> Would any/all of you familiar with the handwriting and boiler-plate > of English documents of the 1695-1710 period PLEASE have a look at > this one? > > One Thomas Crissop died, and this document appears in the records of > the Ainsty of York. We thought he died 1701; this is in the 1700 > records which began in January 1700. 4th entry down the image. > > I need 2nd and 3rd opinions, as my consultants here disagree. > > http://www.rootsweb.com/~cresap/1700/ > > Same document, two resolutions; 1700a is the larger but MAY not have > completely uploaded; 1700b I know finished uploading properly. I do > have the original tiff file, and a larger jpg but rootsweb keeps > dropping the connex at just over 50% complete. > > Cheryl Singhals <singhals@erols.com> Need the higher resolution one to read it without eye-strain - and it doesn't download for me. I presume that you realise that January 1700 in the Old Style calendar would actually be January 1701 according to the New Style Calendar? Chris "Chris Watts" <ng@ctwatts.plus.com>

> Would any/all of you familiar with the handwriting and boiler-plate > of English documents of the 1695-1710 period PLEASE have a look at > this one? > > One Thomas Crissop died, and this document appears in the records of > the Ainsty of York. We thought he died 1701; this is in the 1700 > records which began in January 1700. 4th entry down the image. > > I need 2nd and 3rd opinions, as my consultants here disagree. > > http://www.rootsweb.com/~cresap/1700/ > > Same document, two resolutions; 1700a is the larger but MAY not have > completely uploaded; 1700b I know finished uploading properly. I do > have the original tiff file, and a larger jpg but rootsweb keeps > dropping the connex at just over 50% complete. > > Cheryl Singhals <singhals@erols.com> January 1700 (old-style date) is January 1701 (new-style date). Administration of the estate of Thomas Crisape of Leeds, Yorkshire, was taken out by his widow, Eden Crisape.

singhals wrote: > Would any/all of you familiar with the handwriting and boiler-plate > of English documents of the 1695-1710 period PLEASE have a look at > this one? > > One Thomas Crissop died, and this document appears in the records of > the Ainsty of York. We thought he died 1701; this is in the 1700 > records which began in January 1700. 4th entry down the image. > > I need 2nd and 3rd opinions, as my consultants here disagree. > > http://www.rootsweb.com/~cresap/1700/ > > Same document, two resolutions; 1700a is the larger but MAY not have > completely uploaded; 1700b I know finished uploading properly. I do > have the original tiff file, and a larger jpg but rootsweb keeps > dropping the connex at just over 50% complete. It might be worth putting on s.g.medieval. I know it's not medieval - but neither is a lot of stuff on there! -- Ian Hotmail is for spammers. Real mail address is igoddard at nildram co uk Ian Goddard <goddai01@hotmail.co.uk>

Would any/all of you familiar with the handwriting and boiler-plate of English documents of the 1695-1710 period PLEASE have a look at this one? One Thomas Crissop died, and this document appears in the records of the Ainsty of York. We thought he died 1701; this is in the 1700 records which began in January 1700. 4th entry down the image. I need 2nd and 3rd opinions, as my consultants here disagree. http://www.rootsweb.com/~cresap/1700/ Same document, two resolutions; 1700a is the larger but MAY not have completely uploaded; 1700b I know finished uploading properly. I do have the original tiff file, and a larger jpg but rootsweb keeps dropping the connex at just over 50% complete. Thanks! Cheryl (and feel free to pass this on to the Genbrit list) singhals <singhals@erols.com>

It is not unusual to find inconsistencies in a set of BDM certificates for members of a family. There are a number of reasons: * people tell lies to cover up illegitimacy by altering dates or ages of the child's birth or the marriage (common on birth certificates) * men lie about their date of birth to join the military when they are too young or too old to do so (very common in World War 1 enlistments) * the people providing the information for the certificate may have forgotten or simply don't know (e.g. a son-in-law as an informant for a death certificate) or be too emotional (particularly with a death) to provide the information correctly * adoptions were informal and the names of adopted children may or may not be listed on certificates depending on the knowledge and mood of the informant * once a lie appears in one place (e.g. a birth certificate), it may be copied (in the belief it is the truth) onto other certificates (e.g. marriage and death) * immigration means that grandchildren may grow up on the other side of the world from their grandparents and therefore may not even know their names to provide for their parents' death certificates Then you get all the problems that occur even when people do provide the correct information: * the handwriting is hard to read and is mis-transcribed into the original registers or into the computer based records from which certificates are printed these days * the clerk at the time didn't know how to spell a name (particularly a foreign one) * people with foreign names anglicise them * people from other countries write their numbers differently (e.g. the German 1 and 7) * certificates extracted today are subject to current laws which may suppress information present in the original records (e.g. Qld birth certificates today do not show the date of parents' marriage even though the information was collected for many years in the register) * people are terrible with arithmetic and can't accurately work out the age of children even if they remember the dates of birth etc So family history isn't really a matter of "proof" but more a matter of drawing your own conclusions from whatever clues may be available. Even "official records" like birth certificates should be treated as clues. They are simply what the informant said about the event that then got transcribed and copied and transcribed and encoded and ultimately printed onto the certificate in your hands; plenty of scope for errors, omissions, etc. Even if you have a scan of the register, that isn't the original source of the information, merely the registrar's recording of it. As a consequence, you can get the situation where two family members can look at that same set of "evidence" and draw different conclusions based on it, as one may reject a certificate as being "too different" in the details to be accepted as pertaining to their family, while another person may choose to accept it and incorporate it and base further decisions on it, resulting in quite different family trees. Kerry "Kerry raymond" <kraymond@iprimus.com.au>

I also should have mentioned looking for the Parish Registers on film and checking there for the birth details of Mary Ann Geline/ Mary Angelina for the appropriate year. Details recorded there can be different from those held by the Registrar of BDMs. "FarmI" <ask@itshall be given.iinet.net.au>

"Ken" <kwar6996@bigpond.net.au> wrote: >I have just started setting up my family tree electronically. I was > given a couple of scanned images of handwritten charts & have been > entering them. Ummmmm. My advice would be not to use this data. I was with dud info given with assurances that it was all properly researched when I began as a young genie decades ago. Now if given info I will only store it in a folder until I've done the work and know that any mistakes will from now on be mine and not someone else's. Details are sketchy & the notes contradict each other. > So for some key people, I purchased images of the records held by the > Dept of Justice, Registry of Births, Deaths & Marriages. > > One key person was my ggrandmother, Mary Angelina. > > I have: > The marriage registry entry for Peter & Mary Anne her probable parents > in 1864 (goldfields). The registry entry shows a date & location for > the marriage, his parents as Oliver & Rosa and hers as James & Mary, > and the place of birth (Italy for Peter, Tasmania for Mary) & ages > Peter 23 & Mary 16. > > Mary Ann Geline Birth record, 1868. Mary Angelina is pretty close sounding so it could be your grandmother. Shows parents Peter & Mary Anne, > married in the same place on the same day with matching birth > countries & surnames as the first document. Shows her two elder > siblings correctly as to name & age (as recorded later), but shows her > parental ages at the time of birth as Peter 29 & Mary 28. A discrepency (sp?) in the age is not really of huge concern but it might be worth getting the BCs of the other siblings. I've picked up some incredibly useful info by doing that even though at the time I was very broke and couldn't really justify the expense. It was worth every penny in retrospect. > Peter's Death Cert 1912 - ages right, birthplace right, offspring > right, marriage details right, but parents as Peter & unknown mother. Not unusual for one or more parents not to be known or even correctly identified on a DC. Who was the informant for death details? What info do you have on the informant? > Third child is shown as Mary Angelina, right position in but listed > as presumed dead. Who gave the information to the Register of BDM and where was Mary Angelina living at the time of the death of Peter? If the informant to the death was one of the other children and Mary Angelina was living at some great distance from her parents and siblings, then there may not have been no contact between them for year. > Mary Angelina Death Cert 1917. Parents right for name & occupation, > age right, birth details right. > > I cannot find any other records that match people, place & time. Would > experienced persons presume I have the correct records but that the > data contradictions are human error? If so, where do I go next to > look for data that may corroborate or refute this? Which State were they living in? Without knowing which State then it is fairly difficult to suggest anything meaningful. But some qucik thought - are there any Monumental Inscriptions for Peter and his wife? Could they have ever been mentioned in local papers of the time? "FarmI" <ask@itshall be given.iinet.net.au>

Our note for this month discusses the importance of social history to family historians, and provides a link to .PDF versions of / Minnesota History/ articles. You can find it at http://www.parkbooks.com/Html/res_hsgn.html or from our Research Notes page http://www.parkbooks.com/Html/research.html Mary Mary Bakeman <mbakeman@parkbooks.com>

> > I have subscribed to Ancestry.com since around 2000, and, for the > > same time, I have kept my family records on Family Tree Maker. > > > > After 30 years of military service, 8 years of working at two other > > jobs, 1 year losing a battle with Hurricane Katrina, 2 years of > > losing my parents, wife and I spent 2008 building our house and > > settling down. > > > > After moving in our first project was to attack the 12 cartons of > > photos, documents, diplomas, marriage licenses, and notes that we > > collected developed over the years. > > > > I ordered a brand new Family Tree Maker and loaded it on the > > computer. FORGET IT. > > > > The newest FTM -- I think it's FTM 2008 -- IS A MESS. DAMN NEAR > > UNUSABLE. > > > > I switched to Legacy and will not look back. > > > > Then there's the matter of the Ancestry.com search engine. As best > > I can tell, over the past 3-4 months, they have changed their online > > search engine three times and now they have settled on the absolute > > worst possible search. > > > > I tried to find an uncle of mine to verify his death date in the SS > > death index. With the new Ancestry.com site, I got over 50 hits on > > his name, none of which was my uncle. I switched to the > > FamilySearch site and found him in 30 seconds. > > > > Guess this is what happens when you employ a shop full of computer > > nerds who feel that they ABSOLUTELY MUST "improve" things. > > > > "A Nonnie Moose" <moose@nonnie.com> > > I sort of "stumbled" onto this site a while back. From your "rant" > you may be interested in reading what Anne Mitchell has to say about > searching on Ancestry. Anne is the person in charge of the Ancestry > Search Engine development! > > http://blogs.ancestry.com/ancestry/category/ancestry-com/features/ > > http://blogs.ancestry.com/ancestry/author/amitchell/ > > Anne Mitchell > > Anne Mitchell is a product manager for search at Ancestry.com. Feel > free to contact her with your thoughts about search. She can't help > you find your long lost ancestors - she's still searching for her > own, but thoughts on how to improve search functionality are always > appreciated. Her email is amitchell at tgn.com. > > Let me know how you come out on this? > > "Young Snodgrass" <young.snodgrass@verizon.net> There are several ways to search ancestry, you have to dig through and find the one best for you. When you find it make a short cut to it. Same with the image viewer. Ancestry keeps asking if I want to upgrade to the most recent viewer, I am satisfied with the original and am still using it. Ancestry vs Family search. I use both. Ancestry seems a little better for pre 1900 records. Family Search seems to be limited to records from about 1900 to present. It also makes a difference as to the location that your family lived. I have one branch that lived in western Kentucky and another that lived in northwestern Ohio. For the Kentucky branch Ancestry is best, for the Ohio branch Family search is best. I think the bottom line is you must use the tools that gives the best results in the given situation, but don't forget the other tools because they have their specialties. Keith Nuttle <keith_nuttle@sbcglobal.net>

In my Y DNA of R1b1c I have a rare combination of DYS390=23 and DYS391=10. DYS390=23 is usually combined with DYS391=11 and not 10. Is this just an ordinary mutation of DYS391? Or are there any ideas on this value being 10 and not 11. Why is the 23/10 combination so rare? bjornrcs@gmail.com

"Andrew Cohen" <andyco50@verizon.net> wrote: > I know my ancestors came over 1867-1868. A mother and three > children travelling together. I have searched from 1865-70 on "Came over" to where? From where? Continents would give some context, countries better still. Japan to Brazil? Scotland to Australia? Iran to the USA? -- Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa Web: http://hayesfam.bravehost.com/stevesig.htm Blog: http://methodius.blogspot.com E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk Steve Hayes <hayesmstw@hotmail.com>

> I have subscribed to Ancestry.com since around 2000, and, for the > same time, I have kept my family records on Family Tree Maker. > > After 30 years of military service, 8 years of working at two other > jobs, 1 year losing a battle with Hurricane Katrina, 2 years of > losing my parents, wife and I spent 2008 building our house and > settling down. > > After moving in our first project was to attack the 12 cartons of > photos, documents, diplomas, marriage licenses, and notes that we > collected developed over the years. > > I ordered a brand new Family Tree Maker and loaded it on the > computer. FORGET IT. > > The newest FTM -- I think it's FTM 2008 -- IS A MESS. DAMN NEAR > UNUSABLE. > > I switched to Legacy and will not look back. > > Then there's the matter of the Ancestry.com search engine. As best > I can tell, over the past 3-4 months, they have changed their online > search engine three times and now they have settled on the absolute > worst possible search. > > I tried to find an uncle of mine to verify his death date in the SS > death index. With the new Ancestry.com site, I got over 50 hits on > his name, none of which was my uncle. I switched to the > FamilySearch site and found him in 30 seconds. > > Guess this is what happens when you employ a shop full of computer > nerds who feel that they ABSOLUTELY MUST "improve" things. > > "A Nonnie Moose" <moose@nonnie.com> I sort of "stumbled" onto this site a while back. From your "rant" you may be interested in reading what Anne Mitchell has to say about searching on Ancestry. Anne is the person in charge of the Ancestry Search Engine development! http://blogs.ancestry.com/ancestry/category/ancestry-com/features/ http://blogs.ancestry.com/ancestry/author/amitchell/ Anne Mitchell Anne Mitchell is a product manager for search at Ancestry.com. Feel free to contact her with your thoughts about search. She can't help you find your long lost ancestors - she's still searching for her own, but thoughts on how to improve search functionality are always appreciated. Her email is amitchell at tgn.com. Let me know how you come out on this? "Young Snodgrass" <young.snodgrass@verizon.net>

> I obtained all the manifest numbers for ship from mid 1868 to end of > 1869. There are over 900 ships in the file Russians to America that > arrived in that time frame. > > However, there are NO PASSENGERS in any of those manifest numbers. > So it seems those passenger lists were lost, or else they have not > been digitized to date. > > Can anyone confirm this or provide guidance? > > "Andrew Cohen" <andyco50@verizon.net> I am reliably informed that the "XXX to America" series includes only passengers aboard ships whose passenger list/manifest show 80% of more of the passengers from XXX. Put another way, Italians to America includes only passengers who were travelling with a ship full of other Italians. If your Russian was one of 5% of the passengers who were Russian, he MAY show up in Italians to America, but he won't be in Russians to America. Did you try the NARA site to identify the ship manifest for direct viewing? What about the LDS microfilms? Using search engines at Castle Garden and/or Ellis Island, see if you can spot the manifest or the ship name (always to remember that the SS Prince Edward morphed into the SS King Edward when the Prince himself did). I found my woman by defining the first record of her in the US, then reading ship-lists backward from then until I found her on one. It's not a lot of fun, but it is do-able. Cheryl singhals <singhals@erols.com>

Andrew Cohen wrote: > I know my ancestors came over 1867-1868. A mother and three children > travelling together. I have searched from 1865-70 on CastleGarden, > Ancestry, NARA, etc. Their surname is Cohen, but I have searched > under the Cohen variants (Kahn, Cohn, Kaplan, and many others) to no > avail. I have searched on first names also. There were three > children, Abraham, Lena and William. I have searched on their first > names, possible hebrewe names and variants thereof, leaving surname > field blank. I have been to the JewishGen site which was no help at > all. US naturalization records that early yield no information > other than "country". They were Russians who came from Poland, but > may have travelled through Germany or the U.K. Start at http://www.stevemorse.org/ and scroll down to Castle Garden passengers and enter given starts with A and surname start with C a for years 1860 - 1870. You will go to the Castle Garden web site where you will have to change the years back to 1860-1870 but gives you a much more flexible search. I search on given A*m, surname C*n: I get 24 results including Abraham Cahn, butcher, lots of Abraham Cohens. Searching on A*m K*n I get 63 records including lots Abraham Kahns, Kohns and Kohans Search on the other given names. Lena is ok; William is not a Jewish name. Use the Jewish equivalent and enter th consonants. > Are there missing passenger records in this time frame. NARA records > seem to be especially light in these years? Some are missing but I do not think large groups of names unless the manifest has been lost. another list to ask on possible with better or more specific answers would be TheShipsList. bob gillis bob gillis <robertgillis@verizon.net>

> I know my ancestors came over 1867-1868. A mother and three > children travelling together. I have searched from 1865-70 on > CastleGarden, Ancestry, NARA, etc. Their surname is Cohen, but I > have searched under the Cohen variants (Kahn, Cohn, Kaplan, and many > others) to no avail. I have searched on first names also. There > were three children, Abraham, Lena and William. I have searched on > their first names, possible hebrewe names and variants thereof, > leaving surname field blank. I have been to the JewishGen site > which was no help at all. US naturalization records that early > yield no information other than "country". They were Russians who > came from Poland, but may have travelled through Germany or the U.K. > > Are there missing passenger records in this time frame. NARA > records seem to be especially light in these years? > > Can anybody help me break through this stone wall? > > "Andrew Cohen" <andyco50@verizon.net> Which passenger records are you searching?? As far as I know, the Ellis Island records go back only to 189? .

> I know my ancestors came over 1867-1868. A mother and three > children travelling together. I have searched from 1865-70 on > CastleGarden, Ancestry, NARA, etc. Their surname is Cohen, but I > have searched under the Cohen variants (Kahn, Cohn, Kaplan, and many > others) to no avail. I have searched on first names also. There > were three children, Abraham, Lena and William. I have searched on > their first names, possible hebrewe names and variants thereof, > leaving surname field blank. I have been to the JewishGen site > which was no help at all. US naturalization records that early > yield no information other than "country". They were Russians who > came from Poland, but may have travelled through Germany or the U.K. > > Are there missing passenger records in this time frame. NARA > records seem to be especially light in these years? > > Can anybody help me break through this stone wall? > > "Andrew Cohen" <andyco50@verizon.net> Just a thought but are you checking just the arrivals for a particular port? Family history had our ancestors arriving in New York, when in reality they came into port at Baltimore, Md. when I finally discovered them. Go figure. These records are full of surprises :o) Nancy Nancy <nposs1936@yahoo.com>

I obtained all the manifest numbers for ship from mid 1868 to end of 1869. There are over 900 ships in the file Russians to America that arrived in that time frame. However, there are NO PASSENGERS in any of those manifest numbers. So it seems those passenger lists were lost, or else they have not been digitized to date. Can anyone confirm this or provide guidance? Thanks, Andrew "Andrew Cohen" <andyco50@verizon.net>

> I know my ancestors came over 1867-1868. A mother and three > children travelling together. I have searched from 1865-70 on > CastleGarden, Ancestry, NARA, etc. Their surname is Cohen, but I > have searched under the Cohen variants (Kahn, Cohn, Kaplan, and many > others) to no avail. I have searched on first names also. There > were three children, Abraham, Lena and William. I have searched on > their first names, possible hebrewe names and variants thereof, > leaving surname field blank. I have been to the JewishGen site > which was no help at all. US naturalization records that early > yield no information other than "country". They were Russians who > came from Poland, but may have travelled through Germany or the U.K. > > Are there missing passenger records in this time frame. NARA > records seem to be especially light in these years? > > Can anybody help me break through this stone wall? > > "Andrew Cohen" <andyco50@verizon.net> Bad news first: NARA estimates more than 20% of all passenger lists disappeared before NARA got them. Ignore that. (g) Did you search under the wife's maiden name? Did you limit your search to the port of NY -- Boston, Philadelphia, Baltimore, are also strong possibilities. Did you search for abbreviations of the given names (i.e., Abram for Abraham, Lina for Lena, etc)? And finally, did you allow for indexer misreadings (my ancestress is in the index with a b where t ought to be, and that obscured her for 20 years!). Did you look earlier than 1867 or later than 1868 -- Cynics notice that, as John Colletta says, people would remember the name of the ship (incorrectly), get the day of the week, the day and month right, but be off by up to 5 years on the year...sooooo, if you know when he was naturalized, start looking 2 years prior to that date and go back. And at Castle Garden and Ellis Island, the less info you give it, the likelier you are to find what you're looking for. A wife and minor children generally weren't named in his naturalization papers and were rarely naturalized on their own. Some people have found gold in the First-papers, though, so if you can HIS first-papers you may get lucky. If you've already tried all that, then start a log (in Notepad if necessary). Write down every thing you've checked, every name you've hunted for, why you know this or that ... then explain your problem in grim detail to someone who knows zip-city about genealogy. I've had good luck with both those approaches (much as, you learn a subject better by teaching it than by studying it). Good luck, and sorry I can't be of direct help! Cheryl singhals <singhals@erols.com>

I know my ancestors came over 1867-1868. A mother and three children travelling together. I have searched from 1865-70 on CastleGarden, Ancestry, NARA, etc. Their surname is Cohen, but I have searched under the Cohen variants (Kahn, Cohn, Kaplan, and many others) to no avail. I have searched on first names also. There were three children, Abraham, Lena and William. I have searched on their first names, possible hebrewe names and variants thereof, leaving surname field blank. I have been to the JewishGen site which was no help at all. US naturalization records that early yield no information other than "country". They were Russians who came from Poland, but may have travelled through Germany or the U.K. Are there missing passenger records in this time frame. NARA records seem to be especially light in these years? Can anybody help me break through this stone wall? Thanks, Andrew "Andrew Cohen" <andyco50@verizon.net>

bob gillis wrote: > What are their names???? > > A Noni Moose wrote: > > > I have used the Ellis Island website to track my grandparents' entry > > into the US. My grandfather made three entries from Switzerland: > > > > 16 August 1890: Ellis Island records do not go back this far, but, > > he listed this date on his application for citizenship as the first > > date he entered the US, and, I have the original of his steamship > > ticket for this trip. > > > > June 1897 and October 1910: He shows up in the Ellis Island records > > on ship manifests entering the US on these dates. In October 1910 > > he was accompanied by my grandmother. > > > > Now -- is there any way to track his RETURN trips to Switzerland? > > Unless he got a passport, no Even then, it'll just tell you where he MEANT to visit. I'd say, unless the Swiss kept track of who entered Switzerland, tracking the trips back-and-forth may not be possible. OTOH, unless he lived in NYC or some equally large town, his local newspaper might have reported on it, when he left, while he was gone, or when he got back. All three would be lagniappe, but one can hope! Cheryl singhals <singhals@erols.com>