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.) >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? >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". > >> 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. -- 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

In message <d9cnhiFrvk1U1@mid.individual.net>, Roger Mills <watt.tyler@gmail.com> writes: [] >The email which I received from FMP about the 1939 Register said: "As a >valued subscriber, we will be sending an exclusive code to you soon >which will entitle you to 25% off our 5 household bundle." (How simple do they think we are - "valued subscriber" indeed. I bet they don't have any non-valued ones ...) > >So, nothing off a single household but 25% off the "bundle". > >I, too, am keen to know how long it will be before this is included in >the UK subscription rather than needing to pay extra. How long was it for the 1911? -- 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 16:49, Tony Proctor wrote: > "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 > > The email which I received from FMP about the 1939 Register said: "As a valued subscriber, we will be sending an exclusive code to you soon which will entitle you to 25% off our 5 household bundle." So, nothing off a single household but 25% off the "bundle". I, too, am keen to know how long it will be before this is included in the UK subscription rather than needing to pay extra. -- Cheers, Roger ____________ Please reply to Newsgroup. Whilst email address is valid, it is seldom checked.

"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

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/

On 26/10/2015 1:29 p.m., eve via wrote: >>>> One of my most puzzling ones was a gg grandfather, whose family came >>>> from the Isle of Axholme. He lived in Hull, got married in Bath, and >>>> Came to Natal within a month of getting married. I wondered how he >>>> came to meet his wife, as Hull and Bath seem quite far apart. The Bath >>>> family were from Belfast, and seem to have been from quite settled >>>> farmers in Ballynure before the 19th century, when they scattered to >>>> Quebec, Mauritius, Bath and Durban. >>>> >>> >>> Hull was an major port and trading centre. It's not unusual for >>> inhabitants of trading centres to have far-flung connections. Maybe >>> Bristol would have been the common meeting ground. > > Good point. Hull was also home to a number of @Hamburg merchants' so > you might get the odd Anglo-German marriage. > And Basth was a spa town, where vaguely ill people from all over the place > went to achieve a cure -if they could afford it. There are surpsising numbers > of families with roots in Northumberland and Durham who flee to Bath for the > winter. Just possibly, your man chased a local girl whose family were 'taking > the waters' originally, but changed his mind when the irish lass met his eye. > >>> >> >> I found the link for my gg-grand parents quite fortuitiously, he was a >> barrister's clerk in London (Middle Temple) and she was the daughter of >> a wine & spirits merchant in York. The barrister was a chap called John >> Cowling who worked the northern circuit which included York. I >> discovered it because my gg-grandfather was missing from home in one of >> the censuses and turned up in the same digs as his employer in Liverpool. > > Barristers got around everywhere. I am still chasing the totally unsuitable > marriage of a barrister, James O Griffits, (sic) later a judge, to an East End > girl in the 1850s. Nowhere in London, apparently, could be anywhere in the > country (and maybe recorded as Griffith/s. Am beginning to wonder if it > happened (and what happened to her after having two children. He didn't > marry again (to a rich girl) till he was pushing 60. I do hope Mrs G No 1 was > dead by then. > EVE And then there was servant migration. In 1861 my gt-g-m was 10 and the daughter of an ostler (looked after nags in an inn) in Newmarket. In 1871 she was a servant and a nurse with a family a few miles away in Suffolk. In 1881 she was in Boulogne, France and married to my gt-g-f, who had been widowed about 18 months previously. My suspicion is that she had been hired as a servant for an expected child for my gt-g-f's first wife and stayed to keep the bed warm. Later in that year she gave birth to my g-f. Servants used to travel many miles to or with their employing families; they could not, mostly, get married and then stay in the job so marriage led to repeated job vacancies in the household and needed more migration. As a rough rule of thumb it was mainly clergymen who had servants in their house from the local area. Exceptions excepted of course! -- Tim Powys-Lybbe tim@powys.org for a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org/

On 27/10/2015 21:50, Charles Ellson wrote: > On Tue, 27 Oct 2015 19:42:59 +0000, MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote: > >> On 27/10/2015 19:21, Charles Ellson wrote: >>> Descriptions of parents can be less certain with e.g. some people >>> described as born in Canada who were actually born elsewhere but moved >>> to the USA after living in Canada for some time. Also some parents >>> managed to forget which children were born "back home" and which in >>> their new country, usually only affecting one child. >> >> >> Can be as bad enough on our censuses. My GG Grandmother is described as >> born Ireland, America, Quebec, Canada on various censuses so I still do >> not know where she was born. >> > There is a particular problem at various times of people born in > Ireland changing their declared birthplace. My great-grandmother's > husband and his siblings were born in Dungannon but by 1901 were > giving their birthplaces variously as Glasgow, Stranraer or (for my > ggm's husband) Wigtown. OTOH my 3g gf is listed as born in Ireland > with one exception of 1871 when his birthplace was given as the > neighbouring parish in Invernessshire which I suspect was more likely > an error by the enumerator or maybe his daughter ("Was your father > born locally as well ?"?). > One of my g-grandfather's brother's birthplace is variously listed as Sheffield, Scarborough or Yarmouth in various censuses, in fact, like his siblings, he was born in Camden. -- Graeme Wall This account not read, substitute trains for rail.

On Tue, 27 Oct 2015 19:42:59 +0000, MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote: >On 27/10/2015 19:21, Charles Ellson wrote: >> Descriptions of parents can be less certain with e.g. some people >> described as born in Canada who were actually born elsewhere but moved >> to the USA after living in Canada for some time. Also some parents >> managed to forget which children were born "back home" and which in >> their new country, usually only affecting one child. > > >Can be as bad enough on our censuses. My GG Grandmother is described as >born Ireland, America, Quebec, Canada on various censuses so I still do >not know where she was born. > There is a particular problem at various times of people born in Ireland changing their declared birthplace. My great-grandmother's husband and his siblings were born in Dungannon but by 1901 were giving their birthplaces variously as Glasgow, Stranraer or (for my ggm's husband) Wigtown. OTOH my 3g gf is listed as born in Ireland with one exception of 1871 when his birthplace was given as the neighbouring parish in Invernessshire which I suspect was more likely an error by the enumerator or maybe his daughter ("Was your father born locally as well ?"?).

On Tue, 27 Oct 2015 09:29:39 +0000, Guy Etchells via <genbrit@rootsweb.com> wrote: >On 27/10/2015 00:38, Charles Ellson via wrote: > >> Or transfer of the records to somewhere outwith the control of the >> relevant Registrar General ? >> >How could that be achieved at present any place that contains the >central registers is deemed to be part of the GRO and under the control >of the Registrar General? > Any previous legislative requirement is generally alterable by a later one.

On 26/10/15 18:44, melanie chesnel wrote: > On Monday, October 26, 2015 at 7:33:51 PM UTC+1, melanie chesnel wrote: >> On Monday, October 26, 2015 at 11:42:30 AM UTC+1, Ian Goddard wrote: >>> On 25/10/15 17:44, melanie chesnel wrote: >>> >>>> Just think stone masons building castles and cathederals v. ag labs >>> >>> Ag labs, hired from year to year with no home of their own could have >>> been quite mobile. >>> >> I quite agree I was thinking more when ag labs were serfs tied to the manor - I suppose I shouldn't have used the 19th century abbreviation when thinking of the middle ages. I think there may have been another factor at work in the medieval & Tudor period, the manorial administration moving people about. 1. I think my Goddard line probably originated in Cowick on the lower reaches of the Aire with a Godard living there in the C13th. By the 1360s they'd reached Rotherham and in the 1379 poll tax there was only one male adult of the name listed in the entire W Riding - I don't know what had happened in Cowick itself although they do seem to have survived the initial onslaught of the Black Death there. He was living just SE of Rotherham. By the early C15th they were in Sheffield which was only a few miles away from Rotherham but in 1425 a Christopher Goddard was included in a list of people living in Emley & Skelmanthorpe about 30 miles to the west. I think the connection was the FitzWilliams who held Emley as a sub-manor of Wakefield but also had holdings around the Rotherham area. 2. The Dearnleys lost their hold on their eponymous settlement near Rochdale in the 1440s after it passed into a female line & ended up around Glossop, Derbyshire. Subsequently at least one branch of the family was across the Pennines around S Yorks and adjoining parts of Derbyshire. Some of them seem to have been connected with the Talbots who had land there but were also lords of the manor of Glossop. 3. The Knutton family would appear to have their name derived from a village of that name in Staffordshire. However the surname is only known east of the Pennines. The early distribution (back to the early 1400s) seems to be around Chesterfield with a very thin scatter through adjacent parts of Nottinghamshire and north into S Yorks. Some of these records are of wills but others are part of the Foljambe documents and although I haven't gone into great detail it looks as if these areas are where the Foljambes had interests. The Foljambes were important in the administration of the Peak District in connection with which they would have been active as far over as Knutton. I think in all these cases individuals of high feudal status were moving tenants around to meet their requirements. Much the same thing seems to have happened to Graham Norton's ancestors as I recall from WDYTYA, in that case moving them from Yorks to Ireland. -- Hotmail is my spam bin. Real address is ianng at austonley org uk

On 27/10/2015 13:19, johnfhhgen via wrote: > On 26/10/2015 10:41 PM, J. P. Gilliver (John) via wrote: >> In message <n0m5p6$bkv$2@dont-email.me>, Graeme Wall >> <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> writes: >>> On 26/10/2015 20:58, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote: >> [] >>>> I'm not at all sure what sort of transport was available to the poor. >>>> How would they undertake a large journey - not only the means of >>>> transport (horse or on foot), but where they'd overnight (either >>>> mode of >>>> transport - especially carrying all their goods and chattels, even if >>>> they didn't have many - wouldn't cover many miles in a day) - isn't >>>> clear to me. I'm _assuming_ stagecoach and the like was far beyond most >>>> people. >>> Walking for many of them, ox-cart for the lucky ones and those with >>> large loads. Average speed of the latter would be 2mph if they were >>> lucky. As for overnights, under a hedge or in a barn. Pilgrimage >>> routes had shelters at appropriate intervals. There's one on the North >>> Downs route to Canterbury that still exists near Maidstone. >>> >> So how did they feed themselves - let alone any animals - on a long >> journey? 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.) > For Norfolk to Northumberland, sea passage was always a possibility. As > well as fishing, for that particular route there was coal traffic from > the 16th.century if not earlier (coals to Newcastle!) > 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. > Not to mention stones from South Wales to Salisbury Plain. -- Graeme Wall This account not read, substitute trains for rail.

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. -- Hotmail is my spam bin. Real address is ianng at austonley org uk

On 27/10/15 17:33, Percival P. Cassidy wrote: > Did US census records distinguish England, Wales, Scotland, and Northern > Ireland separately as "country of birth"? Or could "England" in, e.g., > the 1900 census cover all parts of the UK? As with any genealogical record much depends on what the respondent said - filtered through what the clerk understood to have been said. A long time ago I found what appeared to be my ggfather's brother & his wife in Sydney in the Australian census but they recorded themselves as having been born there so I was inclined to dismiss it as coincidence. Much later I pieced together the evidence that they must have set off for Australia almost immediately after their wedding. -- Hotmail is my spam bin. Real address is ianng at austonley org uk

On 27/10/2015 19:21, Charles Ellson wrote: > Descriptions of parents can be less certain with e.g. some people > described as born in Canada who were actually born elsewhere but moved > to the USA after living in Canada for some time. Also some parents > managed to forget which children were born "back home" and which in > their new country, usually only affecting one child. Can be as bad enough on our censuses. My GG Grandmother is described as born Ireland, America, Quebec, Canada on various censuses so I still do not know where she was born.

On Tue, 27 Oct 2015 13:33:15 -0400, "Percival P. Cassidy" <Nobody@NotMyISP.net> wrote: >Did US census records distinguish England, Wales, Scotland, and Northern >Ireland separately as "country of birth"? Or could "England" in, e.g., >the 1900 census cover all parts of the UK? > It probably depended on the enumerator's understanding of the difference and who (e.g. sometimes a person not related to the subject of the record) supplied the information. IIRC I've only seen one out of dozens which incorrectly had "England" instead of "Scotland". Descriptions of parents can be less certain with e.g. some people described as born in Canada who were actually born elsewhere but moved to the USA after living in Canada for some time. Also some parents managed to forget which children were born "back home" and which in their new country, usually only affecting one child.

On 10/27/2015 3:54 PM, Don Kirkman wrote: > On Tue, 27 Oct 2015 13:33:15 -0400, "Percival P. Cassidy" > <Nobody@NotMyISP.net> wrote: > >> Did US census records distinguish England, Wales, Scotland, and Northern >> Ireland separately as "country of birth"? Or could "England" in, e.g., >> the 1900 census cover all parts of the UK? > > US Census records are mostly self-reported to a pollster, and from a > number of years of census searches it seems to largely depend on the > family head's memory or preferences. > In the US, it also depends on what the census taker understands of what he was told. I have a 2nd great grandfather whose father was born in Philadelphia Pa. This information is from his parents bible which I have, and all census except the 1880 census. In that census his father's parents are listed as being from England. I know that my father, and grandfather loved to talk, so assume it was inherited from from my 2nd great grandfather. On this assumption, the census taker arrived at a time when things were slack on the farm. He asked my 2nd GG about his family and my 2nd GG gave him the complete story. Telling the census taker that his father was born in Philadelphia, and his grand parents were born in England. After a time the census taker realizes that he is getting behind schedule and eventual gets out to his buggy. As he drove away he realized he did not record the birth place of the parent. He thought about it, remembered someone was born in England and that is what used to answer those to questions.

The 1939 National registration will be released on Monday the 2nd November Cost £6.95 per household or £24.95 for their 5 household bundle (£4.99 per household) Cheers Guy

On Tuesday, 27 October 2015 21:04:07 UTC, Ian Goddard wrote: > On 26/10/15 18:44, melanie chesnel wrote: > > On Monday, October 26, 2015 at 7:33:51 PM UTC+1, melanie chesnel wrote: > >> On Monday, October 26, 2015 at 11:42:30 AM UTC+1, Ian Goddard wrote: > >>> On 25/10/15 17:44, melanie chesnel wrote: > >>> > >>>> Just think stone masons building castles and cathederals v. ag labs > >>> > >>> Ag labs, hired from year to year with no home of their own could have > >>> been quite mobile. > >>> > >> I quite agree I was thinking more when ag labs were serfs tied to the manor - I suppose I shouldn't have used the 19th century abbreviation when thinking of the middle ages. > > I think there may have been another factor at work in the medieval & > Tudor period, the manorial administration moving people about. Ian, I would absolutely agree with you on that. Not merely for family estates, but probably also for monastic ones. It would be interesting to see whether DNA evidence could show that (unfortunately, DNA studies so far have just mirrored what we already know). And at a more local level of movement. My impression from surname clusters is that they followed manorial boundaries rather than parochial ones. My impression from 17th & 18th century evidence is that richer families were able to buy or marry into customary tenements for younger children within the manor, so knocking out chances for less fortunate families; while landlords tended to look for tenants who were reliable (and wouldn't over-plough), namely individuals or families that they already knew. Both dynamics narrow the DNA pool. 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. > > -- > Hotmail is my spam bin. Real address is ianng > at austonley org uk Thank you. It's not impressive in terms of work - with an online index it only takes a few minutes to compile - but it is impressive in nailing the 1623 famine. Leaving aside the 1621 anomaly (and any potential methodological error ), the figures might suggest that people who were vulnerable died slightly before their time. A 1623-5 breakdown might otherwise have looked more like 50/50/50. And that raises a question of why they died. If these are mainly older people, then one could see maybe three options: that a lack of food was disastrous in comparison to younger and healthier individuals; that they were not fed deliberately to save the rest of the family; or that they chose to starve. If they are mainly younger, then it suggests that people were living much closer to the edge of life than one might expect. Furthermore, if the deceased were past the child-bearing part of life, then that might explain why famines (and mild 'plague' outbreaks perhaps) didn't have such a great impact on population growth. Chris

Did US census records distinguish England, Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland separately as "country of birth"? Or could "England" in, e.g., the 1900 census cover all parts of the UK? Perce