The following poem was posted on one of the genealogy newsgroups over a month ago. I finally forwarded it to a cousin who very much would like to contact the author, for permission to put it in the family genealogy newsletter. I would appreciate it very much if the person who posted it would please contact me. Mary Gossage aethel@flash.net ========== posted as: A cute Genealogy pome ================ I went searching for an ancestor, I cannot find him still. He moved around from place to place and did not leave a will. He married where a courthouse burned. He mended all his fences. He avoided any man who came to take the U.S. census. He always kept his luggage packed, this man who had no fame. And every 20 years or so, this rascal changed his name. His parents came from Europe. They should be upon some list of passengers to the USA, but somehow they got missed. And no one else in this world is searching for this man. So, I play Geneosolitaire to find him if I can. I'm told he's buried in a plot, with tombstone he was blessed; but the weather took engraving, and some vandals took the rest. He died before the county clerks decided to keep records. No family Bible has emerged, in spite of all my efforts. To top it off, this ancestor, who caused me many groans, Just to give me one more pain, betrothed a girl named Jones.

On 09/12/2017 01:18, Joe Roberts wrote: > "Steve Hayes" wrote: >> Tim Powys-Lybbe wrote: >> >>> On 09/11/2017 4:13 am, Steve Hayes wrote: >>>> The last couple of times I've been to the Find-a-Grave site I've been >>>> taken to the new one, and have pretty quickly switched back to the >>>> old, because the new one is so difficult to use, mainly because it's >>>> much harder to read on screen. >>>> >>>> My review here: >>>> >>>> https://t.co/KVyo9ZxFIq >>>> >>>> It's fine for people to update web sites, provided the new one is >>>> better than the old, but in this case they should have heeded the old >>>> motto: if it ain't broke, don't fix it. >>> >>> The new search facilities are fine except for one tiny problem: they >>> are, for me anyhow, restricted to the USA and Canada, nothing in the >>> British Isles. >> >> I haven't tried searching with the new one, because I find it too >> difficult to read what's on the screen to even find out how to do it. >> >> -- >> Steve Hayes >> http://www.khanya.org.za/stevesig.htm >> http://khanya.wordpress.com > > > Regarding the new Find-a-Grave site: > > I'll be brief. It's awful. > > On the old site, each person's Memorial page was concise and complete. It > offered clear links to more information and sources if desired. > > The new site shows less, and now requires more clicks to go hunting for > anything else that "might" be there. > > It appears to be a way for displaying advertising. > > Do they care? > They certainly care for the advertising. -- Graeme Wall This account not read.

On Sun, 3 Dec 2017 18:44:47 +0000, Tim Powys-Lybbe <tim@powys.org> wrote: >On 09/11/2017 4:13 am, Steve Hayes wrote: >> The last couple of times I've been to the Find-a-Grave site I've been >> taken to the new one, and have pretty quickly switched back to the >> old, because the new one is so difficult to use, mainly because it's >> much harder to read on screen. >> >> My review here: >> >> https://t.co/KVyo9ZxFIq >> >> It's fine for people to update web sites, provided the new one is >> better than the old, but in this case they should have heeded the old >> motto: if it ain't broke, don't fix it. > >The new search facilities are fine except for one tiny problem: they >are, for me anyhow, restricted to the USA and Canada, nothing in the >British Isles. I haven't tried searching with the new one, because I find it too difficult to read what's on the screen to even find out how to do it. -- Steve Hayes http://www.khanya.org.za/stevesig.htm http://khanya.wordpress.com

"Steve Hayes" wrote: > Tim Powys-Lybbe wrote: > >>On 09/11/2017 4:13 am, Steve Hayes wrote: >>> The last couple of times I've been to the Find-a-Grave site I've been >>> taken to the new one, and have pretty quickly switched back to the >>> old, because the new one is so difficult to use, mainly because it's >>> much harder to read on screen. >>> >>> My review here: >>> >>> https://t.co/KVyo9ZxFIq >>> >>> It's fine for people to update web sites, provided the new one is >>> better than the old, but in this case they should have heeded the old >>> motto: if it ain't broke, don't fix it. >> >>The new search facilities are fine except for one tiny problem: they >>are, for me anyhow, restricted to the USA and Canada, nothing in the >>British Isles. > > I haven't tried searching with the new one, because I find it too > difficult to read what's on the screen to even find out how to do it. > > -- > Steve Hayes > http://www.khanya.org.za/stevesig.htm > http://khanya.wordpress.com Regarding the new Find-a-Grave site: I'll be brief. It's awful. On the old site, each person's Memorial page was concise and complete. It offered clear links to more information and sources if desired. The new site shows less, and now requires more clicks to go hunting for anything else that "might" be there. It appears to be a way for displaying advertising. Do they care? Joe

On 09/11/2017 4:13 am, Steve Hayes wrote: > The last couple of times I've been to the Find-a-Grave site I've been > taken to the new one, and have pretty quickly switched back to the > old, because the new one is so difficult to use, mainly because it's > much harder to read on screen. > > My review here: > > https://t.co/KVyo9ZxFIq > > It's fine for people to update web sites, provided the new one is > better than the old, but in this case they should have heeded the old > motto: if it ain't broke, don't fix it. The new search facilities are fine except for one tiny problem: they are, for me anyhow, restricted to the USA and Canada, nothing in the British Isles. -- Tim Powys-Lybbe tim@powys.org for a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org/

On Thu, 30 Nov 2017 00:04:03 +0000, Charles Ellson <ce11son@yahoo.ca> wrote: >On Tue, 28 Nov 2017 07:49:01 +0200, Steve Hayes ><hayesstw@telkomsa.net> wrote: > >>On Tue, 21 Nov 2017 19:15:28 +0000, Ian Goddard >><goddai01@hotmail.co.uk> wrote: >> >>>> My question is: >>>> >>>> Which denomination, operating in Wingate in County Durham in 1869, >>>> recorded the race of people being baptised, but not the name of the >>>> mother? >>>> >>>> Or is this not actually a transcription at all, but just some clown >>>> entering stuff that isn't there, and leaving out stuff that is there? >>>> >>>> An image of the register was not available when I looked, but I wonder >>>> if anyone who has access to that particular record can confirm that it >>>> mentioned the race, but not the name of the mother. >>>> >>>> I accept that transcroptions can be inaccurate, but transcribers >>>> making stuff up is somwething else. >>> >>>I think what happens is that a transcriber has an input screen which >>>doesn't clear between entries; they just overtype the names & dates and, >>>supposedly the parish when they start on a new parish or church. The >>>reason I think this happens is that I've seen transcriptions where they >>>appear to have switched from one church to another and end up with a >>>field like Residence Place displaying contents from another parish - >>>they've just not noticed that they've run onto a new batch of data. >>> >>>It looks as if, in this case, they've strayed onto Wingate from some >>>other place where race would be a field to capture. >> >>That's quite possible, I suppose. >> >>Another question related to this is that they quite often put in a >>"Residence" field, but After looking at a number of them I am quite >>sceptical about this, because I don't think it is transcribed from the >>"Abode" field of CofE registers, but rather taken from the location of >>the parish church itself. >> >>This can be misleading, as people sometimes lived some distance from >>the parish church. Where FamilySearch make an image available (which >>they sometimes do), I try to check the Abode and Occupation fields, >>but this is not always possible. >> >The current qualification for local residence in England WRT marriage >is only seven days so that detail has to be taken with a pinch of >salt. >[http://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN00644/SN00644.pdf] >Lower mobility in the past might have >might ^H^H^H^H^H made >that detail resemble the >facts somewhat better but IME it still often has to be interpreted as >e.g. "he/she would be resident here if he/she wasn't permanently(-ish) >employed in <another place>".

On 28/11/17 16:35, Steve Hayes wrote: > Is ruling in the genes? All presidents bar one are directly descended > from a medieval English king > > 12-year-old girl created family tree linking 42 of 43 U.S. > presidents to King John of England, who signed Magna Carta in 1215 > Only eighth president, Martin Van Buren, was not related to John > > By Snejana Farberov > > Published: 02:14 GMT, 5 August 2012 | Updated: 05:58 GMT, 5 August > 2012 The "Royals" family tree goes back to Queen Victoria, who was claimed to be related to all the European royal families. Prince Charles claimed descent from Vlad the Impaler, the "original Dracula." He had the title Dracul, meaning Dragon. To the story that a noble living in Jerilderie Australia was the true heir to the throne, tracing back to Richard III, one reply pointed out that there are breaks in descent going back to Norman times. William claimed the throne in right of his wife, who had Alfred the Great in her tree. (I am limited to 3 groups. That should be plenty.) Doug.

On Tue, 28 Nov 2017 07:49:01 +0200, Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> wrote: >On Tue, 21 Nov 2017 19:15:28 +0000, Ian Goddard ><goddai01@hotmail.co.uk> wrote: > >>> My question is: >>> >>> Which denomination, operating in Wingate in County Durham in 1869, >>> recorded the race of people being baptised, but not the name of the >>> mother? >>> >>> Or is this not actually a transcription at all, but just some clown >>> entering stuff that isn't there, and leaving out stuff that is there? >>> >>> An image of the register was not available when I looked, but I wonder >>> if anyone who has access to that particular record can confirm that it >>> mentioned the race, but not the name of the mother. >>> >>> I accept that transcroptions can be inaccurate, but transcribers >>> making stuff up is somwething else. >> >>I think what happens is that a transcriber has an input screen which >>doesn't clear between entries; they just overtype the names & dates and, >>supposedly the parish when they start on a new parish or church. The >>reason I think this happens is that I've seen transcriptions where they >>appear to have switched from one church to another and end up with a >>field like Residence Place displaying contents from another parish - >>they've just not noticed that they've run onto a new batch of data. >> >>It looks as if, in this case, they've strayed onto Wingate from some >>other place where race would be a field to capture. > >That's quite possible, I suppose. > >Another question related to this is that they quite often put in a >"Residence" field, but After looking at a number of them I am quite >sceptical about this, because I don't think it is transcribed from the >"Abode" field of CofE registers, but rather taken from the location of >the parish church itself. > >This can be misleading, as people sometimes lived some distance from >the parish church. Where FamilySearch make an image available (which >they sometimes do), I try to check the Abode and Occupation fields, >but this is not always possible. > The current qualification for local residence in England WRT marriage is only seven days so that detail has to be taken with a pinch of salt. [http://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN00644/SN00644.pdf] Lower mobility in the past might have might that detail resemble the facts somewhat better but IME it still often has to be interpreted as e.g. "he/she would be resident here if he/she wasn't permanently(-ish) employed in <another place>".

On 28/11/17 11:05, Richard Smith wrote: > I'm not sure it's true that the early immigrants had higher social > status at home.  Rarely were they from a higher class than the yeomanry I doubt ag labs would think of yeomen as not being of high(ish) status. -- Hotmail is my spam bin. Real address is ianng at austonley org uk

On 29/11/2017 01:18, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote: > In message <f84u7qFte3eU1@mid.individual.net>, Richard Smith > <richard@ex-parrot.com> writes: >> On 28/11/17 09:57, Ian Goddard wrote: >> >>> 2.  The founder effect.  Early European migrants to N America are likely >>> to have more descendants than later immigrants by virtue of there being >>> more generations between then and now and so are overrepresented in the >>> present population.  Such migration required capital and maybe >>> religious/political incentives; these are more likely to have been >>> higher status individuals at home and more likely to have had a royal >>> descent - or at least have ancestors who claimed that, see 1. >> >> I'm not sure it's true that the early immigrants had higher social >> status at home.  Rarely were they from a higher class than the >> yeomanry, and finding royal descents for them is a very hard task.  I > [] > Is it definitely so that they weren't that high status? As Ian says, > "Such migration required capital" - quite significant capital, I'd have > thought; as such I'd have expected them to be at least well-known, even > if not of high "class", in the regions they came from. Though there were the indentured servants, one step up from slaves in that they could be free after seven years or whatever period. They were most unlikely to be from the upper classes. -- Graeme Wall This account not read.

In message <f84u7qFte3eU1@mid.individual.net>, Richard Smith <richard@ex-parrot.com> writes: >On 28/11/17 09:57, Ian Goddard wrote: > >> 2. The founder effect. Early European migrants to N America are likely >> to have more descendants than later immigrants by virtue of there being >> more generations between then and now and so are overrepresented in the >> present population. Such migration required capital and maybe >> religious/political incentives; these are more likely to have been >> higher status individuals at home and more likely to have had a royal >> descent - or at least have ancestors who claimed that, see 1. > >I'm not sure it's true that the early immigrants had higher social >status at home. Rarely were they from a higher class than the >yeomanry, and finding royal descents for them is a very hard task. I [] Is it definitely so that they weren't that high status? As Ian says, "Such migration required capital" - quite significant capital, I'd have thought; as such I'd have expected them to be at least well-known, even if not of high "class", in the regions they came from. -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf I remember a lot of questions on a vocalist forum about the problems singing "There is a balm in Gilead" without making it sound like a security alert. - Linda Fox in UMRA, 2010-11-19

Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote on 28 Nov 2017 in soc.genealogy.britain: > As to why van Buren is not descended from John, the clue is in the name. > His ancestry was Dutch. For us genealogist the clue would be in his tree. The "why" is nonsense as long as the fact is not established. How would you know he was not a descendant? You would have to have Martin's complete tree. The North Sea at the timespan in question was not a unsurmountable sperm or egg barrier! -- Evertjan. The Netherlands. (Please change the x'es to dots in my emailaddress)

On 28/11/17 09:57, Ian Goddard wrote: > 2. The founder effect. Early European migrants to N America are likely > to have more descendants than later immigrants by virtue of there being > more generations between then and now and so are overrepresented in the > present population. Such migration required capital and maybe > religious/political incentives; these are more likely to have been > higher status individuals at home and more likely to have had a royal > descent - or at least have ancestors who claimed that, see 1. I'm not sure it's true that the early immigrants had higher social status at home. Rarely were they from a higher class than the yeomanry, and finding royal descents for them is a very hard task. I think the reason the founder effect makes a different is that it concentrates so much research effort on a very few individuals, and in a reasonable number of cases this has proved fruitful. There's a similar effect for presidents. Far more people will be trying to research the ancestry of a US president than, say, your ancestry or mine. You've said before you don't have a known royal line of descent. Do you think that would still be the case if a hundred other highly competent researchers spent several years researching your ancestry? Possibly it would not change anything, but I'd suggest it's quite likely one of these researchers might find something. Richard

On Tue, 28 Nov 2017 07:35:15 +0200, Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> wrote in soc.genealogy.misc: >Is ruling in the genes? All presidents bar one are directly descended >from a medieval English king > > 12-year-old girl created family tree linking 42 of 43 U.S. >presidents to King John of England, who signed Magna Carta in 1215 > Only eighth president, Martin Van Buren, was not related to John The keyword of the article here "12-year-old girl". There is a web site that is already publishing the genealogy of presidents and already linking them to some royalty. Something like warc. As for the main statement, I found that from a study from 100 couples married in Quebec in 1939-1940 that 84% of them have some royal ancestry. And if I keep only those with a French catholic ancestry, i.e. those for which I can easily build a complete tree, this jumps to 96%. Applying the same to USA will give similar results, i.e. most people with old USA roots will have some royal ancestors. That said, you should post your question to s.g.medieval ! Denis -- Denis Beauregard - généalogiste émérite (FQSG) Les Français d'Amérique du Nord - www.francogene.com/genealogie--quebec/ French in North America before 1722 - www.francogene.com/quebec--genealogy/ Sur cédérom à 1785 - On CD-ROM to 1785

On 28/11/17 05:35, Steve Hayes wrote: > Is ruling in the genes? All presidents bar one are directly descended > from a medieval English king > > 12-year-old girl created family tree linking 42 of 43 U.S. > presidents to King John of England, who signed Magna Carta in 1215 > Only eighth president, Martin Van Buren, was not related to John > > By Snejana Farberov > > Published: 02:14 GMT, 5 August 2012 | Updated: 05:58 GMT, 5 August > 2012 > > (So not new, but interesting none the less -- I wonder if anyone has > checked her work?) > > <URL:http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2183858/All-presidents-bar-directly-descended-medieval-English-king.html> > > What do Barack Obama, Thomas Jefferson, George W. Bush and the other > past U.S. presidents have in common? Besides holding the coveted title > of commander-in-chief, it appears that all of them but one are > cousins. > > The remarkable discovery was made by 12-year-old BridgeAnne d’Avignon, > of Salinas, California, who created a ground-breaking family tree that > connected 42 of 43 U.S. presidents to one common, and rather > unexpected, ancestor: King John of England. > There are a couple of factors to consider. 1. The genealogist's syllogism: we need a name here, this is a name, it must go here (cf. the politician's syllogism). There is a reluctance to say "I don't know" when presented with a choice of alternatives (of which none may be the correct ancestor) and, picking one, there is a tendency to pick a high status name. 2. The founder effect. Early European migrants to N America are likely to have more descendants than later immigrants by virtue of there being more generations between then and now and so are overrepresented in the present population. Such migration required capital and maybe religious/political incentives; these are more likely to have been higher status individuals at home and more likely to have had a royal descent - or at least have ancestors who claimed that, see 1. -- Hotmail is my spam bin. Real address is ianng at austonley org uk

On 28/11/2017 05:35, Steve Hayes wrote: > Is ruling in the genes? All presidents bar one are directly descended > from a medieval English king > > 12-year-old girl created family tree linking 42 of 43 U.S. > presidents to King John of England, who signed Magna Carta in 1215 > Only eighth president, Martin Van Buren, was not related to John > My wife is descended from King John[1], should she be the next president? Many people are, it's an inevitable consequence of simple arithmetic and the number of generations in between. You probably are and I probably am, though I am unlikely to ever be able to prove it.[2] Absolutely nothing to do with genetic disposition (after 22 generations???) As to why van Buren is not descended from John, the clue is in the name. His ancestry was Dutch. [1] John is her 22-great-grandfather. [2] My family disappear somewhere in Berkshire in the mid 18th century. -- Graeme Wall This account not read.

On Wed, 22 Nov 2017 03:06:25 +0000, Charles Ellson <ce11son@yahoo.ca> wrote: >>It looks as if, in this case, they've strayed onto Wingate from some >>other place where race would be a field to capture. >> >That is not a detail that I would be expected to be recorded in a 19th >century English parish register, there is no allocated position for it >in a standard register. Indeed. I think Ian's explanation may be correct, but transcribers need to be more careful that they do not transcribe stuff that is not there, and leave out still that is there. -- Steve Hayes Web: http://hayesgreene.wordpress.com/ http://hayesgreene.blogspot.com http://groups.yahoo.com/group/afgen/

On Tue, 21 Nov 2017 19:15:28 +0000, Ian Goddard <goddai01@hotmail.co.uk> wrote: >> My question is: >> >> Which denomination, operating in Wingate in County Durham in 1869, >> recorded the race of people being baptised, but not the name of the >> mother? >> >> Or is this not actually a transcription at all, but just some clown >> entering stuff that isn't there, and leaving out stuff that is there? >> >> An image of the register was not available when I looked, but I wonder >> if anyone who has access to that particular record can confirm that it >> mentioned the race, but not the name of the mother. >> >> I accept that transcroptions can be inaccurate, but transcribers >> making stuff up is somwething else. > >I think what happens is that a transcriber has an input screen which >doesn't clear between entries; they just overtype the names & dates and, >supposedly the parish when they start on a new parish or church. The >reason I think this happens is that I've seen transcriptions where they >appear to have switched from one church to another and end up with a >field like Residence Place displaying contents from another parish - >they've just not noticed that they've run onto a new batch of data. > >It looks as if, in this case, they've strayed onto Wingate from some >other place where race would be a field to capture. That's quite possible, I suppose. Another question related to this is that they quite often put in a "Residence" field, but After looking at a number of them I am quite sceptical about this, because I don't think it is transcribed from the "Abode" field of CofE registers, but rather taken from the location of the parish church itself. This can be misleading, as people sometimes lived some distance from the parish church. Where FamilySearch make an image available (which they sometimes do), I try to check the Abode and Occupation fields, but this is not always possible. -- Steve Hayes Web: http://hayesgreene.wordpress.com/ http://hayesgreene.blogspot.com http://groups.yahoo.com/group/afgen/

Is ruling in the genes? All presidents bar one are directly descended from a medieval English king 12-year-old girl created family tree linking 42 of 43 U.S. presidents to King John of England, who signed Magna Carta in 1215 Only eighth president, Martin Van Buren, was not related to John By Snejana Farberov Published: 02:14 GMT, 5 August 2012 | Updated: 05:58 GMT, 5 August 2012 (So not new, but interesting none the less -- I wonder if anyone has checked her work?) <URL:http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2183858/All-presidents-bar-directly-descended-medieval-English-king.html> What do Barack Obama, Thomas Jefferson, George W. Bush and the other past U.S. presidents have in common? Besides holding the coveted title of commander-in-chief, it appears that all of them but one are cousins. The remarkable discovery was made by 12-year-old BridgeAnne d’Avignon, of Salinas, California, who created a ground-breaking family tree that connected 42 of 43 U.S. presidents to one common, and rather unexpected, ancestor: King John of England. ‘They all have the trait of wanting power,’ d’Avignon told the station WFMY. Budding genealogist: BridgeAnne d'Avignon created a family tree that connected 42 of 43 U.S. presidents to one common ancestor History detective: It took d'Avignon several months to search through more than 500,000 names and trace the male and female lineages of American leaders King John, also known as John ‘Lackland’, is renowned for signing the Magna Carta in 1215, which limited the monarch’s power and helped form the British Parliament. John’s other claim to fame, or infamy, is that he was depicted as the villain in the Robin Hood tales. Common grandfather: The 12-year-old traced the lineages of nearly all of the U.S. presidents to King John, the signer of the Magna Carta D’Avignon, a seventh-grader at Monte Vista Christian School in Watsonville, started the project in hopes of tracing back her own bloodline in France, but somewhere along the way she decided to take her genealogical quest to the highest level. In order to create the family tree, the 12-year-old spent months scouring through over 500,000 names in search of the ‘presidential Adam.’ Her 80-year-old grandfather, who has been tracing roots for nearly six decades, helped her make the presidential links. D’Avignon started with the first U.S. president, George Washington, she traced both the male and female family lines to make the connection. Prior to d’Avignon’s discovery, genealogists were only able to link 22 families of presidents, likely because they only focused on male bloodlines. The only former commander-in-chief not linked to King John is the eighth president, Martin Van Buren, who had Dutch roots. The teen also found out that she is the 18th cousin of President Obama. She even wrote to her new-found relative a letter to share her findings with him. So far, however, d’Avignon said she received only a generic response from the White House. D’Avignon created a poster of the presidential family tree and is selling signed copies of it in hopes of raising enough money to make a trip to Washington DC. The middle-school student says her goal is to hand-deliver a replica of her family tree to the president. 'I think we just all go back somewhere; it’s just a matter of proving it,' she said. -- Steve Hayes Web: http://hayesgreene.wordpress.com/ http://hayesgreene.blogspot.com http://groups.yahoo.com/group/afgen/

"Steve Hayes" wrote in message news:5hs81dplgcrv707tqjfi9qigbn63egf1n1@4ax.com... > >I was checking some family history information on FamilySearch and >came across this in one of the research hints: > >=== begin quote === >John George Southern >England Births and Christenings >Name John George Southern >Residence Place Wingate, Durham, England >Gender Male >Christening Date 27 Jan 1869 >Christening Date (Original) 27 Jan 1869 >Christening Place Wingate, Durham, Eng. >Father's Name Richard Southern >Race White >England Births and Christenings, 1538-1975 >Indexing Project (Batch) Number C00586-5 >System Origin England-EASy >GS Film number 1514658 >Reference ID 1869 pg.12-96 >Citing this Record > >"England Births and Christenings, 1538-1975," database, FamilySearch >(https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:NXZB-XHP : 30 December 2014, >John George Southern, ); citing Wingate, Durham, Eng., index based >upon data collected by the Genealogical Society of Utah, Salt Lake >City; FHL microfilm 1,514,658. > >=== end quote === > >My question is: > >Which denomination, operating in Wingate in County Durham in 1869, >recorded the race of people being baptised, but not the name of the >mother? > >Or is this not actually a transcription at all, but just some clown >entering stuff that isn't there, and leaving out stuff that is there? > >An image of the register was not available when I looked, but I wonder >if anyone who has access to that particular record can confirm that it >mentioned the race, but not the name of the mother. > >I accept that transcroptions can be inaccurate, but transcribers >making stuff up is somwething else. > > I think that you will find it is a "function" of the LDS database entry pages. They don't always copy the record exactly either rather they just take an extract. Their entries are more for their belief purposes rather than pure genealogical research hence the need to cross check with original sources. Their database does contain a large amount of mistakes re British records mainly due to a lack of knowledge of the British system and British geography. Gordon