smith" wrote in message news:ddqpekFq8djU1@mid.individual.net... > > >Does anyone know whether the project to digitise the parish registers in >the London Metropolitan Archives and put them on Ancestry.com is still >continuing? Or should I assume that if a parish isn't currently on >Ancestry.com (in this case St Andrew Holborn) that it won't now be done in >the foreseeable future? > >Richard I do know that not all of LMA's collection of Genealogical records are on Ancestry. There are several Poor law records which I have seen at the LMA that are not on Ancestry yet. The LMA website says that records are available on Ancestry but not how many or what. It is probably still on going. Good hunting Gordon

On 21/12/15 18:10, Charles Ellson wrote: > Tried Camden ? D'oh. I'd forgotten Camden came down that far. Thanks. Richard

On Mon, 21 Dec 2015 17:53:25 +0000, Richard Smith <richard@ex-parrot.com> wrote: >On 21/12/15 17:14, Steven Gibbs wrote: >> "Richard Smith" <richard@ex-parrot.com> wrote in message >> news:ddqpekFq8djU1@mid.individual.net... >>> >>> Does anyone know whether the project to digitise the parish registers in >>> the London Metropolitan Archives and put them on Ancestry.com is still >>> continuing? Or should I assume that if a parish isn't currently on >>> Ancestry.com (in this case St Andrew Holborn) that it won't now be done in >>> the foreseeable future? >> >> St Andrew, Holborn seems to be on Ancestry. I don't know if all dates are >> covered. > >Okay ... what am I missing? > >I go to http://search.ancestry.co.uk/search/db.aspx?dbid=1624 > >If I select 'City of London' in the Borough drop-down menu under 'Browse >this collection', St Andrew Holborn isn't listed, either under 'S', 'A' >or 'H'. As the parish spans the City boundary into (what is now) >Westminster, I tried that borough too, but to no avail. The old >metropolitan boroughs of Holborn, St Pancras are not listed so I can't >try them. But I did try Islington and "Not in a borough" for good >measure. Clearly I'm missing something! > Tried Camden ?

On 21/12/15 17:14, Steven Gibbs wrote: > "Richard Smith" <richard@ex-parrot.com> wrote in message > news:ddqpekFq8djU1@mid.individual.net... >> >> Does anyone know whether the project to digitise the parish registers in >> the London Metropolitan Archives and put them on Ancestry.com is still >> continuing? Or should I assume that if a parish isn't currently on >> Ancestry.com (in this case St Andrew Holborn) that it won't now be done in >> the foreseeable future? > > St Andrew, Holborn seems to be on Ancestry. I don't know if all dates are > covered. Okay ... what am I missing? I go to http://search.ancestry.co.uk/search/db.aspx?dbid=1624 If I select 'City of London' in the Borough drop-down menu under 'Browse this collection', St Andrew Holborn isn't listed, either under 'S', 'A' or 'H'. As the parish spans the City boundary into (what is now) Westminster, I tried that borough too, but to no avail. The old metropolitan boroughs of Holborn, St Pancras are not listed so I can't try them. But I did try Islington and "Not in a borough" for good measure. Clearly I'm missing something! Richard

"Richard Smith" <richard@ex-parrot.com> wrote in message news:ddqpekFq8djU1@mid.individual.net... > > Does anyone know whether the project to digitise the parish registers in > the London Metropolitan Archives and put them on Ancestry.com is still > continuing? Or should I assume that if a parish isn't currently on > Ancestry.com (in this case St Andrew Holborn) that it won't now be done in > the foreseeable future? St Andrew, Holborn seems to be on Ancestry. I don't know if all dates are covered. Steven --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. http://www.avast.com

Does anyone know whether the project to digitise the parish registers in the London Metropolitan Archives and put them on Ancestry.com is still continuing? Or should I assume that if a parish isn't currently on Ancestry.com (in this case St Andrew Holborn) that it won't now be done in the foreseeable future? Richard

Trevor Rix via wrote: > Follow the links at the bottom of this page for assistance migrating > from Family Tree Maker to Family Historian. > > http://www.family-historian.co.uk/ftm > > Trevor Rix > >> In other online discussions I see Family Historian being recommended, >> but I just exported my FTM file in GEDCOM format so it could be read by >> Family Historian, but the latter complains about many things. People >> tell me that FTM files and its export format do not completely conform >> to the GEDCOM standard. Family Historian seems designed for the British. My main program is Legacy, which has an Australian version. It integrates well with Ancestry.com., and is the standard for TNG. A "new kid on the block" is FamilyGTG for Android. One reviewer called it better than the Ancestry app for Android. It has a style reminiscent of Windows 3.1, but seems full-featured. I trialled GeneaNet (French) as well. Both are sending birthday reminders to my tablet. Doug.

On 19/12/2015 14:18, Richard Smith wrote: > On 19/12/15 13:16, David Marshall wrote: >> An ancestor I am researching was married in St George's Hanover Square >> on 8th February 1820. The immediately preceding entry in the register >> (on the same day) is for the marriage of Henry Paget to Elenora Campbell >> with the annotation that the groom is "commonly called the Earl of >> Uxbridge". According to Wikipedia Henry Paget, the 2nd Earl of Uxbridge >> and hero of Waterloo, was created Marquess of Anglesey in 1815. >> Purely out of curiosity, can anyone suggest why the old title was used >> in the register? > > The Henry Paget who married Eleanora Campbell was the eldest son of the > Henry Paget of Waterloo fame and who was made Marquis of Anglesey. It > is normal for the eldest son of a peer to use a "courtesy title", that > is, to adopt the father's second highest title. When the 1st Earl died > in 1812, his son (Eleanor's father-in-law) became the 2nd Earl and his > son would have assumed the courtesy title Baron Paget. When the 2nd > Earl was elevated to marquis in 1815, his son assumed the courtesy title > Earl of Uxbridge. This is how he is recorded in the marriage in 1820. > When his eldest son was born, that son would have taken the courtesy > title Baron Paget, as his grandfather's third highest title. > > Richard Thanks for that - its obvious when you realise that this was the next generation, but I didn't spot that at the time as no ages are recorded in the register at this date. David

On 19/12/15 13:16, David Marshall wrote: > An ancestor I am researching was married in St George's Hanover Square > on 8th February 1820. The immediately preceding entry in the register > (on the same day) is for the marriage of Henry Paget to Elenora Campbell > with the annotation that the groom is "commonly called the Earl of > Uxbridge". According to Wikipedia Henry Paget, the 2nd Earl of Uxbridge > and hero of Waterloo, was created Marquess of Anglesey in 1815. > Purely out of curiosity, can anyone suggest why the old title was used > in the register? The Henry Paget who married Eleanora Campbell was the eldest son of the Henry Paget of Waterloo fame and who was made Marquis of Anglesey. It is normal for the eldest son of a peer to use a "courtesy title", that is, to adopt the father's second highest title. When the 1st Earl died in 1812, his son (Eleanor's father-in-law) became the 2nd Earl and his son would have assumed the courtesy title Baron Paget. When the 2nd Earl was elevated to marquis in 1815, his son assumed the courtesy title Earl of Uxbridge. This is how he is recorded in the marriage in 1820. When his eldest son was born, that son would have taken the courtesy title Baron Paget, as his grandfather's third highest title. Richard

An ancestor I am researching was married in St George's Hanover Square on 8th February 1820. The immediately preceding entry in the register (on the same day) is for the marriage of Henry Paget to Elenora Campbell with the annotation that the groom is "commonly called the Earl of Uxbridge". According to Wikipedia Henry Paget, the 2nd Earl of Uxbridge and hero of Waterloo, was created Marquess of Anglesey in 1815. Purely out of curiosity, can anyone suggest why the old title was used in the register? David

I don't keep a tree on Ancestry, and I have searches set to "match all terms exactly". Searches seem to give the same results. The only difference I'm seeing is that search screens are noticeably uglier. Steven --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. http://www.avast.com

On 16/12/2015 00:51, nick ashby via wrote: > How are you getting on,with the "improved web page?" > The search engine is non effective. > You have the name of a child living,with their parents,from a census > record. > So you know brief details,re birth and location,enter this in,name date > & a county. > If your lucky my find details on birth index,but no "these records might > be a match" > Scroll down and find Birth Marriage & Death,not subdivided into separate > BMD,then subdivided into location.No you get a list 25000+ results what > you want is in here somewhere > Likewise with the census,does not come up with a match based on county > England & Wales marriage index 7000 results,take your pick Are you using the sliders and other "Selectors" on the left-hand side of the page. Picking one at random from my Census records, I searched for Louisa Copx, born 1856 +/-2 yrs in Hampshire. Started out with over 18,000 results but by selecting FreeBMD England & Wales Birth Index then moving the sliders to Louisa - Exact & Similar and Hampshire - Exact I reduced the results to 7. Can't say I like Ancestry, but it is workable with a bit of effort. -- Jenny M Benson

nick ashby via <genbrit@rootsweb.com> Wrote in message: > Looks like we are stuck with the new version,which is terrible > > Nick > It will be the same here. I am beginning to find my way around it. --

How are you getting on,with the "improved web page?" The search engine is non effective. You have the name of a child living,with their parents,from a census record. So you know brief details,re birth and location,enter this in,name date & a county. If your lucky my find details on birth index,but no "these records might be a match" Scroll down and find Birth Marriage & Death,not subdivided into separate BMD,then subdivided into location.No you get a list 25000+ results what you want is in here somewhere Likewise with the census,does not come up with a match based on county England & Wales marriage index 7000 results,take your pick Nick

Try setting site preferences under your membership tab (the pull down screen under your user name at the extreme right of the screen near the top of the home page). On 15/12/2015, nick ashby via <genbrit@rootsweb.com> wrote: > How are you getting on,with the "improved web page?" > The search engine is non effective. > You have the name of a child living,with their parents,from a census > record. > So you know brief details,re birth and location,enter this in,name date > & a county. > If your lucky my find details on birth index,but no "these records might > be a match" > Scroll down and find Birth Marriage & Death,not subdivided into separate > BMD,then subdivided into location.No you get a list 25000+ results what > you want is in here somewhere > Likewise with the census,does not come up with a match based on county > England & Wales marriage index 7000 results,take your pick > > Nick > > ------------------------------- > 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 >

-----Original Message----- From: genbrit-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:genbrit-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Marg Stevenson via Sent: 14 December 2015 08:47 To: genbrit@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: 1939 On Monday, 2 November 2015 17:33:20 UTC+11, Geoff Pearson wrote: > I've looked in the new register for my mother (b1921) and grandmother > (b1897) and not found them. I've not paid for anything yet. Anyone > getting greater success? > > Geoff I paid.It is not worth the money So did I - I found my missing grandfather who had done a runner in 1910 and was able to piece together information about the mysterious Frenchwoman with whom he was shacked up in 1911 and again in 1939. Buy whether I have any other missing ones that are worth the cost is doubtful. Brian Austin ------------------------------- 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 --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus