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? -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf Build a better mousetrap and along will come better mice.

>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

> On 14/11/15 09:41, Ian Goddard wrote: > > > During the Commonwealth period (that's Cromwell's Commonwealth) the > > church was no longer responsible for maintaining registers. The early > > registers - where they've survived at all, end in 1653. > > Although the churches no longer had a legal obligation to maintain > registers, that doesn't mean they all stopped doing so. In this > particular corner of Hampshire, most continued. You can get lucky. What this probably means is that the 1653 register was not destroyed in 1660. The registers were continued, but by a person other than the clergyman. In some cases, the parish clerk was chosen as 'Register' because he was about the only person who could write and wasn't scared by the idea of compiling an official document. The parish where I live started a new register in 1653, and this was continued in 1660, though the entries became sparser, since many folk were presbyterian or dissenters of some shade. (The earlier register/s were destroyed in a fire in the clerk's house, this one was saved and continued. In 1689 a separate register for burials was started and this was burnt in another fire sixty years later (it's a local sport?) 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, so under representative of labourers or evn of farmers who had been strong 'Oliver's men' and had to move to avoid retribution in a predominantly royalist parish (which ours was not). In two other parishes, the restored parson was keen enough to collect and send to the Bishop in 1661 the 'missing' BTs for ?1656 or 57-60. There were not many so conscientious. EVE Author of The McLaughlin Guides for Family Historians Secretary, Bucks Genealogical Society

Tickettyboo wrote: > On 2015-11-13 21:41:15 +0000, A Lefevre said: > >> I conclude there is something very incomplete about this list. > > Oh me too, have reported at least 5 missing streets, in various parts > of the country. All have been cross referenced with electoral rolls. > previous directories and personal knowledge. > So far I have had generic replies with hints and tips re: search terms, > to which I have replied that I have tried all those and STILL the > streets don't turn up. > Have given chapter and verse (again!) and now got the 'we have passed > the information to the data team' type responses. > Going on previous experience with similar scenarios in the 1911 census, > I draw the conclusion that holding breath is not an option and I will > probably get the images/details in a couple of years when a competitor > gets access to the original images. > > I know that errors occur, I know that it was a huge project, I know it > cost FMP an arm and a leg to scan, transcribe etc. I know that without > a collaboration between official sources and a commercial organisation > we would not have any of this info. > But its still extremely frustrating ! I think that FMP is now owned by the company that owns Myheritage. AFTC magazine reports that they bought Origins.net I left Myheritage for their distortion of the English language to justify their marketing policies. I replied to another letter to the editor of AFTC saying they were adding to her tree links to another product, then wanting a subscription to that to remove them. Another accusation was that they removed negative feedback from their online blog, leaving only the positive stuff. They make Ancestry.com much more appealing. Another company trying to alienate its customers by high-pressure salesmanship. Although they claim to be from London, their published owners are (or were) in Israel. Doug.

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. My Heritage on the other hand is an Israeli company who have expanded partly by taking over World Vital Records and Geni.com Cheers Guy

"Graeme Wall" wrote in message news:n27183$t8i$4@dont-email.me... > >On 13/11/2015 19:32, Chris Dickinson wrote: >> On Friday, 13 November 2015 19:03:15 UTC, Gordon wrote: >> >>> >>> I have an ancestor born and baptised Isaac but every so often he crops >>> up as >>> John Isaac or Isaac John. >>> It has cropped up in marriage banns and his son's military records. >>> Unfortunately he lived so long ago there is no one alive who can give an >>> answer to this. >>> >>> Gordon >> >> >> But in this period? Two forenames were uncommon. >> > >Could it have been a relic of the patronymic system: Isaac (son of) John? > I don't think so as his father was William and grandfather was Edmund. He had a brother and uncle called John and my research, so far, indicates that they both grew to adulthood so it is unlikely the name was adopted as a "memorial". Gordon

"Chris Dickinson" wrote in message news:89fdcc4b-65c6-41a5-9010-be88c8a8c1ed@googlegroups.com... > >On Friday, 13 November 2015 19:03:15 UTC, Gordon wrote: > >> >> I have an ancestor born and baptised Isaac but every so often he crops up >> as >> John Isaac or Isaac John. >> It has cropped up in marriage banns and his son's military records. >> Unfortunately he lived so long ago there is no one alive who can give an >> answer to this. >> >> Gordon > > >But in this period? Two forenames were uncommon. > >Chris It was the 1840's. One sister and one brother were baptised with two forenames but he and his other siblings were all baptised with one forename and he gave his children two forenames. I don't know where he "got" John from. Gordon

> > Has anyone encountered the names Isaac and John being used > > interchangeably? I'm trying to untangle the Kemish family of > > Michelmersh, Hants in the late 17th / early 18th century, and a lot of > > things would slot neatly into place if the Isaac who appears in the > > parish registers in the 1680s was the same man as the John who appears > > in the 1670s and 1690s. But I've heard heard of them being treated as a > > single name before. Has anyone else? > > > > Richard > > The recference to the "Commonwealth Gap" in replies interested me. What > records existed before the Commonwealth? From here in Oz, I think that the > furthest back I have been able to go is 1700. 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. EVE Author of The McLaughlin Guides for Family Historians Secretary, Bucks Genealogical Society

On 13/11/15 15:37, Chris Dickinson wrote: > If the surname is already established in the parish, then you've > probably got a gap in the records. It's not entirely clear whether the surname was present in the parish any earlier, but it was certainly present in most of the adjacent parishes several generation earlier. Indeed, in that tiny pocket of Hampshire, it was and is a common surname. > Both of these individuals could have been born in the 'Commonwealth > Gap' or some other register break. Or have been baptised in the > mother's parish. So you wouldn't have seen them again until they > start producing their own families. Certainly there are a number of possible explanations, and there is indeed a Commonwealth gap in the Michelmersh register. (Most nearby parish registers do not have a Commonwealth gap.) But simply assuming there was one or more individual baptised during this gap is not sufficient to explain all the evidence I've gathered. The commonly accepted version is that a couple (John Kemish and Dorothy Thurston) married in 1672, when they were probably both aged about 12, but had no children until they were both about 30, after which they had at least six. It's not impossible. Childhood marriages did happen, though the other instances I've encountered where amongst the gentry; John in later life was a mere husbandman. One would expect a gap before such a marriage produced children, but an 18 year gap is excessive. Perhaps there were earlier children baptised somewhere without a surviving register, but if so, none (or conceivably one) were mentioned in John's 1737 will. At the moment I'm still considering various alternative explanations. The Isaac is John is just one theory, and not my current favourite. But it would have had a certain neatness to it had there been a precedent for the names being interchangeable at the time. Most likely, I suspect, is that the 1672 marriage was a childless second marriage of the father of the John who had children 1690-1708, and that the latter John happened to have wife and stepmother of the same name. > You may be able to resolve this by extending your record base. Always good advice, and this is a rare enough surname that I can afford to take a global "one-name study" approach to studying it. The vast majority of people in the world today with the surname Kemish descend from one of two men in this corner of Hampshire born in the mid 17th century. And if my current thinking is right, they were brothers. Richard

> > > >Has anyone encountered the names Isaac and John being used interchangeably? I think it is not do much any direct co-relation between the two names as personal preference. Isaac, like Hezekiah, Moses, Jedediah, Simeon, etc was a name associated with chapel going, or excessive bible reading, and was an embarrsing name if you were a modern young man trying to make your way in a nominally CofE society, actually verging on secular, where any whiff of revivalist meetings and 'enthoosiam' was not thought acceptable. I knew a man baptised Isaac c 1895 who thought this way and changed his name to Frank, giving that as the reason - and he was a farmer turned cattle haulier. Same principle, Simeon became Simon, Moses , Maurice, Abraham (Stoker), Bram. Other names changed as fashions changed - , a woman christened Mildred c 1925 became Bunty, Nellie Alice (1927) became Elaine Alys ; Joan became Jo-anne, Dinah, Diane, Ada, Dady and then Deedie, Clarence, Charlie or even Jack in one case. Recently, some of the 'old fashiopned' names have come right back, and Emily., Joshua, Millie, Nathan are great again. EVE Author of The McLaughlin Guides for Family Historians Secretary, Bucks Genealogical Society

On 14/11/15 10:04, Richard Smith wrote: > On 14/11/15 09:41, Ian Goddard wrote: > >> During the Commonwealth period (that's Cromwell's Commonwealth) the >> church was no longer responsible for maintaining registers. The early >> registers - where they've survived at all, end in 1653. > > Although the churches no longer had a legal obligation to maintain > registers, that doesn't mean they all stopped doing so. In this > particular corner of Hampshire, most continued. > > Michelmersh, Hants, the parish I mentioned at the start of this thread > does have a "Commonwealth gap": there are no baptisms recorded between > Sept 1653 and Oct 1660. But of the seven neighbouring parishes, four > continued recording, two more don't have registers for the period at > all, and only one has a "Commonwealth gap". The next three parishes to > the west, an area of particular relevance to this family, all continued > recording too. In Almondbury & Kirkburton there are new Commonwealth registers but they were simply continued as PRs so there's no gap. Almondbury does have an earlier gap in that the vicar died early in the war & no new one was appointed during the hostilities. The parish was served by temporary priests in the interim and there are about 3 entries. Kirkburton's records weren't interrupted despite the incursion of an armed band who invaded and dragged the vicar off to Manchester where he died "of ill usage". There seems to have been a good deal of variation from parish to parish. -- Hotmail is my spam bin. Real address is ianng at austonley org uk

On 13/11/2015 21:41, A Lefevre via wrote: > I conclude there is something very incomplete about this list. There is. A year or two ago I paid £42 to obtain details of a household containing my grandfather's cousin. Details were given of eight household members. On FMP only the first three are indexed, and on "unlocking" the household I find that they are the bottom three on a sheet. Using the reference number to look for the next sheet, it comes up with "Not Found". So it seems that FMP have failed to scan the sheet containing the remaining 5 household members. -- Brian Pears (Gateshead)

On 13/11/2015 19:32, Chris Dickinson wrote: > On Friday, 13 November 2015 19:03:15 UTC, Gordon wrote: > >> >> I have an ancestor born and baptised Isaac but every so often he crops up as >> John Isaac or Isaac John. >> It has cropped up in marriage banns and his son's military records. >> Unfortunately he lived so long ago there is no one alive who can give an >> answer to this. >> >> Gordon > > > But in this period? Two forenames were uncommon. > Could it have been a relic of the patronymic system: Isaac (son of) John? -- Graeme Wall This account not read, substitute trains for rail.

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? -- Graeme Wall This account not read, substitute trains for rail.

On 14/11/15 09:41, Ian Goddard wrote: > During the Commonwealth period (that's Cromwell's Commonwealth) the > church was no longer responsible for maintaining registers. The early > registers - where they've survived at all, end in 1653. Although the churches no longer had a legal obligation to maintain registers, that doesn't mean they all stopped doing so. In this particular corner of Hampshire, most continued. Michelmersh, Hants, the parish I mentioned at the start of this thread does have a "Commonwealth gap": there are no baptisms recorded between Sept 1653 and Oct 1660. But of the seven neighbouring parishes, four continued recording, two more don't have registers for the period at all, and only one has a "Commonwealth gap". The next three parishes to the west, an area of particular relevance to this family, all continued recording too. Richard

On 13/11/15 17:13, Doug Laidlaw wrote: > Richard Smith wrote: > >> Has anyone encountered the names Isaac and John being used >> interchangeably? I'm trying to untangle the Kemish family of >> Michelmersh, Hants in the late 17th / early 18th century, and a lot of >> things would slot neatly into place if the Isaac who appears in the >> parish registers in the 1680s was the same man as the John who appears >> in the 1670s and 1690s. But I've heard heard of them being treated as a >> single name before. Has anyone else? >> >> Richard > > The recference to the "Commonwealth Gap" in replies interested me. What > records existed before the Commonwealth? From here in Oz, I think that the > furthest back I have been able to go is 1700. > During the Commonwealth period (that's Cromwell's Commonwealth) the church was no longer responsible for maintaining registers. The early registers - where they've survived at all, end in 1653. Civil registrars took over but this arrangement ended with the restoration. The civil registers were often lost although they could have been taken over by the church and continued as new volumes of parish registers. That's what happened in the case of the two parishes I'm interested in. If they were lost there's a gap. -- Hotmail is my spam bin. Real address is ianng at austonley org uk

On Saturday, 14 November 2015 11:50:51 UTC, Richard Smith wrote: > > The commonly accepted version is that a couple (John Kemish and Dorothy > Thurston) married in 1672, when they were probably both aged about 12, > but had no children until they were both about 30, after which they had > at least six. It's not impossible. Childhood marriages did happen, > though the other instances I've encountered where amongst the gentry; > John in later life was a mere husbandman. One would expect a gap before > such a marriage produced children, but an 18 year gap is excessive. > Perhaps there were earlier children baptised somewhere without a > surviving register, but if so, none (or conceivably one) were mentioned > in John's 1737 will. I don't like that scenario at all :-) Chris

Richard Smith wrote: > Has anyone encountered the names Isaac and John being used > interchangeably? I'm trying to untangle the Kemish family of > Michelmersh, Hants in the late 17th / early 18th century, and a lot of > things would slot neatly into place if the Isaac who appears in the > parish registers in the 1680s was the same man as the John who appears > in the 1670s and 1690s. But I've heard heard of them being treated as a > single name before. Has anyone else? > > Richard The recference to the "Commonwealth Gap" in replies interested me. What records existed before the Commonwealth? From here in Oz, I think that the furthest back I have been able to go is 1700. Jacobus was James. Replies to the list, please. Doug. -- Orthodoxy is my doxy; heterodoxy is your doxy. - Wm Warburton, 18th c. Bishop of Gloucester.

On Saturday, 14 November 2015 01:01:07 UTC, Doug Laidlaw wrote: > > The recference to the "Commonwealth Gap" in replies interested me. What > records existed before the Commonwealth? From here in Oz, I think that the > furthest back I have been able to go is 1700. > There's quite a wide range of record. What's available, though, will depend on location; and what's useful will depend on family status (the more settled and prosperous a family is, obviously, the easier it becomes to research). For instance, in the parish of my main interest, the BMD registers go back to 1581. Next door, back to the 1540s. Next door, only from the 1690s. It is very difficult, almost impossible, to establish detailed 17th century pedigrees with absolutely no BMDs. The other big source of information (at least for the yeoman families that I look at) is probate. Here, I'm blessed, as inventories (which are wonderful data mines) in my area have largely survived. The same problem exists with the third great source, manorial records. If you've got them, great - bit of a downer if you haven't. There's the Protestation Return of 1641/2. Tax records. Land records (like Feet of Fines). Legal cases in Chancery (disputes between a lord and his tenants might give you a huge list of names). There are many very informative family archives where indentures, admittances, surrenders, etc. have survived. So there's plenty there - increasingly easy to search with Discovery and the county search engines. But ... and it's a big but ... I think that the researcher has to change methodology for pre-1700, much like the adjustment from GRO/Census to PR/BT. If you want to make progress on one family, then you have to spend much more time looking at other families (both potential relatives and neighbours) for clues than you would in the 18th century (with a much more complete set of BMDs). Chris

On 2015-11-13 21:41:15 +0000, A Lefevre said: > I conclude there is something very incomplete about this list. Oh me too, have reported at least 5 missing streets, in various parts of the country. All have been cross referenced with electoral rolls. previous directories and personal knowledge. So far I have had generic replies with hints and tips re: search terms, to which I have replied that I have tried all those and STILL the streets don't turn up. Have given chapter and verse (again!) and now got the 'we have passed the information to the data team' type responses. Going on previous experience with similar scenarios in the 1911 census, I draw the conclusion that holding breath is not an option and I will probably get the images/details in a couple of years when a competitor gets access to the original images. I know that errors occur, I know that it was a huge project, I know it cost FMP an arm and a leg to scan, transcribe etc. I know that without a collaboration between official sources and a commercial organisation we would not have any of this info. But its still extremely frustrating ! -- Tickettyboo