Hello, I'm looking for the date of baptism of Mary Adams and the date of her marriage with Christopher Nanning, born in Thamen (NL) in 1773 and deceased in The Hague in 1827. Mary is deceased in The Hague (Netherlands) on June 2, 1864 (73 years old). She was born in Bristol, thus in 1790 or 1791. Mary and Christopher had five children: 1. Jacob: born in Bristol in 1812 or 1813 and deceased in Den Helder (NL) in 1842. 2. Johanna: born on Helgoland in 1814 and deceased in The Hague in 1813 i. 3. Marie Josephe: Born in Brussels in 1815 and deceased in The Hague in 1898. 4. Jean: born in Valenciennes (F) in 1818 and deceased in The Hague in 1905. 5. Henrica: born in Ostend (B) in 1824 and deceased in The Hague in 1915. Remark: In the birth certificate of Henrica was mentioned that Mary is 31 years old, thus born in 1792 or 1793. Who can help me with the baptism and wedding date of Mary and the date of baptism of her son Jacob? Many thanks in advance, Martin

On 05/11/15 11:55, eve via wrote: > Presumably there is free public access if > you go to Kew? I am told that all the terminals at Kew have free access to the register.

hose of you who have looked on my website (I gave the url earlier may > > have noticed that the NHS provided details for Nellie Hitcox,**Female, > > age23,Housemaid who was single, however she is redacted on the FMP image. > > Cheers > > Guy" > > > > Will we ever discover why in their "wisdom" FMP did not release to the > > public the page on the rhs which would contain the useful information that a > > person listed was deceased by the year 1991? > > Logic tells me if this was okay to be released by the NHS to you in 2008 why > > is this now a problem 7 years later? > > The second page as well as possibly noting the person was "D" for deceased > > also contains very useful golden gems for Gene researchers such as:- > > a person was in the ARP, was a SRN, an alternate name, later marriage in > > different ink and noting a date?, or someone having been called up etc. It > > is a great pity FMP didn't see the advantage in including this side of the > > image, which would have made the high cost in credits much more worthwhile. > > On the page image there are 5 "redacted" persons, if the FMP went to the > > trouble of masking these individuals couldn't they at the same time not read > > across the lines to see if indeed they had a "D" opposite? From the FMP > > promotional video it seems they had access to the full book, so why wasn't a > > second image taken of the rhs while it was set up? Check the video to see if > > they indeed photograph the "whole 2 pages? What a pity, Guy, as you did all the work lobbying and organising a petition and just keeping AT them to get this information from 1939 published, that FMP, in their wisdow? did not have the sense to emply your services as consultant to guide them into sensible decisions about what to include, how to check, and how much to charge. An opportunity lost there EVE ----------------------------- >Author of The McLaughlin Guides for Family Historians Secretary, Bucks Genealogical Society

> > > >So are Ancestry just reselling FMP scans and transcriptions, or did they > >eventually do their own after all? > > > Somebody raised that question around 3-4 years ago. IIRC the indexing > then was different enough to suggest they were independent of each > other; IME each seemed to have their own non-matching errors as would > be expected when done by different people. I think it was Jeanne Bunting who did a careful comparison of the two sites re the 1901 census. Each made errors -FMP slightly more, i think) but they were different errors, so using the two sites would sometimes piece together a correct whole from two halves. Both uswe inferior transcribers and rush the work on to the market too fast. But with a little effort, most 'missing' census entries can be resolved. With only one source for the moment, this is more difficult. It still seems that all the entries redacted, whether or no they should be, causes the more serious probvlem for those who really need this late information. Most of us will probably sample, spit feathers and then wait till it becomes genuinely public. Presumably there is free public access if you go to Kew? If not, why not? EVE Author of The McLaughlin Guides for Family Historians Secretary, Bucks Genealogical Society

On Tue, 03 Nov 2015 16:26:02 +0000, brightside S9 <address@replyto_is_not.invalid> wrote: >Is it me or are lots of records missing? It might be that you just have to wait. As of the time of this post there are 3,420 results returned for the surname Eldridge. In the last couple of days this number has increased, for example two days ago Emily E Eldridge born 1891 shown in the Lewisham district was 1000 entries into the list. Today she was 1009 entries into the list. So I have concluded two things; 1. The list is being either corrected or added to at a relatively rapid rate, and 2. I might just hold off for a while before creating a database of all the Eldridge entries for my research. -- Robert G. Eldridge Toronto NSW Australia http://www.eldridgegenealogy.org Now researching ELDRIDGE families world wide 1000s at my Web site *Wanted* any Eldridge related information

On 04/11/2015 22:45, Robert G Eldridge via wrote: > On Tue, 03 Nov 2015 16:26:02 +0000, brightside S9 > <address@replyto_is_not.invalid> wrote: > >> Is it me or are lots of records missing? > It might be that you just have to wait. > > As of the time of this post there are 3,420 results returned for the > surname Eldridge. In the last couple of days this number has > increased, for example two days ago Emily E Eldridge born 1891 shown > in the Lewisham district was 1000 entries into the list. Today she was > 1009 entries into the list. > > So I have concluded two things; > 1. The list is being either corrected or added to at a relatively > rapid rate, and > 2. I might just hold off for a while before creating a database of all > the Eldridge entries for my research. > > The plan is to update the database weekly with records that are opened (i.e. they will show up on names searches). However as the database is new it is still being updated where errors are being revealed (for instance at least some parts of one road was not linked in and did not show on the results). It should be looked on as a "work in progress" as in reality it will continue to grow until 2040 when the last redacted entry can be opened under data protection rules. Cheers Guy

On 04/11/2015 22:04, Charles Ellson via wrote: > On Wed, 4 Nov 2015 20:57:00 +0000, "J. P. Gilliver (John)" > <G6JPG@soft255.demon.co.uk> wrote: > >> In message <mailman.44.1446563590.30538.genbrit@rootsweb.com>, Guy >> Etchells via <genbrit@rootsweb.com> writes: >> [] >>> Thanks Eve. >>> The contract went to FMP as Anscestry would not take the huge risk to >>> digitise, transcribe & index the Register. >>> I don't know if you remember Ancestry dropped out of the 18911 contract >>> when they worked out how much it would cost them and the risk they >>> would have to take. >>> FMP at least had the courage in their convictions and took the risk. >>> Cheers >>> Guy >> Ancestry now also offer the 1911 census (though I think they had the >> "redacted" column in place rather longer than FMP did). >> >> So are Ancestry just reselling FMP scans and transcriptions, or did they >> eventually do their own after all? >> > Somebody raised that question around 3-4 years ago. IIRC the indexing > then was different enough to suggest they were independent of each > other; IME each seemed to have their own non-matching errors as would > be expected when done by different people. > > ------------------------------- > 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 > Yes the later licensees used the original scans but did their own indexing and conciliation of the redacted column. Cheers Guy

Yesterday using the same technique I found my Mother's family, all now deceased, out of 5 family members listed ONLY my grandmother's name and birth year was transcribed correctly :- My mother's name shown the same as her sister, was correctly shown born 1928, her younger sister's name, correctly duplicated as above but date of birth shown as 1885 instead of 1935, her elder brother's birthdate shown as 1929 and should be 1922, and lastly my grandfather's surname spelt wrongly considering ALL the surnames were spelt the same. Fortunately I knew the town and county where my family were or supposed to be at the time Researchers will be having fun and games finding their respective families in the 1939. At least in this case the transcriber must have noted the "D" for deceased opposite the 3 siblings' listings otherwise they would have been "closed". Should FMP have the facility to accept and modify the database to correct mistakes, it would in itself be a massive undertaking to do so. Sorry to say it FMP but this will be the one and only image I will be paying for despite having renewed my subscription. Cheers from Bob -----Original Message----- From: melanie chesnel Sent: Wednesday, November 04, 2015 3:57 PM To: genbrit@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: 1939 On Wednesday, November 4, 2015 at 6:33:13 AM UTC+1, nick ashby via wrote: > Have noticed,that if you find a person and make a note of the reference > eg RG101/1600D/003/15,in advance search,TNA Reference and enter 1600D > Piece number 003 Item number,no other details,this will show,a group of > people and you can work out who is living with whom. > > Nick thanks for this - I used your technique with the reference of my granddad who I found and discovered that my grandma Flora Isabel is listed as Eliza in the index, no wonder I couldn't find her. regards melanie

On Wed, 4 Nov 2015 20:57:00 +0000, "J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG@soft255.demon.co.uk> wrote: >In message <mailman.44.1446563590.30538.genbrit@rootsweb.com>, Guy >Etchells via <genbrit@rootsweb.com> writes: >[] >>Thanks Eve. >>The contract went to FMP as Anscestry would not take the huge risk to >>digitise, transcribe & index the Register. >>I don't know if you remember Ancestry dropped out of the 18911 contract >>when they worked out how much it would cost them and the risk they >>would have to take. >>FMP at least had the courage in their convictions and took the risk. >>Cheers >>Guy > >Ancestry now also offer the 1911 census (though I think they had the >"redacted" column in place rather longer than FMP did). > >So are Ancestry just reselling FMP scans and transcriptions, or did they >eventually do their own after all? > Somebody raised that question around 3-4 years ago. IIRC the indexing then was different enough to suggest they were independent of each other; IME each seemed to have their own non-matching errors as would be expected when done by different people.

In message <mailman.44.1446563590.30538.genbrit@rootsweb.com>, Guy Etchells via <genbrit@rootsweb.com> writes: [] >Thanks Eve. >The contract went to FMP as Anscestry would not take the huge risk to >digitise, transcribe & index the Register. >I don't know if you remember Ancestry dropped out of the 18911 contract >when they worked out how much it would cost them and the risk they >would have to take. >FMP at least had the courage in their convictions and took the risk. >Cheers >Guy Ancestry now also offer the 1911 census (though I think they had the "redacted" column in place rather longer than FMP did). So are Ancestry just reselling FMP scans and transcriptions, or did they eventually do their own after all? -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf TV and radio presenters are just like many people, except they tend to wear make-up all the time. Especially the radio presenters. - Eddie Mair, in Radio Times 25-31 August 2012

On 03/11/2015 16:06, David Marshall wrote: > I have found the entry for a married female school teacher living where > I would expect, but it is crossed through in red with "SEE PAGE 12" > written beside it. > Also the original birth date of 9 Dec 1905 has got 30 Sept 1905 written > above it and in the next column M has got NXO written above it and in > the next column (above 'school teacher') is 21.7.42 > None of this is included in the transcription which has a ? in the birth > date column. > I do not know from other sources if either of the birth dates is correct > and the lady did not die until 1967. Can anyone suggest what might be > going on and/or know how I could get to see Page 12? > > David I have now found how to see page 12 (by clicking on the arrow at the right of the image)but am not much the wiser. The second entry has the same information and it still has both the birth dates, the NXO has gone and it just says on the right "copied from correct sequence". I shall probably have to buy the birth certificate if I want to take it further. Any suggestions as to the meaning of NXO and the reason for the duplication would still be welcome. David

Guy, you wrote :- 1) " Yes I downloaded the entry that I requested from the NHS in 2008 both the NHS transcript and the Digital image from FMP is now online at *http://tinyurl.com/yamy9hb* Scroll to the bottom of the page for the household image Cheers Guy" 2) " A very few entries do have the date of death but not very many. Apparently on the second page (not available to the public) entries were marked with the letter D if the person was deceased, this was made available to FMP to open entries which otherwise would be redacted. Cheers Guy" 3) " The NHS used this register until 1991 and updated it as time went on. That is why those people who died between 1939 and 1991 should be open, but as with anything to do with the NHS mistakes can and are made. Updates include change of name on marriage (or other reasons) Those of you who have looked on my website (I gave the url earlier may have noticed that the NHS provided details for Nellie Hitcox,**Female, age23,Housemaid who was single, however she is redacted on the FMP image. Cheers Guy" Will we ever discover why in their "wisdom" FMP did not release to the public the page on the rhs which would contain the useful information that a person listed was deceased by the year 1991? Logic tells me if this was okay to be released by the NHS to you in 2008 why is this now a problem 7 years later? The second page as well as possibly noting the person was "D" for deceased also contains very useful golden gems for Gene researchers such as:- a person was in the ARP, was a SRN, an alternate name, later marriage in different ink and noting a date?, or someone having been called up etc. It is a great pity FMP didn't see the advantage in including this side of the image, which would have made the high cost in credits much more worthwhile. On the page image there are 5 "redacted" persons, if the FMP went to the trouble of masking these individuals couldn't they at the same time not read across the lines to see if indeed they had a "D" opposite? From the FMP promotional video it seems they had access to the full book, so why wasn't a second image taken of the rhs while it was set up? Check the video to see if they indeed photograph the "whole 2 pages? I assume it is fairly simple exercise for FMP to revisit these images and remove the masks, which appear on the image to extend across both pages! Guy have you seen a full rhs page image of the register, even a blank one, which would indicate any additional columns beyond number 11 "instructions"? And under what instructions would the enumerator be under? Any advice on the contents of column 5, ie O, V, S, P and I and their respective meanings? "P" possibly means Pensioner but what of the rest? I can see the need for security and keeping the information on the rh page from the public in 1939 and a time when the Nation was at war but now 75 years later what security risks would there be now ? Lastly as someone who just a few days prior to the release of the 1939 register renewed my subscription to FMP , I feel somewhat cheated by the fact I was not informed a sub would not include access to these images, reinforced by the fact that FMP left it to the last few days only to reveal the true cost of access. The costs SHOULD have been released at the same time that FMP started spruiking about it's pending release over a month ago, which WOULD have influenced many decisions to renew the sub. My gut feeling that FMP will do their dough on this project, as not only the high costs, but for information we most commonly already know due the digitising of Electoral Rolls which is available from FMP under subscription. Cheers from Bob

On 04/11/2015 02:06, Bob Campbell via wrote: > Guy, you wrote :- > > 1) " > Yes I downloaded the entry that I requested from the NHS in 2008 both > the NHS transcript and the Digital image from FMP is now online at > *http://tinyurl.com/yamy9hb* > Scroll to the bottom of the page for the household image > Cheers > Guy" > 2) > " > A very few entries do have the date of death but not very many. > Apparently on the second page (not available to the public) entries were > marked with the letter D if the person was deceased, this was made > available to FMP to open entries which otherwise would be redacted. > Cheers > Guy" > 3) > " > The NHS used this register until 1991 and updated it as time went on. > That is why those people who died between 1939 and 1991 should be open, > but as with anything to do with the NHS mistakes can and are made. > Updates include change of name on marriage (or other reasons) > > Those of you who have looked on my website (I gave the url earlier may > have noticed that the NHS provided details for Nellie Hitcox,**Female, > age23,Housemaid who was single, however she is redacted on the FMP image. > Cheers > Guy" > > Will we ever discover why in their "wisdom" FMP did not release to the > public the page on the rhs which would contain the useful information that a > person listed was deceased by the year 1991? > Logic tells me if this was okay to be released by the NHS to you in 2008 why > is this now a problem 7 years later? > The second page as well as possibly noting the person was "D" for deceased > also contains very useful golden gems for Gene researchers such as:- > a person was in the ARP, was a SRN, an alternate name, later marriage in > different ink and noting a date?, or someone having been called up etc. It > is a great pity FMP didn't see the advantage in including this side of the > image, which would have made the high cost in credits much more worthwhile. > On the page image there are 5 "redacted" persons, if the FMP went to the > trouble of masking these individuals couldn't they at the same time not read > across the lines to see if indeed they had a "D" opposite? From the FMP > promotional video it seems they had access to the full book, so why wasn't a > second image taken of the rhs while it was set up? Check the video to see if > they indeed photograph the "whole 2 pages? > I assume it is fairly simple exercise for FMP to revisit these images and > remove the masks, which appear on the image to extend across both pages! > Guy have you seen a full rhs page image of the register, even a blank one, > which would indicate any additional columns beyond number 11 "instructions"? > And under what instructions would the enumerator be under? > Any advice on the contents of column 5, ie O, V, S, P and I and their > respective meanings? "P" possibly means Pensioner but what of the rest? > I can see the need for security and keeping the information on the rh page > from the public in 1939 and a time when the Nation was at war but now 75 > years later what security risks would there be now ? > Lastly as someone who just a few days prior to the release of the 1939 > register renewed my subscription to FMP , I feel somewhat cheated by the > fact I was not informed a sub would not include access to these images, > reinforced by the fact that FMP left it to the last few days only to reveal > the true cost of access. The costs SHOULD have been released at the same > time that FMP started spruiking about it's pending release over a month ago, > which WOULD have influenced many decisions to renew the sub. > My gut feeling that FMP will do their dough on this project, as not only the > high costs, but for information we most commonly already know due the > digitising of Electoral Rolls which is available from FMP under > subscription. > > > Cheers from > Bob > > > ------------------------------- > 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 > Easy bit first O,V,S,P,I, these refer to "households" such as nursing homes and similar institutions. O: Officer (Matron, Cook/Housekeeper, Clerk in Holy Orders etc.) V: Visitor S: Servant (this includes staff such as nurses, porters, housemaid, parlour maid, etc) P: Patient I: Inmate My understanding is they were not allowed to scan the right hand page as it contained private medical information, no I have note seen a right hand page. There are 61 pages about the 939 Registration on http://tinyurl.com/obmoky3 including blank schedules but none of the actual register pages that have now been scanned Cheers Guy

Have noticed,that if you find a person and make a note of the reference eg RG101/1600D/003/15,in advance search,TNA Reference and enter 1600D Piece number 003 Item number,no other details,this will show,a group of people and you can work out who is living with whom. Nick

On Wednesday, November 4, 2015 at 6:33:13 AM UTC+1, nick ashby via wrote: > Have noticed,that if you find a person and make a note of the reference > eg RG101/1600D/003/15,in advance search,TNA Reference and enter 1600D > Piece number 003 Item number,no other details,this will show,a group of > people and you can work out who is living with whom. > > Nick thanks for this - I used your technique with the reference of my granddad who I found and discovered that my grandma Flora Isabel is listed as Eliza in the index, no wonder I couldn't find her. regards melanie

On 03/11/2015 18:38, johnfhhgen wrote: > On 03/11/2015 2:53 PM, Guy Etchells via wrote: >> Yes I downloaded the entry that I requested from the NHS in 2008 both >> the NHS transcript and the Digital image from FMP is now online at >> *http://tinyurl.com/yamy9hb* >> Scroll to the bottom of the page for the household image >> Cheers >> Guy > Thank you for sharing that - does the actual image include the whole > of the right-hand page, or has it been lost in posting? > Just curious as to what the missing column(s) might be for. > > Kind regards, > John Henley > > No that is as far as the right hand page goes, I believe it contains personal details and is not released to public view. Cheers Guy

On 03/11/2015 2:53 PM, Guy Etchells via wrote: > Yes I downloaded the entry that I requested from the NHS in 2008 both > the NHS transcript and the Digital image from FMP is now online at > *http://tinyurl.com/yamy9hb* > Scroll to the bottom of the page for the household image > Cheers > Guy > Thank you for sharing that - does the actual image include the whole of the right-hand page, or has it been lost in posting? Just curious as to what the missing column(s) might be for. Kind regards, John Henley

-----Original Message----- From: genbrit-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:genbrit-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Guy Etchells via Sent: 03 November 2015 15:32 To: genbrit@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: 1939 survey includes date of death? Alice PIKE at Edmonton On 03/11/2015 10:55, Brian Austin via wrote: > I also understand that someone has already complained to Trading > Standards because her last invitation to renew said (as did mine) that > her membership would include all British records and now she is asked > to pay for the Register. > > Brian Austin > > I doubt it will do them any good at all seeing as it clearly states on the FMP terms and conditions "Sometimes, if we launch a major new collection, we might make a separate charge for it, but this is rare." The terms have stated this since at least 10 April 2014 according to the Internet Archive. Cheers Guy I agree that this makes it less likely but Trading Standards have been known recently to clamp down on those that cite the small print. They might just argue that as FMP knew that they were about to launch something for which they would charge, they should have said so. 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

-----Original Message----- From: genbrit-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:genbrit-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Brian Pears via Sent: 03 November 2015 14:54 To: genbrit@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: 1939 survey includes date of death? Alice PIKE at Edmonton On 03/11/2015 10:55, Brian Austin via wrote: > I also understand that someone has already complained to Trading > Standards because her last invitation to renew said (as did mine) that > her membership would include all British records and now she is asked > to pay for the Register. Now that's a very good point. I wonder how FMP will get around that? Do you have any further info on the complaint? It will be interesting to see how this turns out. -- Brian Pears (Gateshead) No, not yet. I got that from a friend who got it from one of the County FH web sites. 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

I have found the entry for a married female school teacher living where I would expect, but it is crossed through in red with "SEE PAGE 12" written beside it. Also the original birth date of 9 Dec 1905 has got 30 Sept 1905 written above it and in the next column M has got NXO written above it and in the next column (above 'school teacher') is 21.7.42 None of this is included in the transcription which has a ? in the birth date column. I do not know from other sources if either of the birth dates is correct and the lady did not die until 1967. Can anyone suggest what might be going on and/or know how I could get to see Page 12? David