I have a FMP subscription. I use both my iPad and a laptop with Windows 10. I get different results with the exact same search. With the iPad a search will give the name searched plus the name of an additional person in the household. Search on the second person and I get the name of a third person if there is one. With Windows 10 I only get the one name. Does anyone else get this? So now I do my searches on the iPad. Hope it is not another loophole which will be closed down as it is helpful to ensure I have the right household. Pam Hi Using a desk top Win XP,only get one name.Noticed have not tried it,in advanced search,can do by name or street,plus option for other household member. Nick

Pam Dean via <genbrit@rootsweb.com> wrote: > > > I have a FMP subscription. I use both my iPad and a laptop with Windows 10. > I get different results with the exact same search. With the iPad a search > will give the name searched plus the name of an additional person in the > household. Search on the second person and I get the name of a third person > if there is one. With Windows 10 I only get the one name. Does anyone else > get this? So now I do my searches on the iPad. Hope it is not another > loophole which will be closed down as it is helpful to ensure I have the > right household. I use Firefox on an iMac. I see what you see on your iPad. John. -- Please reply to john at yclept dot wanadoo dot co dot uk.

I have a FMP subscription. I use both my iPad and a laptop with Windows 10. I get different results with the exact same search. With the iPad a search will give the name searched plus the name of an additional person in the household. Search on the second person and I get the name of a third person if there is one. With Windows 10 I only get the one name. Does anyone else get this? So now I do my searches on the iPad. Hope it is not another loophole which will be closed down as it is helpful to ensure I have the right household. Pam

In article <dajunbFq4cgU1@mid.individual.net>, watt.tyler@gmail.com says... > > On 12/11/2015 15:06, BobC wrote: > > > > Today all I get when trying to preview any record is what was there some > > days ago - name, reference and x more people. And now when you search > > based on a specific address it only appears to show the head of > > household, unlike a few days back when it showed all the non-redacted > > occupants. > > > > Looks like they are closing the loopholes. > > > > Well, it's still working for me in the same way it was when I last > posted - e.g. also listing my mother (but no year of birth) when I > search for my father. > > I wonder whether one's FMP subscription status makes any difference. I > *do* have a UK subscription, but I haven't purchased any credits for the > 1939 register. It's getting worse - when I search for a person now it shows the person, x other people etc but the reference number it used to give and which could be used to get some idea of who was on the page is no longer there. Without the names of others in the household or the ability to check agaiinst the whole page they expect me to pay GBP6 to view the record. If the name was a reasonably common one for the area involved there could be four or five that I would have to pay for before locating "mine". I do have an active FMP sub and it makes no difference. The way they are going on this makes it less likely that I'll ever "unlock" a household. -- BobC ==========

On 17/11/2015 17:44, A Lefevre wrote: > In message <n2713m$t8i$3@dont-email.me> > Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote: > >> On 13/11/2015 21:41, A Lefevre wrote: >>> I don't subscribe to FMP but will sport a few pounds to solve one of >>> my dead ends. I have mentioned before that James Lefevre was born in >>> 1870, baptised, 1871 census then nothing until his death in 1945. >>> >>> Found that he married in 1890, as James Williams. Had seven children, >>> could follow his movements from the church registers, always in the >>> Shadwell area of London. 1911 census, with wife and four surviving >>> children, aged from 20 to 1. His wife died in 1919, and he then moved >>> house, and is in a house with several others on the electoral roll, >>> among them Leah Robins and Elizabeth Shea. Later learned that these >>> two were war widows. He stays at this address, 16 Station Street until >>> the street is being demolished in 1936. Can't find him in 1937, but in >>> 1938 and 1939 He is with Elizabeth Shea and Edward Shea, later learned >>> that he was her son, living at 10 Stephen House, St Katherines Way, >>> Stepney. In the first 1945 electoral roll this is the >>> same, but the later one shows Elizabeth only. James died in March >>> 1945 as James Lefever, Elizabeth died in 1952 and Edward would have >>> been in the forces at that time. So my problem is why live for 50 >>> years as Williams then change back? My hope was that there might be >>> some annotation to explain this. >>> > >> Asking the obvious, but are you sure the James Lefevre who died in 1945 >> is the same person as James Williams? > > Circumstantial evidence! The informant on the death cert of James > Lefevre was Leah Cunningham, Niece. Neither name meant anything to me. > Tracing back through electoral rolls and trying to find who was > Elizabeth Shea, she was born Barginall, married Edward Shea in 1910, > had a son also Edward, 1912, and a daughter, Leah in 1917. That was > the year her husband died. So what happened to Leah? She married in > 1937, Thomas Cunningham. the daughter had lived in the same house as > Williams from the age of 2 to her marriage. To me that was good enough > probability that Williams and Lefevre were the same person. What a lot > of digging we have to do to get information like that? Fun, isn't it :-) It's possible he didn't change his name back but Leah knew his original name was Lefevre and decided to use it when registering his death. > But I still don't know why he changed his name. Palmerston's forts at Portsmouth to counter a French invasion had only been completed in 1878 and in 1890 the Entente Cordial was still in the future and there may still have been some anti-French feeling around so he may have felt it better to adopt a more English sounding name. > > Two of his uncles who disappeared, and whom I thought must have > emmigrated, well did they change names as well?.... > Quite possible in the above scenario, alternatively they were kidnapped by aliens. -- Graeme Wall This account not read, substitute trains for rail.

In message <n2713m$t8i$3@dont-email.me> Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote: > On 13/11/2015 21:41, A Lefevre wrote: >> I don't subscribe to FMP but will sport a few pounds to solve one of >> my dead ends. I have mentioned before that James Lefevre was born in >> 1870, baptised, 1871 census then nothing until his death in 1945. >> >> Found that he married in 1890, as James Williams. Had seven children, >> could follow his movements from the church registers, always in the >> Shadwell area of London. 1911 census, with wife and four surviving >> children, aged from 20 to 1. His wife died in 1919, and he then moved >> house, and is in a house with several others on the electoral roll, >> among them Leah Robins and Elizabeth Shea. Later learned that these >> two were war widows. He stays at this address, 16 Station Street until >> the street is being demolished in 1936. Can't find him in 1937, but in >> 1938 and 1939 He is with Elizabeth Shea and Edward Shea, later learned >> that he was her son, living at 10 Stephen House, St Katherines Way, >> Stepney. In the first 1945 electoral roll this is the >> same, but the later one shows Elizabeth only. James died in March >> 1945 as James Lefever, Elizabeth died in 1952 and Edward would have >> been in the forces at that time. So my problem is why live for 50 >> years as Williams then change back? My hope was that there might be >> some annotation to explain this. >> > Asking the obvious, but are you sure the James Lefevre who died in 1945 > is the same person as James Williams? Circumstantial evidence! The informant on the death cert of James Lefevre was Leah Cunningham, Niece. Neither name meant anything to me. Tracing back through electoral rolls and trying to find who was Elizabeth Shea, she was born Barginall, married Edward Shea in 1910, had a son also Edward, 1912, and a daughter, Leah in 1917. That was the year her husband died. So what happened to Leah? She married in 1937, Thomas Cunningham. the daughter had lived in the same house as Williams from the age of 2 to her marriage. To me that was good enough probability that Williams and Lefevre were the same person. What a lot of digging we have to do to get information like that? But I still don't know why he changed his name. Two of his uncles who disappeared, and whom I thought must have emmigrated, well did they change names as well?.... Alec Lefevre -- A.Lefevre

On Sun, 15 Nov 2015 18:48:51 +0000, Guy Etchells via <genbrit@rootsweb.com> wrote: >On 15/11/2015 09:36, J. P. Gilliver (John) via wrote: >> In message <kq0g4bdv6mqfn8agssuk20barogahvhsqv@4ax.com>, Charles Ellson >> <ce11son@yahoo.ca> writes: >>> On Sun, 15 Nov 2015 00:52:23 +0000, "J. P. Gilliver (John)" >>> <G6JPG@soft255.demon.co.uk> wrote: >>> >>>> In message <mailman.123.1447526041.30538.genbrit@rootsweb.com>, Guy >>>> Etchells via <genbrit@rootsweb.com> writes: >>>>> On 14/11/2015 03:53, Doug Laidlaw via wrote: >>>>>> I think that FMP is now owned by the company that owns Myheritage. >>>>> Sorry but Findmypast is still owned by theScottish Publisher D.C. >>>>> Thomson and has been since 2007 when it was bought from Title Research >>>>> Group. Take a look at the potted company history, there is a link on >>>>> the FMP site. >>>> [] >>>> Where does Brightsolid come in? >>>> >>> http://www.dcthomson.co.uk/companies/brightsolid >> Hmm, thanks: "brightsolid are cloud and application hosting specialists >> that own and operate UK data centres, connected by the uncontended, >> national brightsolid internet network. For 20 years brightsolid have >> been working with Enterprise, Energy and Government to reduce the risk >> and increase the agility of their IT estate by providing the latest >> technologies that deliver real business value." >> >> I could see no mention of FMP on that page; but I'm sure I've seen them >> mentioned in discussions of FMP and/or its holdings/databases/whatever. > >DC Tomson is the parent company, Brightsolid is their digital publishing >company (and runs the servers and data centres) and Findmypast is part >of Brightsolid. > Not according to the DC Thomson website :- http://www.dcthomson.co.uk/companies/findmypast http://www.dcthomson.co.uk/companies/brightsolid They seem to have been rearranging the furniture over the last couple of years.

On Sun, 15 Nov 2015 09:36:09 +0000, "J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG@soft255.demon.co.uk> wrote: >In message <kq0g4bdv6mqfn8agssuk20barogahvhsqv@4ax.com>, Charles Ellson ><ce11son@yahoo.ca> writes: >>On Sun, 15 Nov 2015 00:52:23 +0000, "J. P. Gilliver (John)" >><G6JPG@soft255.demon.co.uk> wrote: >> >>>In message <mailman.123.1447526041.30538.genbrit@rootsweb.com>, Guy >>>Etchells via <genbrit@rootsweb.com> writes: >>>>On 14/11/2015 03:53, Doug Laidlaw via wrote: >>>>> I think that FMP is now owned by the company that owns Myheritage. >>>> >>>>Sorry but Findmypast is still owned by theScottish Publisher D.C. >>>>Thomson and has been since 2007 when it was bought from Title Research >>>>Group. Take a look at the potted company history, there is a link on >>>>the FMP site. >>>[] >>>Where does Brightsolid come in? >>> >>http://www.dcthomson.co.uk/companies/brightsolid > >Hmm, thanks: "brightsolid are cloud and application hosting specialists >that own and operate UK data centres, connected by the uncontended, >national brightsolid internet network. For 20 years brightsolid have >been working with Enterprise, Energy and Government to reduce the risk >and increase the agility of their IT estate by providing the latest >technologies that deliver real business value." > >I could see no mention of FMP on that page; but I'm sure I've seen them >mentioned in discussions of FMP and/or its holdings/databases/whatever. > They used to get a mention at the bottom of ScotlandsPeople's main page but it looks like they are now involved only as the DCT company that handles raw data, "DC Thomson Family History" now appearing at the the bottom of the SP main page.

On 15/11/15 17:20, Chris Dickinson wrote: > On Sunday, 15 November 2015 12:43:29 UTC, MB wrote: >> On 15/11/2015 07:46, Chris Dickinson wrote: >>> From an online index: >>> >>> 1670 >>> >>> "A note of the rent paid to Lord Wharton yearly by these undernamed >>> Description for freelidge of Common on Whitimore called Dean and Ullock Common which rent is called "Moore Farine" or free Harnie for Whitmoore, 9 June 1670 [gives names of those paying rent]" >>> >>> >>> Can anyone clarify? 'Freelidge of Common' is, I assume, a generic term for the rent paid to use the common. But the other two 'Moor Farine' and 'free Harnie'? Are they specifying local usage, and if so what? >>> >>> Thank you >>> >>> Chris >>> >> >> >> The OED has 'Freelidge' as an alternative spelling of 'Freelage' which >> was the Freedom of a Borough or Heritable Property (Scottish term). >> >> I can't see 'Freelidge of Common' in any old newspapers but 'Freelidge' >> appears quite often as 'Freelidge Stone' mainly in the Carlisle area. >> Marking some sort of boundary. > > > Thank you. The online OED quotes this: "1777 J. Nicolson & R. Burn Hist. Westmorland & Cumberland I. 488 A yearly rent..paid..for freeledge of common upon East Grain and Middle Grain in Langdale fells.", which is clearly the same usage as here. > > Many placenames (such as acrewalls or dyke) in this area are to do with the physical boundaries between the inner area used for growing crops in summer, and the outer area used for grazing. An early 19th century OS map shows 'Dean Common' with Acrewalls Lonning (lonning = right of way) as its northern boundary. > I wonder if it's the same etymology as haylage. -- Hotmail is my spam bin. Real address is ianng at austonley org uk

On 15/11/2015 09:36, J. P. Gilliver (John) via wrote: > In message <kq0g4bdv6mqfn8agssuk20barogahvhsqv@4ax.com>, Charles Ellson > <ce11son@yahoo.ca> writes: >> On Sun, 15 Nov 2015 00:52:23 +0000, "J. P. Gilliver (John)" >> <G6JPG@soft255.demon.co.uk> wrote: >> >>> In message <mailman.123.1447526041.30538.genbrit@rootsweb.com>, Guy >>> Etchells via <genbrit@rootsweb.com> writes: >>>> On 14/11/2015 03:53, Doug Laidlaw via wrote: >>>>> I think that FMP is now owned by the company that owns Myheritage. >>>> Sorry but Findmypast is still owned by theScottish Publisher D.C. >>>> Thomson and has been since 2007 when it was bought from Title Research >>>> Group. Take a look at the potted company history, there is a link on >>>> the FMP site. >>> [] >>> Where does Brightsolid come in? >>> >> http://www.dcthomson.co.uk/companies/brightsolid > Hmm, thanks: "brightsolid are cloud and application hosting specialists > that own and operate UK data centres, connected by the uncontended, > national brightsolid internet network. For 20 years brightsolid have > been working with Enterprise, Energy and Government to reduce the risk > and increase the agility of their IT estate by providing the latest > technologies that deliver real business value." > > I could see no mention of FMP on that page; but I'm sure I've seen them > mentioned in discussions of FMP and/or its holdings/databases/whatever. DC Tomson is the parent company, Brightsolid is their digital publishing company (and runs the servers and data centres) and Findmypast is part of Brightsolid. Cheers Guy

On Sat, 14 Nov 2015 12:09:04 -0000, eve via <genbrit@rootsweb.com> wrote: > > There SHOULD be parish registers from 1538, but not all the clergy could >be bothered. Most had done something about it by c 1560, but sometimes on >scruffy bits of paper. . However, Elizabeth (I) sent a directive about it, and >ordered all registers to be 'copied on fair parchment' in 1598 'at least from >the beginning of this reign' so again , there SHOULD be registers from >1558. Some are lost, some spoilt by damp, in my parish, they were burnt >every 60 years, so what remains has gaps. There should be Bishops' >Transcript copies from 1598 also. (but not all survive.) > >During the Commonwealth, because of the sloppy register keeping, the work >was appointed to be done by a civil 'Parish Register' (person. from 1653-60. = >If these su4rvive, the actual keeping and amount of detail is mich better. At >the restoration, some clergy burnt the civil register book - and then realised >they had lost all records of the recent parish events. Some went round >collecting group records from family bibles - most didnh't/ And Bishops were >abolisdhed then so no BTs either. This is the commonwealth gap in some >parishes. Add to that the fact that a lot of families refused to come back to >the Church up to around 1680, and the gap widens. In Cheshire, Astbury's earliest extant register starts 1572 and has a Commonweath gap. Sloppiness continued after the Commonwealth. At the end of 1666 "Memorandum: That the cause why the Register for rthe abovesaid yeare is so imperfect both in relation to Christenings Marriages and Burialls was that Thomas Shawe then Clerke of this parish did not Register any neither was there any name Registered but what the Church-wardens and Sidesmen for th'afore named year brought in to be Registered every Church after makeing diligent inquiry in the respective township"

On Sat, 14 Nov 2015 23:35:45 -0000, eve via <genbrit@rootsweb.com> wrote: >[...] > In some parishes, the 1653 register was destroyed or the pages torn out >in 1660. Sometimes there are group entries from one family at a time - for >those people able to keep familiy bibles[...] Example of a small group entry: My ancestral line in Congleton did have a family bible, held by the senior line, who moved from Congleton until it was destroyed in a house fire in the late 20C. Entries of interest to a junior line were copied in the middle of the 19C, and that transcription (or at least photocopies) still exists. In the appropriate parish register, after the year completed 24 March 1668 the details of the births (nor baptisms) are given on the last half page (probably available because the change to a new volume happened at a New Year) of the girl born 1657 and the boy born 1659. The entries are clearly transcriptions of the entries in the bible (including time as well as date of birth) apart from describing the 1659 boy as "son of" rather than "second son of".

On 15/11/2015 12:04, Ian Goddard wrote: > On 15/11/15 11:17, Chris Dickinson wrote: >> On Sunday, 15 November 2015 10:59:38 UTC, Ian Goddard wrote: >>> On 15/11/15 07:46, Chris Dickinson wrote: >>>> From an online index: >>>> >>>> 1670 >>>> >>>> "A note of the rent paid to Lord Wharton yearly by these undernamed >>>> Description for freelidge of Common on Whitimore called Dean and >>>> Ullock Common which rent is called "Moore Farine" or free Harnie for >>>> Whitmoore, 9 June 1670 [gives names of those paying rent]" >>>> >>>> >>>> Can anyone clarify? 'Freelidge of Common' is, I assume, a generic >>>> term for the rent paid to use the common. But the other two 'Moor >>>> Farine' and 'free Harnie'? Are they specifying local usage, and if >>>> so what? >>>> >>> >>> Farine suggests something to do with flour. Could it be an obligation >>> to use the manorial mill? Alternatively, as flour implies grain and >>> arable, could it be the right to graze the fields after harvest? >>> >>> -- >>> Hotmail is my spam bin. Real address is ianng >>> at austonley org uk >> >> Thanks, Ian. >> >> I hadn't thought of flour. I had wondered whether it might come from >> 'farrow', so permission to keep young animals (or just sows & piglets) >> there - which would fit in with your grazing thought. Or simply >> 'faring', like in seafaring, a right to travel across the moor. But I >> have no idea. > > One problem with this is how to read "moore". Is it more, moorland or > something else entirely? > > BTW I've recently bee reading A Social History of England 1200 - 1500, > Horrox & Ormrod Eds. IMV some of the chapters go way off-piste (e.g. A > magical universe). However, there are a couple of things relating to > previous threads here. One of them is that they have an assumption that > the population peaked in the early C14th prior to the 1315-22 famine and > never really started to recover until about 1500. The other, going back > to a still earlier thread, is some estimates of the speed of transport > and the answer, for a messenger able to command resources at state > level, is very fast indeed - a diplomat made London - Milan in 6 days. > Fresh horses every 20 miles, in a carriage you get Formula 1 style pit stops with a complete change of horses in 5 minutes or less. -- Graeme Wall This account not read, substitute trains for rail.

On 15/11/2015 07:46, Chris Dickinson wrote: > From an online index: > > 1670 > > "A note of the rent paid to Lord Wharton yearly by these undernamed > Description for freelidge of Common on Whitimore called Dean and Ullock Common which rent is called "Moore Farine" or free Harnie for Whitmoore, 9 June 1670 [gives names of those paying rent]" > > > Can anyone clarify? 'Freelidge of Common' is, I assume, a generic term for the rent paid to use the common. But the other two 'Moor Farine' and 'free Harnie'? Are they specifying local usage, and if so what? > > Thank you > > Chris > The OED has 'Freelidge' as an alternative spelling of 'Freelage' which was the Freedom of a Borough or Heritable Property (Scottish term). I can't see 'Freelidge of Common' in any old newspapers but 'Freelidge' appears quite often as 'Freelidge Stone' mainly in the Carlisle area. Marking some sort of boundary.

On 15/11/15 11:17, Chris Dickinson wrote: > On Sunday, 15 November 2015 10:59:38 UTC, Ian Goddard wrote: >> On 15/11/15 07:46, Chris Dickinson wrote: >>> From an online index: >>> >>> 1670 >>> >>> "A note of the rent paid to Lord Wharton yearly by these undernamed >>> Description for freelidge of Common on Whitimore called Dean and Ullock Common which rent is called "Moore Farine" or free Harnie for Whitmoore, 9 June 1670 [gives names of those paying rent]" >>> >>> >>> Can anyone clarify? 'Freelidge of Common' is, I assume, a generic term for the rent paid to use the common. But the other two 'Moor Farine' and 'free Harnie'? Are they specifying local usage, and if so what? >>> >> >> Farine suggests something to do with flour. Could it be an obligation >> to use the manorial mill? Alternatively, as flour implies grain and >> arable, could it be the right to graze the fields after harvest? >> >> -- >> Hotmail is my spam bin. Real address is ianng >> at austonley org uk > > Thanks, Ian. > > I hadn't thought of flour. I had wondered whether it might come from 'farrow', so permission to keep young animals (or just sows & piglets) there - which would fit in with your grazing thought. Or simply 'faring', like in seafaring, a right to travel across the moor. But I have no idea. One problem with this is how to read "moore". Is it more, moorland or something else entirely? BTW I've recently bee reading A Social History of England 1200 - 1500, Horrox & Ormrod Eds. IMV some of the chapters go way off-piste (e.g. A magical universe). However, there are a couple of things relating to previous threads here. One of them is that they have an assumption that the population peaked in the early C14th prior to the 1315-22 famine and never really started to recover until about 1500. The other, going back to a still earlier thread, is some estimates of the speed of transport and the answer, for a messenger able to command resources at state level, is very fast indeed - a diplomat made London - Milan in 6 days. Ian -- Hotmail is my spam bin. Real address is ianng at austonley org uk

On 15/11/15 07:46, Chris Dickinson wrote: > From an online index: > > 1670 > > "A note of the rent paid to Lord Wharton yearly by these undernamed > Description for freelidge of Common on Whitimore called Dean and Ullock Common which rent is called "Moore Farine" or free Harnie for Whitmoore, 9 June 1670 [gives names of those paying rent]" > > > Can anyone clarify? 'Freelidge of Common' is, I assume, a generic term for the rent paid to use the common. But the other two 'Moor Farine' and 'free Harnie'? Are they specifying local usage, and if so what? > Farine suggests something to do with flour. Could it be an obligation to use the manorial mill? Alternatively, as flour implies grain and arable, could it be the right to graze the fields after harvest? -- Hotmail is my spam bin. Real address is ianng at austonley org uk

In message <kq0g4bdv6mqfn8agssuk20barogahvhsqv@4ax.com>, Charles Ellson <ce11son@yahoo.ca> writes: >On Sun, 15 Nov 2015 00:52:23 +0000, "J. P. Gilliver (John)" ><G6JPG@soft255.demon.co.uk> wrote: > >>In message <mailman.123.1447526041.30538.genbrit@rootsweb.com>, Guy >>Etchells via <genbrit@rootsweb.com> writes: >>>On 14/11/2015 03:53, Doug Laidlaw via wrote: >>>> I think that FMP is now owned by the company that owns Myheritage. >>> >>>Sorry but Findmypast is still owned by theScottish Publisher D.C. >>>Thomson and has been since 2007 when it was bought from Title Research >>>Group. Take a look at the potted company history, there is a link on >>>the FMP site. >>[] >>Where does Brightsolid come in? >> >http://www.dcthomson.co.uk/companies/brightsolid Hmm, thanks: "brightsolid are cloud and application hosting specialists that own and operate UK data centres, connected by the uncontended, national brightsolid internet network. For 20 years brightsolid have been working with Enterprise, Energy and Government to reduce the risk and increase the agility of their IT estate by providing the latest technologies that deliver real business value." I could see no mention of FMP on that page; but I'm sure I've seen them mentioned in discussions of FMP and/or its holdings/databases/whatever. -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf I long for the commercialised Christmas of the 1970s. It's got so religious now, it's lost its true meaning. - Mike [{at}ostic.demon.co.uk], 2003-12-24

On Sunday, 15 November 2015 12:43:29 UTC, MB wrote: > On 15/11/2015 07:46, Chris Dickinson wrote: > > From an online index: > > > > 1670 > > > > "A note of the rent paid to Lord Wharton yearly by these undernamed > > Description for freelidge of Common on Whitimore called Dean and Ullock Common which rent is called "Moore Farine" or free Harnie for Whitmoore, 9 June 1670 [gives names of those paying rent]" > > > > > > Can anyone clarify? 'Freelidge of Common' is, I assume, a generic term for the rent paid to use the common. But the other two 'Moor Farine' and 'free Harnie'? Are they specifying local usage, and if so what? > > > > Thank you > > > > Chris > > > > > The OED has 'Freelidge' as an alternative spelling of 'Freelage' which > was the Freedom of a Borough or Heritable Property (Scottish term). > > I can't see 'Freelidge of Common' in any old newspapers but 'Freelidge' > appears quite often as 'Freelidge Stone' mainly in the Carlisle area. > Marking some sort of boundary. Thank you. The online OED quotes this: "1777 J. Nicolson & R. Burn Hist. Westmorland & Cumberland I. 488 A yearly rent..paid..for freeledge of common upon East Grain and Middle Grain in Langdale fells.", which is clearly the same usage as here. Many placenames (such as acrewalls or dyke) in this area are to do with the physical boundaries between the inner area used for growing crops in summer, and the outer area used for grazing. An early 19th century OS map shows 'Dean Common' with Acrewalls Lonning (lonning = right of way) as its northern boundary.

On Sun, 15 Nov 2015 00:52:23 +0000, "J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG@soft255.demon.co.uk> wrote: >In message <mailman.123.1447526041.30538.genbrit@rootsweb.com>, Guy >Etchells via <genbrit@rootsweb.com> writes: >>On 14/11/2015 03:53, Doug Laidlaw via wrote: >>> I think that FMP is now owned by the company that owns Myheritage. >> >>Sorry but Findmypast is still owned by theScottish Publisher D.C. >>Thomson and has been since 2007 when it was bought from Title Research >>Group. Take a look at the potted company history, there is a link on >>the FMP site. >[] >Where does Brightsolid come in? > http://www.dcthomson.co.uk/companies/brightsolid

On Sunday, 15 November 2015 10:59:38 UTC, Ian Goddard wrote: > On 15/11/15 07:46, Chris Dickinson wrote: > > From an online index: > > > > 1670 > > > > "A note of the rent paid to Lord Wharton yearly by these undernamed > > Description for freelidge of Common on Whitimore called Dean and Ullock Common which rent is called "Moore Farine" or free Harnie for Whitmoore, 9 June 1670 [gives names of those paying rent]" > > > > > > Can anyone clarify? 'Freelidge of Common' is, I assume, a generic term for the rent paid to use the common. But the other two 'Moor Farine' and 'free Harnie'? Are they specifying local usage, and if so what? > > > > Farine suggests something to do with flour. Could it be an obligation > to use the manorial mill? Alternatively, as flour implies grain and > arable, could it be the right to graze the fields after harvest? > > -- > Hotmail is my spam bin. Real address is ianng > at austonley org uk Thanks, Ian. I hadn't thought of flour. I had wondered whether it might come from 'farrow', so permission to keep young animals (or just sows & piglets) there - which would fit in with your grazing thought. Or simply 'faring', like in seafaring, a right to travel across the moor. But I have no idea. Chris