On 7/21/2013 6:38 PM, Renia wrote: > On 22/07/2013 01:40, Dexter Kenfield wrote: > >> >> I have looked at the burial entries in parish registers that are >> available to me on-line. That allowed me to eliminate two other >> possible candidates, just as you suggest. But I haven't found >> anything identifiable as relating to these people. >> >> One of the limitations, obviously, is that the records available to >> me on-line are incomplete. I primarily use familysearch.org and >> Ancestry.com, supplemented from time to time by various other >> sources. > > A reminder that there are far more burial records which are NOT on the > internet than are on the internet. The same applies to baptism and other > records. Your ancestor's baptism may not even be online. You can only go > from what you know to what you don't know. Guessing and "the name's the > same" won't help you. Completely understood. I've had a researcher in London working on this for some time, as well. And if you've seen my prior posts about William and his voyage to New York, on a vessel chartered by the government called the LYON or LION OF DUBLIN or similar, you'll know that I also am very familiar with a wide range of off-line resources. I've been at this for a long time. But your reminder is something to always keep in mind. I hear that more Sussex/Surrey records may become available on-line soon, although I don't have all the details. But I know there is a lot more not available there, which is exactly why posting here can lead to more info. Maybe even records or other sources I've never even heard of. The resources available through groups like this often are hard to conceive of. Tracking people forward is always extra-difficult, and even when the name is rare, like Canfield, I know that mere name matches alone don't generally suffice. I have, in fact, been able to rule out some candidates by matching up various records, and I even have a possible marriage for one of these people, but not enough to match them up. Dexter