"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

Ian Goddard wrote: > This link was posted in s.g.computing > > http://www.legacy.com/obituaries/washingtonpost/obituary.aspx?n=CHERYL-H-SINGHAL&pid=173768975 > > RIP Cheryl > I wondered why she stopped posting a while back. RIP Cheryl -- Anne Chambers South Australia anne dot chambers at bigpond dot com

On Friday, 30 October 2015 15:00:55 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. > 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 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?

Bob Campbell via <genbrit@rootsweb.com> Wrote in message: > I have just received via mail a record stating that at the age of 14/15 an > ancestor George Lake PICKERING "ran away to sea" in 1823. > My question being, are there any records online, Royal Navy or merchant > seaman crew lists from this period? > 5 years later in 1828 George Lake PICKERING was back in London getting > married and remained in London/Surrey for the remainder of his life. > > Cheers from > Bob in Brisbane > > Sounds as likely as one of mine, Bob. He is supposed to have taken a dislike to his stepfather, fired a gun at him, then ran away to sea and came back a captain. the truth is that his father was a captain. The son was a merchant who married then emigrated to South Australia in the usual way. But you have a "record."How believable is it? Doug in Bendigo, Vic. --

"Ian Goddard" <goddai01@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message news:d9fkafFjt78U2@mid.individual.net... > This link was posted in s.g.computing > > http://www.legacy.com/obituaries/washingtonpost/obituary.aspx?n=CHERYL-H-SINGHAL&pid=173768975 > > RIP Cheryl > > -- > Hotmail is my spam bin. Real address is ianng > at austonley org uk Sad, but I mentioned that earlier this year (also on s.g.computing) since I had been trying to get in touch with her about a much earlier post she'd made. Tony

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

On Friday, October 30, 2015 at 7:17:46 AM UTC+1, melanie chesnel wrote: > 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 is obviously buy not by - this keyboard is useless, when I type quickly some letters don't register despite me touching them!! That's my excuse and I am sticking to it regards melanie

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

[] >>>>> 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? >>> >>> Before the dissolution there were many religious houses dotted all >>> round the countryside. >>> >> Were there enough, and with that generosity-to-travellers policy, that >> it was in fact possible to travel just using them? > >The fact they existed at all would seem to suggest they were reasonably >widespread. [] 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? -- 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

This link was posted in s.g.computing http://www.legacy.com/obituaries/washingtonpost/obituary.aspx?n=CHERYL-H-SINGHAL&pid=173768975 RIP Cheryl -- Hotmail is my spam bin. Real address is ianng at austonley org uk

On 28/10/2015 21:30, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote: > In message <n0rdtc$gll$2@dont-email.me>, Graeme Wall > <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> writes: > [] >> Both horses and oxen eat grass, not usually in short supply. If you >> can afford to own either you can probably afford the costs of feeding >> them at the various hostelries en route. >> > You're probably right. I was imagining that most poor people could > indeed not afford such. >>> >>>> 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? >> >> Before the dissolution there were many religious houses dotted all >> round the countryside. >> > Were there enough, and with that generosity-to-travellers policy, that > it was in fact possible to travel just using them? The fact they existed at all would seem to suggest they were reasonably widespread. > [] >>> I'm thinking of greater distances than that: I assume the large markets >>> some places were known for would have a limited "catchment radius". >> >> Some droves were very long, from Scotland to Yorkshire for example. >> > That is interesting! Though I presume the drovers were mostly fit young > men, not able to take their families with them as they drove (is that > the right word!). > [] Quite probably. -- Graeme Wall This account not read, substitute trains for rail.

On 28/10/2015 21:15, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote: > In message <mailman.1.1445975737.30538.genbrit@rootsweb.com>, johnfhhgen > via <genbrit@rootsweb.com> writes: > [] >> For Norfolk to Northumberland, sea passage was always a possibility. As > > (As another has said, my ancestors probably were too late for this > discussion. But let's proceed anyway, as I for one find it interesting:) > >> well as fishing, for that particular route there was coal traffic from >> the 16th.century if not earlier (coals to Newcastle!) > > Well, I guess the boats that took coals from Newcastle had to go back > the other way! > >> Sea passage was always a possibility for anywhere in reasonable reach >> of the coast. In earlier times places now thought of as "inland" were >> also ports - e.g. Norwich, Gloucester, and so on. >> From late 17th.cent increasing number of places linked by canal. >> Water was the transport of choice for goods from time immemorial - >> think of stone and timber for castles and cathedrals. > > I've always thought of canal traffic as goods rather than passengers ... There were specific passenger boats which had a team of two or more horses to give them faster passage. They carried a scythe blade on the bow to cut the tow ropes of ordinary barges that didn't drop them in time! -- Graeme Wall This account not read, substitute trains for rail.

In message <qcl23bh0j08dhpur3sr8dl4nl9fjj55spd@4ax.com>, brightside S9 <address@replyto_is_not.invalid> writes: >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 > Thanks - most interesting! However, I think from reading that that it was more a novelty excursion matter, and/or wouldn't be cheap enough for the penniless traveller (especially with lots of children). -- 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

I have just received via mail a record stating that at the age of 14/15 an ancestor George Lake PICKERING "ran away to sea" in 1823. My question being, are there any records online, Royal Navy or merchant seaman crew lists from this period? 5 years later in 1828 George Lake PICKERING was back in London getting married and remained in London/Surrey for the remainder of his life. Cheers from Bob in Brisbane

On Thursday, 29 October 2015 22:18:58 UTC, Ian Goddard wrote: > This link was posted in s.g.computing > > http://www.legacy.com/obituaries/washingtonpost/obituary.aspx?n=CHERYL-H-SINGHAL&pid=173768975 > > RIP Cheryl > > -- > Hotmail is my spam bin. Real address is ianng > at austonley org uk I'm very sorry about that. And only 70 years of age. RIP Cheryl.

This was also in the local newspapers. Leith singer tracks down lion tamer ancestor in Inverness http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-highlands-islands-34638054

On Wed, 28 Oct 2015 21:30:27 +0000, "J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG@soft255.demon.co.uk> wrote: >In message <n0rdtc$gll$2@dont-email.me>, Graeme Wall ><rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> writes: >[] >>Both horses and oxen eat grass, not usually in short supply. If you >>can afford to own either you can probably afford the costs of feeding >>them at the various hostelries en route. >> >You're probably right. I was imagining that most poor people could >indeed not afford such. >>> >>>> 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? >> >>Before the dissolution there were many religious houses dotted all >>round the countryside. >> >Were there enough, and with that generosity-to-travellers policy, that >it was in fact possible to travel just using them? >[] >>> I'm thinking of greater distances than that: I assume the large markets >>> some places were known for would have a limited "catchment radius". >> >>Some droves were very long, from Scotland to Yorkshire for example. >> >That is interesting! Though I presume the drovers were mostly fit young >men, not able to take their families with them as they drove (is that >the right word!). > You wouldn't take the family if your "winter wife" was at the other end of the journey. ;-)

In message <n0rdtc$gll$2@dont-email.me>, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> writes: [] >Both horses and oxen eat grass, not usually in short supply. If you >can afford to own either you can probably afford the costs of feeding >them at the various hostelries en route. > You're probably right. I was imagining that most poor people could indeed not afford such. >> >>> 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? > >Before the dissolution there were many religious houses dotted all >round the countryside. > Were there enough, and with that generosity-to-travellers policy, that it was in fact possible to travel just using them? [] >> I'm thinking of greater distances than that: I assume the large markets >> some places were known for would have a limited "catchment radius". > >Some droves were very long, from Scotland to Yorkshire for example. > That is interesting! Though I presume the drovers were mostly fit young men, not able to take their families with them as they drove (is that the right word!). [] -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf I am the person for whom 'one size fits all' never fits. - Chris McMillan in UMRA, 2011-11-12

On 28/10/2015 21:08, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote: > In message <n0namg$j32$2@dont-email.me>, Graeme Wall > <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> writes: >> On 26/10/2015 22:41, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote: > [poor people travelling long distances] >>> So how did they feed themselves - let alone any animals - on a long >>> journey? >> >> Assuming the animals aren't cats and dogs they'd forage for themselves, > > (I was thinking of horse, ox, or whatever they might be using to help > them travel, rather than chattel animals such as livestock. Basically, > analogous to fuel for a car today.) Both horses and oxen eat grass, not usually in short supply. If you can afford to own either you can probably afford the costs of feeding them at the various hostelries en route. > >> 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? Before the dissolution there were many religious houses dotted all round the countryside. > >> south of Winchester, still operates the system but you have to be on >> foot to qualify. >> >> Talking of animals, another way of lower classes meeting over great >> distances was the cattle/sheep droves taking animals to a big city. > > I'm thinking of greater distances than that: I assume the large markets > some places were known for would have a limited "catchment radius". Some droves were very long, from Scotland to Yorkshire for example. >> >>> A journey from, say, Norfolk to Northumberland would take >>> months at the above rate. (I have such in mine, a sudden widow with >>> about 9 children, but that was somewhere in 1882-1891, so probably >>> easier by then.) >> >> Got proper roads and railways by then so a lot easier. >> > Yes, I thought that was probably a red herring. -- Graeme Wall This account not read, substitute trains for rail.

In message <mailman.1.1445975737.30538.genbrit@rootsweb.com>, johnfhhgen via <genbrit@rootsweb.com> writes: [] >For Norfolk to Northumberland, sea passage was always a possibility. As (As another has said, my ancestors probably were too late for this discussion. But let's proceed anyway, as I for one find it interesting:) >well as fishing, for that particular route there was coal traffic from >the 16th.century if not earlier (coals to Newcastle!) Well, I guess the boats that took coals from Newcastle had to go back the other way! >Sea passage was always a possibility for anywhere in reasonable reach >of the coast. In earlier times places now thought of as "inland" were >also ports - e.g. Norwich, Gloucester, and so on. >From late 17th.cent increasing number of places linked by canal. >Water was the transport of choice for goods from time immemorial - >think of stone and timber for castles and cathedrals. I've always thought of canal traffic as goods rather than passengers ... > >The less affluent, if fit and healthy, could presumably 'work their >passage'. ... with the canal boat operator and his one or two crew being sufficient for the labour required. But you may be right - especially perhaps for seagoing vessels rather than canal-. Though presumably, as you say, limited to fit and healthy - a young widow with a gaggle of children, say, probably couldn't move. > >Regards, >John Henley > -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf I am the person for whom 'one size fits all' never fits. - Chris McMillan in UMRA, 2011-11-12