On 01/11/2015 21:57, Charles Ellson wrote: >> If, as is likely for a 1915 burial, the section is one of A to H, do you have a "Con" or "Gen" suffix? These are different areas with the same grave numbers, e.g. E Con 123 and E Gen 123 are different graves. >> > > Consecrated and General ? Yes. The relevant column is headed "In Consecrated or Unconsecrated Ground" and in at least one instance on "my Grandfather's page" the word General is written in full, though otherwise it's just "Con" which is written. -- Jenny M Benson

On Monday, November 2, 2015 at 7:33:20 AM UTC+1, 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 tried both my parents and they don't come up either! regards melanie

On Sun, 1 Nov 2015 13:51:26 -0800 (PST), chrisj.doran%proemail.co.uk@gtempaccount.com wrote: >On Friday, October 30, 2015 at 3:00:55 PM UTC, Jenny M Benson wrote: >> I have downloaded some records from Deceased Online, which include those >> of my 2x Great Grandfather and his second wife. He was buried in 1915, >> she was interred in the same grave at Charlton Cemetery, Greenwich in >> 1929. For his burial, in the column headed "If Purchased Grave" is >> written P.G., which I presume stands for "Purchased Grave" but when his >> wife was buried the entry in that column was "R.P.G." What does the R >> stand for? >> >> There is a column headed "Class of Ground" and the entries seem to be >> 1st, 2nd or 3rd. (1st in my Grandfather's case.) Does this indicate >> that some areas were considered more desirable (in what way?) than >> others, or what? >> >> Something which seems odd to me is that a third person, an elderly man, >> was buried in the same grave in 1937. I didn't recognize his name and a >> few searches have not revealed that he had any relationship to my >> GGGrandfather or his second wife. Can someone explain the circumstances >> under which a "stranger" (if, indeed he was) could be interred in a plot >> bought by someone else? >> -- >> Jenny M Benson > >If, as is likely for a 1915 burial, the section is one of A to H, do you have a "Con" or "Gen" suffix? These are different areas with the same grave numbers, e.g. E Con 123 and E Gen 123 are different graves. > Consecrated and General ? >From this you may guess that I know Charlton Cemetery fairly well. I'll be going there some time in the not too distant future. If you can't yourself and would like me to look, please post the names and plot number here, or e-mail me (see below). > >The local authority is Greenwich, but as they've outsourced lookups to DoL, they'll probably just refer you back there. > >Chris >(The funny e-mail address is effectively a black hole; reply to postmaster {at} chrisjdoran {dot} plus {dot} com)

Current status: Jenny has e-mailed me the plot number and I will look for the grave in the hopefully not-too-distant future. It's not in one of the ambiguous Con/Gen sections, but I've had that trouble before at Charlton and elsewhere, so it was something to check. Chris

> On Tuesday, 27 October 2015 20:35:20 UTC, Ian Goddard wrote: > > On 27/10/15 13:07, Chris Dickinson wrote: > > > I mentioned the 1623 famine because that is traditionally seen as the last major famine in England. One way that you might be able to determine its severity in your area is by looking at your local probate index and counting the annual quantity. I did this a while back for West Cumberland, not expecting to see any hike (as I was assuming famine would hit the poor more than will-making yeomanry), but got this: > > > > > > 1619 44 > > > 1620 49 > > > 1621 3 > > > 1622 54 > > > 1623 158 > > > 1624 6 > > > 1625 4 > > > 1626 35 > > > 1627 52 > > > > That's a very impressive series of figures there, Chris. I remember many years ago that Colin Rogers gave a lecture on the 'Lancashire famine' of 1623, which he had identified. There was also a couple of bad dearth years in )approx) 1715-17, which affected the more southerly areas at least - and in Bucks, the housewives got together and ambushed a waggon bringing in what little corn there was, which Mr X intended to sell a a huge profit. The magistartes were sympathtic for once - X wasn't a popular character. EVE Author of The McLaughlin Guides for Family Historians Secretary, Bucks Genealogical Society

> On Wed, 28 Oct 2015 21:15:15 +0000, "J. P. Gilliver (John)" > <G6JPG@soft255.demon.co.uk> wrote: > > >I've always thought of canal traffic as goods rather than passengers ... > > Flyboats were udsed on canals, for e.g. See > http://www.ma.hw.ac.uk/solitons/HISTORY_OF_EXPRESS_CANAL_BOATS.pdf > Fly boats only operated in the vicinity of large cities - since you can't 'fly' all that fast, They were the equivalent of the London tube/Metropolitan railway, for suburban dwellers commuting into the office. I've done the journey in from Worsley right into central Manchester, but uit took a fair old time. Long distance journeys were feasible on the canals, but not if you were in a hurry, with a 4MPH limit. They were cheap, since they were not exactly comfortable over a distance, and -as with carriers' carts, if it rained, the goods got protection first and human passengers got wet. Tere was also a problem with canal transport for females - the canal bopat men were a randy lot and females were expected to provide 'entertainment' on the way. EVE Author of The McLaughlin Guides for Family Historians Secretary, Bucks Genealogical Society

Another thought. > > I think the grave plots next to the paths were more expensive than the > ones in the centres of large expanses of graves. That was the case at > Ford RC cemetery near Liverpool. Perhaps the purchasers would pay > extra for plots which were easier to find, and which passers-by would > often notice, if the headstones were particularly ornate. Which runs contrary to the old rhyme about parish churchyard burials. Here I lie far from the door Here I lie because I'm poor. The further in, the more you pay, And yet I lie as snug as they. A though about the 'stranger'. If it was not a simple error, then the person may be a second husdand of a widow or auntie or daughter; or he may just be an old chap the family took in out of kindness, and gave him his last 'house' when he died.. EVE Author of The McLaughlin Guides for Family Historians Secretary, Bucks Genealogical Society

On Friday, October 30, 2015 at 3:00:55 PM UTC, Jenny M Benson wrote: > I have downloaded some records from Deceased Online, which include those > of my 2x Great Grandfather and his second wife. He was buried in 1915, > she was interred in the same grave at Charlton Cemetery, Greenwich in > 1929. For his burial, in the column headed "If Purchased Grave" is > written P.G., which I presume stands for "Purchased Grave" but when his > wife was buried the entry in that column was "R.P.G." What does the R > stand for? > > There is a column headed "Class of Ground" and the entries seem to be > 1st, 2nd or 3rd. (1st in my Grandfather's case.) Does this indicate > that some areas were considered more desirable (in what way?) than > others, or what? > > Something which seems odd to me is that a third person, an elderly man, > was buried in the same grave in 1937. I didn't recognize his name and a > few searches have not revealed that he had any relationship to my > GGGrandfather or his second wife. Can someone explain the circumstances > under which a "stranger" (if, indeed he was) could be interred in a plot > bought by someone else? > -- > Jenny M Benson If, as is likely for a 1915 burial, the section is one of A to H, do you have a "Con" or "Gen" suffix? These are different areas with the same grave numbers, e.g. E Con 123 and E Gen 123 are different graves. >From this you may guess that I know Charlton Cemetery fairly well. I'll be going there some time in the not too distant future. If you can't yourself and would like me to look, please post the names and plot number here, or e-mail me (see below). The local authority is Greenwich, but as they've outsourced lookups to DoL, they'll probably just refer you back there. Chris (The funny e-mail address is effectively a black hole; reply to postmaster {at} chrisjdoran {dot} plus {dot} com)

For some reason this came to me as an email rather than a post in the newsgroup soc.genealogy.britain, so apologies if the quoting's all over the place. I'll put "JPG>" before my responses. > [] > >>>>> as would their owners. Various religious establishments, and some > >>>>> secular ones, had a tradition of the travellers' dole whereby genuine > >>>>> travellers would get free food and water. The Hospice at St Cross, > >>>> > >>>> Were there enough of these establishments that a practically penniless > >>>> person could actually make a long journey? > >>> > >> [] > I expect the following question probably can't be answered, as I suspect > the majority of the sort of people I'm thinking of would be illiterate - > or, at least, not be in a position to either keep a diary or get it > published. But I'll ask anyway: > > are there actual accounts of people travelling long distances (say, over > 200 miles), relying entirely on these establishments? Especially with a > large number of children? In mediaeval times, the religious houses did provide for travellers. To a limited extent, the parish/churchwardens took over this function, usually where hefty travellers were involved (pay them 4d or 6d to go away). But weaker 'sturdy beggars' tended to be whipped to shift them. There were local charity funded 'doles' but usually limited to one day a month or even year, and jealously guarded by the local more or less poor. [A vicar charged with an annual dole of buns and pies locally decided enough was enough, and got thrown in the horsepond for it]. JPG> Who did what to whom there? I don't quite follow - a vicar was dunked? By angry beggars, or the local people? However, if a person was found begging/destitute in parish A, there was usually an investigation to discover the place of settlement (B) . Once this was established, theperson was given a pass from A to B, which allowed him to move from parish to parish (in a direct line) without being whipped, and usually being given either food or a few pence to keep moving. They were referred to as 'passengers', hence someone who died and was buried as a passenger was not someone off a coach. Some parishes (?Offley Herts) became known as generous, so tramps made extensive detours to get the benefits (like the economic migrants today) On main roads, the traveller problem sometimes got menacing, so counties employed 'cripple contractors' [so called because some people were lame, some faking lameness for sympathy], who loaded a bunch of travellers into a waggon and dumped them further up the road, ideally into the next county. The wily 'travellers' made use of this system to hitch a lift - if you declared your settlement as Scotland or Ireland, you might get a ride for several miles. One chap who lost his shirt at Aylesbury races declared Durham as his settlement, and got lifts most of the way to Doncaster Races. JPG> So presumably hadn't entirely "lost his shirt"! In many cases, farmers or cottagers were kind enough to allow a night in a barn and supply a bit of food, especially if there was a family with children. So again, wily travellers borrowed a few children, pinched them to make them cry, and got food that way. (The Roma do it now in London streets). Of course, there were genuine paupers on the roads, needing help,sometimes widows set adrift because their husbands had been settled far away, but a lot were exploiting the system and did rather better than the genuine cases, lacking shame. JPG> So the genuine widow - with, likely in those days, a gaggle of children - would have a hard time of it. > -- EVE [] JPG> So I remain semi-convinced that, in the majority of cases, most people were unable to travel more than a few miles - even if not destitute; journeys across the country (even without taking the danger of being robbed into account) being very much the preserve of the rich, or the single healthy person (probably male). -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf Who were your favourite TV stars or shows when you were a child? Sadly they've all been arrested ... Ian Hislop, in Radio Times 28 September-4 October 2013

> [] > >>>>> as would their owners. Various religious establishments, and some > >>>>> secular ones, had a tradition of the travellers' dole whereby genuine > >>>>> travellers would get free food and water. The Hospice at St Cross, > >>>> > >>>> Were there enough of these establishments that a practically penniless > >>>> person could actually make a long journey? > >>> > >> [] > I expect the following question probably can't be answered, as I suspect > the majority of the sort of people I'm thinking of would be illiterate - > or, at least, not be in a position to either keep a diary or get it > published. But I'll ask anyway: > > are there actual accounts of people travelling long distances (say, over > 200 miles), relying entirely on these establishments? Especially with a > large number of children? In mediaeval times, the religious houses did provide for travellers. To a limited extent, the parish/churchwardens took over this function, usually where hefty travellers were involved (pay them 4d or 6d to go away). But weaker 'sturdy beggars' tended to be whipped to shift them. There were local charity funded 'doles' but usually limited to one day a month or even year, and jealously guarded by the local more or less poor. [A vicar charged with an annual dole of buns and pies locally decided enough was enough, and got thrown in the horsepond for it]. However, if a person was found begging/destitute in parish A, there was usually an investigation to discover the place of settlement (B) . Once this was established, theperson was given a pass from A to B, which allowed him to move from parish to parish (in a direct line) without being whipped, and usually being given either food or a few pence to keep moving. They were referred to as 'passengers', hence someone who died and was buried as a passenger was not someone off a coach. Some parishes (?Offley Herts) became known as generous, so tramps made extensive detours to get the benefits (like the economic migrants today) On main roads, the traveller problem sometimes got menacing, so counties employed 'cripple contractors' [so called because some people were lame, some faking lameness for sympathy], who loaded a bunch of travellers into a waggon and dumped them further up the road, ideally into the next county. The wily 'travellers' made use of this system to hitch a lift - if you declared your settlement as Scotland or Ireland, you might get a ride for several miles. One chap who lost his shirt at Aylesbury races declared Durham as his settlement, and got lifts most of the way to Doncaster Races. In many cases, farmers or cottagers were kind enough to allow a night in a barn and supply a bit of food, especially if there was a family with children. So again, wily travellers borrowed a few children, pinched them to make them cry, and got food that way. (The Roma do it now in London streets). Of course, there were genuine paupers on the roads, needing help,sometimes widows set adrift because their husbands had been settled far away, but a lot were exploiting the system and did rather better than the genuine cases, lacking shame. > -- EVE > J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf > > This was before we knew that a laboratory rat, if experimented upon, will > develop cancer. [Quoted by] Anne (annezo@aol.com), 1997-1-29 > > ------------------------------- > 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 Author of The McLaughlin Guides for Family Historians Secretary, Bucks Genealogical Society

On Saturday, April 8, 2000 at 8:00:00 AM UTC+1, Monica Drake wrote: > I just found my husband's greatgrandmother had a sister named Keziah Emma > Pickett. I have never heard this first name before, has anyone else? Any > ideas what nationality it is from? Her mother's maiden name was Robinson, > which could prove hard to track. Hoping the unusual first name will give me > a lead as to where her family was from. > > Monica Hi Monica. I guess 15 years is a long time and you may not be reading this post, but I was looking for my maternal grandmother who was Emma Kezia Pickett and found your enquiry. On the off chance they are one and the same, do you know whether your Kezia Emma was married? Mine was born in 1870 and married Albert Henry Perkins on 17 May 1907. I don't know her family history, which is why I was searching. Thanks David

On 2015-10-30 15:00:53 +0000, Jenny M Benson said: > I have downloaded some records from Deceased Online, which include > those of my 2x Great Grandfather and his second wife. He was buried in > 1915, she was interred in the same grave at Charlton Cemetery, > Greenwich in 1929. For his burial, in the column headed "If Purchased > Grave" is written P.G., which I presume stands for "Purchased Grave" > but when his wife was buried the entry in that column was "R.P.G." > What does the R stand for? > > There is a column headed "Class of Ground" and the entries seem to be > 1st, 2nd or 3rd. (1st in my Grandfather's case.) Does this indicate > that some areas were considered more desirable (in what way?) than > others, or what? > > Something which seems odd to me is that a third person, an elderly man, > was buried in the same grave in 1937. I didn't recognize his name and > a few searches have not revealed that he had any relationship to my > GGGrandfather or his second wife. Can someone explain the > circumstances under which a "stranger" (if, indeed he was) could be > interred in a plot bought by someone else? Possibly "re-opened" , If its the same grave then I'd guess that re-opened is the right explanation. Try asking Deceased Online or do a web search for the local authority who hold the grave records and email them to ask? Ditto for the possibly un-related person - ask how long the deed of right to burial in that plot was valid (25 years seems a short space of time to me) and they may also be able to shed some light on the class of ground question. To be honest they are the only people who 'may' be able to give a definitive answer, things varied from place to place and the rest of us are just guessing based on experience elsewhere. Do let us know if you get a definitive answer. -- Tickettyboo

On 30/10/2015 18:21, Jenny M Benson wrote: > On 30/10/2015 15:52, plainbob8@gmail.com wrote: >> I had a similar puzzle. It turned out to be caused by a >> mis-transcription of the grave reference (so the strangers were not >> actually buried in the same grave after all). Have you checked the >> register image? > > I haven't, simply because of the cost of doing so. I hadn't thought of > that, but now think it is a very strong possibility. Have you tried asking Deceased Online? I have found them quite helpful in the past.

On 30/10/2015 15:52, plainbob8@gmail.com wrote: > I had a similar puzzle. It turned out to be caused by a > mis-transcription of the grave reference (so the strangers were not > actually buried in the same grave after all). Have you checked the > register image? I haven't, simply because of the cost of doing so. I hadn't thought of that, but now think it is a very strong possibility. -- Jenny M Benson

Another thought. I think the grave plots next to the paths were more expensive than the ones in the centres of large expanses of graves. That was the case at Ford RC cemetery near Liverpool. Perhaps the purchasers would pay extra for plots which were easier to find, and which passers-by would often notice, if the headstones were particularly ornate. Barbara On Fri, 30 Oct 2015 15:00:53 +0000, Jenny M Benson <nemonews@hotmail.co.uk> wrote: >I have downloaded some records from Deceased Online, which include those >of my 2x Great Grandfather and his second wife. He was buried in 1915, >she was interred in the same grave at Charlton Cemetery, Greenwich in >1929. For his burial, in the column headed "If Purchased Grave" is >written P.G., which I presume stands for "Purchased Grave" but when his >wife was buried the entry in that column was "R.P.G." What does the R >stand for? > >There is a column headed "Class of Ground" and the entries seem to be >1st, 2nd or 3rd. (1st in my Grandfather's case.) Does this indicate >that some areas were considered more desirable (in what way?) than >others, or what? > >Something which seems odd to me is that a third person, an elderly man, >was buried in the same grave in 1937. I didn't recognize his name and a >few searches have not revealed that he had any relationship to my >GGGrandfather or his second wife. Can someone explain the circumstances >under which a "stranger" (if, indeed he was) could be interred in a plot >bought by someone else?

"Re-opened"? Barbara On Fri, 30 Oct 2015 15:00:53 +0000, Jenny M Benson <nemonews@hotmail.co.uk> wrote: >I have downloaded some records from Deceased Online, which include those >of my 2x Great Grandfather and his second wife. He was buried in 1915, >she was interred in the same grave at Charlton Cemetery, Greenwich in >1929. For his burial, in the column headed "If Purchased Grave" is >written P.G., which I presume stands for "Purchased Grave" but when his >wife was buried the entry in that column was "R.P.G." What does the R >stand for? > >There is a column headed "Class of Ground" and the entries seem to be >1st, 2nd or 3rd. (1st in my Grandfather's case.) Does this indicate >that some areas were considered more desirable (in what way?) than >others, or what? > >Something which seems odd to me is that a third person, an elderly man, >was buried in the same grave in 1937. I didn't recognize his name and a >few searches have not revealed that he had any relationship to my >GGGrandfather or his second wife. Can someone explain the circumstances >under which a "stranger" (if, indeed he was) could be interred in a plot >bought by someone else?

I have downloaded some records from Deceased Online, which include those of my 2x Great Grandfather and his second wife. He was buried in 1915, she was interred in the same grave at Charlton Cemetery, Greenwich in 1929. For his burial, in the column headed "If Purchased Grave" is written P.G., which I presume stands for "Purchased Grave" but when his wife was buried the entry in that column was "R.P.G." What does the R stand for? There is a column headed "Class of Ground" and the entries seem to be 1st, 2nd or 3rd. (1st in my Grandfather's case.) Does this indicate that some areas were considered more desirable (in what way?) than others, or what? Something which seems odd to me is that a third person, an elderly man, was buried in the same grave in 1937. I didn't recognize his name and a few searches have not revealed that he had any relationship to my GGGrandfather or his second wife. Can someone explain the circumstances under which a "stranger" (if, indeed he was) could be interred in a plot bought by someone else? -- Jenny M Benson

On 28/10/2015 15:03, Tim Powys-Lybbe via wrote: > On 27/10/2015 4:02 p.m., Anne Sherman wrote: >> Find My Past have just announced that the 1939 register will be available on from Monday 2nd November 2015. >> >> Records will be available to purchase for £6.95 per household, or £24.95 for a 5 household bundle (£4.99 per household). It seems a bit pricey but they did put a lot of work into it. >> >> Findmypast subscribers will be entitled to a discount. > I was wondering about that discount but did not see anything on the > announcement I received from FMP. > > FindMypast also got the 1911 census contract and set up a company to > market and charge for this. The charges were on a piece basis with > various discounts for quantity. > > I think that 1911-only site is only now being wound up. But very soon > FMP added 1911 census access to their normal subscriptions, as have > other genealogy data providers. > > What I wonder is how long it will be before FMP add the 1939 exercise to > their normal FMP data subscription. As a potential customer of that > data, I am happy not to buy access in a piecemeal fashion and await the > merge into the full subscription. > > Who knows any more? > I believe the contract is until 31/3/2024 with potential to extend for 4 further periods of 5 years each but the is no detail about exclusivity on the on line tender docs. I am not sure but think the 1911 carried a 5 year exclusivity period (from the time it went on line) and would assume a similar period for this. If that is the case I would suggest that it would be around the 3 year mark before it became part of the subscription site and a further 2 years or so before other on line companies could gain access to it. Cheers Guy

On 30/10/2015 12:31, Tony Proctor wrote: > "melanie chesnel"<mellychesnel@gmail.com> wrote in message > news:fc0e8fb8-8466-4453-a2fe-a474f39d5d80@googlegroups.com... > On Friday, October 30, 2015 at 1:35:50 AM UTC+1, Tickettyboo wrote: >> On 2015-10-28 16:49:52 +0000, Tony Proctor said: >> >>> "Tim Powys-Lybbe"<tim@powys.org> wrote in message >>> news:d9c6ebFnfjoU1@mid.individual.net... >>>> On 27/10/2015 4:02 p.m., Anne Sherman wrote: >>>>> Find My Past have just announced that the 1939 register will be >>>>> available on from Monday 2nd November 2015. >>>>> >>>>> Records will be available to purchase for £6.95 per household, or >>>>> £24.95 for a 5 household bundle (£4.99 per household). It seems a bit >>>>> pricey but they did put a lot of work into it. >>>>> >>>>> Findmypast subscribers will be entitled to a discount. >>>> >>>> I was wondering about that discount but did not see anything on the >>>> announcement I received from FMP. >>>> >>>> FindMypast also got the 1911 census contract and set up a company to >>>> market and charge for this. The charges were on a piece basis with >>>> various discounts for quantity. >>>> >>>> I think that 1911-only site is only now being wound up. But very soon >>>> FMP added 1911 census access to their normal subscriptions, as have >>>> other genealogy data providers. >>>> >>>> What I wonder is how long it will be before FMP add the 1939 exercise >>>> to their normal FMP data subscription. As a potential customer of that >>>> data, I am happy not to buy access in a piecemeal fashion and await the >>>> merge into the full subscription. >>>> >>>> Who knows any more? >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Tim Powys-Lybbe tim@powys.org >>>> for a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org/ >>> >>> I don't think there has been, or will be, any statement on that last >>> part yet Tim. I have seen mentions of 10% discount in the UK (whoopee!) >>> and 25% in AU. Chris Paton published a more recent PR from findmypast, >>> at >>> http://britishgenes.blogspot.ie/2015/10/english-and-welsh-1939-national.html, >>> which suggests the registers will be "searchable", but you pay-per-view >>> to "see the records". I'm especially interested in what the >>> search-results will actually contain. It has to be sufficient to ensure >>> you have the right household (in an ideal world) but less than the full >>> details. >>> >>> Tony Proctor >> >> As for the discount, I now have three emails.The first gave me the >> release date and said that as a subscriber (Britain only) I would be >> getting a discount of 25% on a bundle. >> >> That has been followed by a mail giving me a personal code, can only be >> used once, to buy 300 credits, enough for a bundle of 5 households, in >> advance of the release at a 25% discount. I've now done that and the >> 300 credits are showing in my subscriptions page and the cost was £18.71 >> >> The 3rd mail says I have a personal code to buy 300 credits at a 10% >> discount. I'll see what results I'll get with my first 300 credits >> before deciding whether or not to go ahead and attempt to use the >> second code. Not sure yet but I may well just try for the 5 households >> and be content with that until such time as the database is included in >> a sub. >> >> I'll be interested to see how out of date the 'redaction' for people >> who are still alive (? but under 100 years old) is. I have one family >> where all the members likely to be listed have all since died, but the >> last one to die was in May this year. I get the feeling her details >> won't show up. >> I will also be looking for a friend's Mum - who is a sprightly 104, >> she'll be tickled pink if her record is on there :-) >> -- >> Tickettyboo > > just a thought about financing the work done by FMP. When the original > census records were put on line lots of people could search for many > ancestors going back several generations and therefore buying lots of > credits which made buying a sub very economical. When the 1911 census was > published, because it was the most recent, covering my great grandparents > and grandparents generation, there were fewer ancestors I were looking for > in the records so If I had bought credits (which I didn't - I waited till > they were on my Ancestry sub) I would have needed far fewer to view all the > pages for my ancestors. This 'census' covers my parents and grand parents > and so I only need to look at 2 households, so why by credits for a bundle > of 5? I'm not sure FMP are going to make lots of money on this or even cover > their costs > regards melanie > > > That approach doesn't apply to everyone, though, Melanie. I look at the > descendants of all my direct antecedents, and so I have many households of > interest. Besides putting context to the lives of my own ancestors, this > often puts me in touch with distant relatives who have unpublished > information, or images, relevant to my own lines. > > There's also the "FAN principle" when attempting difficult research topics, > and I have at least two situations where I want to look at the "friends, > associates and neighbours" in order to solve specific problems. > > I don't think FMP had this in mind when they set the current pricing. I have > no choice but to wait until this data becomes available through > subscription, ... or win the lottery! > > Tony Proctor > > I think that sums it up pretty well. I don't think that the 1939 Register will tell me anything I don't already about those of my close family who were alive at the time (including some who are still alive and under 100 - whose entries will be redacted anyway). And casting the net wider would involve far more than five households. -- Cheers, Roger ____________ Please reply to Newsgroup. Whilst email address is valid, it is seldom checked.

On Friday, 30 October 2015 18:21:30 UTC, Jenny M Benson wrote: > On 30/10/2015 15:52, plainbob8@gmail.com wrote: > > I had a similar puzzle. It turned out to be caused by a > > mis-transcription of the grave reference (so the strangers were not > > actually buried in the same grave after all). Have you checked the > > register image? > > I haven't, simply because of the cost of doing so. I hadn't thought of > that, but now think it is a very strong possibility. > -- > Jenny M Benson Some registers record the depth of the burial. (I don't know whether Charlton does this). Each burial should be on top of previous burials, so if you compare the dates and depths of burials then you may be able to prove that there has been an error, even if the grave position is difficult to read.