Scott Finally some discussion, meaning someone else understands the IMPs concept. You did not mention two of the points I raised originally: Duplication's - you only appear to have 38 in your 2254 entries, I suspect because you submitted most of your items. My 703 doppelgangers all come from historic MCs, none from my study yet - highlighting the search from both ends problems of the current GMI. References: The reference for all my unsubmitted entries is ME oddly, giving ME some form of unwarranted ownership over historical research? I proposed a year age that a MC reference number should be used instead, submitting a list of all MCs undertaken - no progress. More to follow. Robert Fowler On 12 March 2017 at 17:50, Scott Shenton <shenton@one-name.org> wrote: > I haven’t seen much discussion on this thread and I’ve been holding off responding, while going through my files and generating a goodly bunch of IMPs for submittal: almost complete: over 1,000 - only years 1904 - 1911 to go !. > > I definitely see a significant value to the IMP database, but I mightily concur with Robert’s request/plea for incremental searching, of this and any user-contributed databases. By this we mean that entries are date-damped, so one can do a search on one day then do a return search months later and ask only for new/changed entries since that date. I’ve sort of slacked off in doing searches on the GMI due to the hassle of finding (for example) there are 17 new entries from the last time I downloaded results, but having to identify those 17 only by brute force Excel/dbms matching. All that’s needed (yeah, sounds easy enough, but I know implementation is likely a bit uglier) is a date-stamp field in the records > > Scott Shenton (GOONS 5292) > Indialantic, Florida, USA > Shenton one name study http://shenton.tribalpages.com > > > > >> On Feb 18, 2017, at 2:31 PM, Robert Fowler <rlkfowlerons@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> Cliff >> >> Since the subject of IMPS is now open for discussion, members should >> be allowed to suggest how they appear. >> >> The current GMI is a catchall for three types of marriages: 1837-1851 >> up to 4 pairs, 1852-1911 1 or 2 pairs, & post 1911 1 known marriage >> >> The idea of IMPS works well for one type only 1852-1911. >> >> Should we improve the GMI by separating these marriages from the other >> types, after all a database is more efficient and faster when >> tailored to one set of variables? >> >> Then we should consider this database should work. >> >> The current GMI contains numerous duplications, since in the old days >> the names of both partners were added, searchable from both ends. >> >> ie A search of Fowler marriages produces 2314 results of which 703 are >> duplicates at last count. >> >> Maybe an IMPS GMI should be events based rather than name based. >> The event being a marriage with two partners and two IMPS, with all >> four names being searchable? >> >> Each event having one source reference, applicable to both the primary >> and IMPs partners >> >> >> I will go into more details as the discussion develops. One definite >> improvement needed is incremental searching, a large number of the >> IMPS currently showing on the GMI were supplied by me to be added to >> the valid Fowler entries, not as separate items. I have no wish to >> go through every entry already submitted in order to supply more. >> >> Robert Fowler 5464 >> >> On 18 February 2017 at 18:15, Clifford Kemball >> <cliff.kemball@ntlworld.com> wrote: >>> Hi >>> >>> I have recently put a posting on the Guild's Web Forum requesting Guild >>> members to help increase the number of entries in the Guild Marriage Index >>> by adding in Inferred Marriage Partners (IMPs) entries - see >>> http://one-name.org/forums/topic/gmi-inferred-marriage-partners/#post-28600 >>> >>> For those members who do not go onto the Web Forum I have repeated the >>> request below: >>> >>> >>> As the Guild Marriage Index Coordinator I am responsible for maintaining the >>> Guild Marriage Index (GMI), comprising a list of marriages that took place >>> between July 1837 and June 1945 collected from individuals, Marriage >>> Challengers and people transcribing marriage Locator Points (Cardinal >>> Points). >>> >>> The Guild Marriage Index was last updated on Monday, 13th February 2017, and >>> contains entries for 1,098,669 marriages. I have set a target to increase >>> the number of entries in the Guild Marriage Index to 2 Million. There are a >>> large number of entries to be uploaded to the Guild Marriage Index in the >>> coming months, but one major source of increasing the number of entries in >>> the Guild Marriage Index is to upload Inferred Marriage Partner entries. >>> >>> *Inferred Marriage Partner entries* >>> For every entry we have in the Guild Marriage Index for the period March >>> quarter 1952 to the December quarter 1911 it is possible to infer the other >>> marriage which has the same GRO quarter and GRO page number – where two >>> marriages are on the page. An example would be 1852, quarter 2, 1d 327, >>> Newington, Walworth St Peter: >>> >>> Forenames Surname Spouse Surname SpouseFornames Date >>> Robert Henry Embleton Buck Sarah Ann 1852 IMP >>> Benjamin Hammond Fowler Kenzia 28Jun1852 CP >>> >>> At present there are 1,085 IMP entries in the Guild Marriage Index, so the >>> potential to increase the number of such entries is very significant. I >>> would like to encourage all Guild members to examine their own entries in >>> the Guild Marriage Index with a view to determining all the Inferred >>> Marriage Partner entries that could be uploaded to the GMI. In FreeBMD >>> you’ll get a list of all the people whose entries are on that page of the >>> Register, and from March quarter 1852 to December quarter 1911 it will show >>> up to four names. If there are four names, and if you can pair up two of the >>> names, then you will know that the other two names also form a pair. Prior >>> to 1852 there can be up to eight names, so it is less likely that you will >>> be able to match up other pairs of marriages. From March quarter 1912 the >>> marriage partners are shown in FreeBMD so there is less need to enter IMPs >>> from 1912 into the GMI, although they can be entered if you wish. >>> >>> The process for producing these Inferred Marriage Partner entries is fairly >>> straight forward. You start with a list of your own entries in the GMI and >>> then add in a further six columns which will record the Inferred Marriage >>> Partner entries – the columns being >>> Year2 Surname2 Spouse Forenames2 Spouse Surname2 Member2 >>> >>> On the Web Forum I have I have attached two files which demonstrate this >>> process. The first is a file called – *Kemball IMP 1.xlsx* – which has some >>> 82 entries from my “Kemball” GMI entries. >>> The second file is called *Kemball IMP.xlsx* – which has the Inferred >>> Marriage Partner entries included. The second file will be use to upload the >>> additional Inferred Marriage Partner entries to the GMI. Please note that >>> some of the IMP entries are blank – this is because there are only two names >>> shown for the GRO volume and GRO page number. >>> >>> If you would like to produce your own file for creating Inferred Marriage >>> Partner entries I suggest you email me and I will provide you with a copy of >>> the Kemball IMP.xlsx file for you to add in your own GMI entries. If >>> required I can produce a file for you showing the GMI entries under your >>> membership number. >>> >>> It is then a process of looking up each of the entries in >>> http://www.freebmd.org.uk and adding in the Inferred Marriage Partner >>> details in the additional columns above – namely Year2, Forenames2, >>> Surname2, Spouse Forenames2 and Spouse Surname2. For the last column – >>> Member 2 – simply enter IMP. Year 2 should be the same as the Year column. >>> In the unlikely event that you know the actual date of the marriage for the >>> IMP entry you can add in the “day” and “month” data. When you have added in >>> the Inferred Marriage Partner details, please email the file to me at >>> marriage-index@one-name.org <mailto:marriage-index@one-name.org> and I will >>> arrange for the IMP entries to be uploaded to the GMI. >>> >>> Cliff Kemball >>> GMI Co-ordinator >>> >>> >>> Read more at >>> http://one-name.org/forums/topic/gmi-inferred-marriage-partners/#cKbwdCTuRlcmSVI6.99 >>> _____________________________________________ >>> >>> Guild speakers list: >>> http://one-name.org/speakers/ >>> ------------------------------- >>> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to >>> GOONS-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in >>> the subject and the body of the message >> >> _____________________________________________ >> >> Guild speakers list: >> http://one-name.org/speakers/ >> ------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to GOONS-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > > _____________________________________________ > > RootsWeb Surname List - are your interests there? > http://rsl.rootsweb.ancestry.com/ > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to GOONS-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Thanks for all those helpful suggestions about "late". I think perhaps the one who was "late" moved during the year, possibly to live with his father. The rate list 1813 is a transcription published in Notts Record series, which notes the two names on different pages, although the same road. More research needed.... Steve Tanner Hempsall ONS ----Original message---- >From : polly@rowberry.org Date : 12/03/2017 - 08:58 (GMTST) To : s.tanner645@btinternet.com, goons@rootsweb.com Subject : Re: [G] Meaning of &quot;late&quot; Normally "late" in a List of Ratepayers (or similar such as Tithe Apportionments) means that the property was "late in the occupation of", normally indicating that the property was at present empty (although sometimes you may get A. B. late X. Y. indicating a change of occupier) and that the last occupier had been the person named. All it means is that they have vacated that property. They may have moved to another property or a different place, but of course it may be death which has caused their departure.....then you will sometimes see that the "occupiers" are given as the "Executors of....X" or "Trustees of....X", especially if X had been the owner, when they would still be liable for any debts to his (or her) estate. But in this instance it doesn't mean that they are dead. Polly ----- Original Message ----- From: "S TANNER" <s.tanner645@btinternet.com> To: <goons@rootsweb.com> Sent: Saturday, March 11, 2017 7:33 PM Subject: [G] Meaning of "late" Can anyone offer their opinion on the following entries in the Mansfield 1813 Ratepayers’ list? Hempwall, Joseph, Stockwell Gate, £1 – 10s – 8 Hempwall, William, (late) Stockwell Gate, 2s – 9d (Hempwall being an error for Hempsall) Does “late” mean (a) that William had died during the year OR (b) that he was still alive but no longer resided there, so perhaps they were after him for what they thought he owed OR (c) that he was late with his payment, or had not paid at all. Of Joseph, I know he was a publican keeping the “Admiral Nelson” in 1822-26 (from an Alehouse recognizance list) and that the pub was taken over in 1827 by his son William after his death in 1826. So that would preclude meaning (1) above, assuming it was the same chap. But if it refers to an older man, then there should have been a burial in Mansfield PR around the time – and there isn’t one. The younger one died in 1840. Ideas welcome Steve Tanner HEMPSALL ONS _____________________________________________ RootsWeb Surname List - are your interests there? http://rsl.rootsweb.ancestry.com/ ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to GOONS-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Many people will know about the striking Vietnam War Memorial on the Mall in Washington, DC. More than 58,000 names are commemorated there. What you may not know is that there is also an effort unnder way to create a virtual Wall of Faces by collecting multiple photographs of those who gave their lives in the conflict. See: http://www.vvmf.org/about-the-wall-of-faces There are 7,383 people currently left with no photograph including many with names under study, including one of "mine" Can you help? To see whether any of your names are missing, go to http://www.vvmf.org/wall-of-faces/, click on "Advanced search", type your surname, click the box at the bottom which says "Does not have a photo" and hit Search. There is also a good generalized search facility on the home page of the site where you can learn more about everyone with your study name. Happy hunting Paul -- Paul Howes Chairman, Guild of One-Name Studies www.howesfamilies.com Ponte Vedra, FL ; Horning, Norfolk

What happens to films we have ordered for viewing into other Family History Centres e.g. for Sutton Coldfield FHC in UK? I am still waiting for a film of Italian records which was ordered by me on extended loan last July 2016. (Apparently the first one was shipped from Salt Lake City to the European distribution centre, which I think is Frankfurt, and then got lost. Another one has been ordered but may take 90 days. These records are not on Family Search at present, nor in the current Indexing program). Will films already in local FHC centres (not London) be given to local family history societies? (in the same way that the London FHC ones are going to SoG Finally, I seem to be getting a 404 Page Not Found error on the link that Peter gave for the announcement many thanks Andrea Cordani #7036 CORDANI ONS On 10 March 2017 at 21:10, Peter Armstrong <godsland@one-name.org> wrote: > The permanent microfilm collection held by the London FHC (currently at the > TNA at Kew) is to be given to the Society of Genealogists. This will be > available at the SoG probably from 5 June this year. > > Film ordering from Salt Lake City for viewing at Family History Centers > around the world is to be discontinued probably within the next 12 months. > > See this announcement for further details > http://londonfamilyhistory.org/important-news/ > > Regards, > Peter Armstrong > > email: godsland@one-name.org > Godsland One Name Study > Researching GODSLAND, GOSLAND, GOSSLAND & similar variants World Wide > Website: http://www.godsland.co.uk > > Member No.1987 of the Guild of One Name Studies > Guild Website http://www.one-name.org/ > > _____________________________________________ > > RootsWeb Surname List - are your interests there? > http://rsl.rootsweb.ancestry.com/ > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > GOONS-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in > the subject and the body of the message

I haven’t seen much discussion on this thread and I’ve been holding off responding, while going through my files and generating a goodly bunch of IMPs for submittal: almost complete: over 1,000 - only years 1904 - 1911 to go !. I definitely see a significant value to the IMP database, but I mightily concur with Robert’s request/plea for incremental searching, of this and any user-contributed databases. By this we mean that entries are date-damped, so one can do a search on one day then do a return search months later and ask only for new/changed entries since that date. I’ve sort of slacked off in doing searches on the GMI due to the hassle of finding (for example) there are 17 new entries from the last time I downloaded results, but having to identify those 17 only by brute force Excel/dbms matching. All that’s needed (yeah, sounds easy enough, but I know implementation is likely a bit uglier) is a date-stamp field in the records Scott Shenton (GOONS 5292) Indialantic, Florida, USA Shenton one name study http://shenton.tribalpages.com > On Feb 18, 2017, at 2:31 PM, Robert Fowler <rlkfowlerons@gmail.com> wrote: > > Cliff > > Since the subject of IMPS is now open for discussion, members should > be allowed to suggest how they appear. > > The current GMI is a catchall for three types of marriages: 1837-1851 > up to 4 pairs, 1852-1911 1 or 2 pairs, & post 1911 1 known marriage > > The idea of IMPS works well for one type only 1852-1911. > > Should we improve the GMI by separating these marriages from the other > types, after all a database is more efficient and faster when > tailored to one set of variables? > > Then we should consider this database should work. > > The current GMI contains numerous duplications, since in the old days > the names of both partners were added, searchable from both ends. > > ie A search of Fowler marriages produces 2314 results of which 703 are > duplicates at last count. > > Maybe an IMPS GMI should be events based rather than name based. > The event being a marriage with two partners and two IMPS, with all > four names being searchable? > > Each event having one source reference, applicable to both the primary > and IMPs partners > > > I will go into more details as the discussion develops. One definite > improvement needed is incremental searching, a large number of the > IMPS currently showing on the GMI were supplied by me to be added to > the valid Fowler entries, not as separate items. I have no wish to > go through every entry already submitted in order to supply more. > > Robert Fowler 5464 > > On 18 February 2017 at 18:15, Clifford Kemball > <cliff.kemball@ntlworld.com> wrote: >> Hi >> >> I have recently put a posting on the Guild's Web Forum requesting Guild >> members to help increase the number of entries in the Guild Marriage Index >> by adding in Inferred Marriage Partners (IMPs) entries - see >> http://one-name.org/forums/topic/gmi-inferred-marriage-partners/#post-28600 >> >> For those members who do not go onto the Web Forum I have repeated the >> request below: >> >> >> As the Guild Marriage Index Coordinator I am responsible for maintaining the >> Guild Marriage Index (GMI), comprising a list of marriages that took place >> between July 1837 and June 1945 collected from individuals, Marriage >> Challengers and people transcribing marriage Locator Points (Cardinal >> Points). >> >> The Guild Marriage Index was last updated on Monday, 13th February 2017, and >> contains entries for 1,098,669 marriages. I have set a target to increase >> the number of entries in the Guild Marriage Index to 2 Million. There are a >> large number of entries to be uploaded to the Guild Marriage Index in the >> coming months, but one major source of increasing the number of entries in >> the Guild Marriage Index is to upload Inferred Marriage Partner entries. >> >> *Inferred Marriage Partner entries* >> For every entry we have in the Guild Marriage Index for the period March >> quarter 1952 to the December quarter 1911 it is possible to infer the other >> marriage which has the same GRO quarter and GRO page number – where two >> marriages are on the page. An example would be 1852, quarter 2, 1d 327, >> Newington, Walworth St Peter: >> >> Forenames Surname Spouse Surname SpouseFornames Date >> Robert Henry Embleton Buck Sarah Ann 1852 IMP >> Benjamin Hammond Fowler Kenzia 28Jun1852 CP >> >> At present there are 1,085 IMP entries in the Guild Marriage Index, so the >> potential to increase the number of such entries is very significant. I >> would like to encourage all Guild members to examine their own entries in >> the Guild Marriage Index with a view to determining all the Inferred >> Marriage Partner entries that could be uploaded to the GMI. In FreeBMD >> you’ll get a list of all the people whose entries are on that page of the >> Register, and from March quarter 1852 to December quarter 1911 it will show >> up to four names. If there are four names, and if you can pair up two of the >> names, then you will know that the other two names also form a pair. Prior >> to 1852 there can be up to eight names, so it is less likely that you will >> be able to match up other pairs of marriages. From March quarter 1912 the >> marriage partners are shown in FreeBMD so there is less need to enter IMPs >> from 1912 into the GMI, although they can be entered if you wish. >> >> The process for producing these Inferred Marriage Partner entries is fairly >> straight forward. You start with a list of your own entries in the GMI and >> then add in a further six columns which will record the Inferred Marriage >> Partner entries – the columns being >> Year2 Surname2 Spouse Forenames2 Spouse Surname2 Member2 >> >> On the Web Forum I have I have attached two files which demonstrate this >> process. The first is a file called – *Kemball IMP 1.xlsx* – which has some >> 82 entries from my “Kemball” GMI entries. >> The second file is called *Kemball IMP.xlsx* – which has the Inferred >> Marriage Partner entries included. The second file will be use to upload the >> additional Inferred Marriage Partner entries to the GMI. Please note that >> some of the IMP entries are blank – this is because there are only two names >> shown for the GRO volume and GRO page number. >> >> If you would like to produce your own file for creating Inferred Marriage >> Partner entries I suggest you email me and I will provide you with a copy of >> the Kemball IMP.xlsx file for you to add in your own GMI entries. If >> required I can produce a file for you showing the GMI entries under your >> membership number. >> >> It is then a process of looking up each of the entries in >> http://www.freebmd.org.uk and adding in the Inferred Marriage Partner >> details in the additional columns above – namely Year2, Forenames2, >> Surname2, Spouse Forenames2 and Spouse Surname2. For the last column – >> Member 2 – simply enter IMP. Year 2 should be the same as the Year column. >> In the unlikely event that you know the actual date of the marriage for the >> IMP entry you can add in the “day” and “month” data. When you have added in >> the Inferred Marriage Partner details, please email the file to me at >> marriage-index@one-name.org <mailto:marriage-index@one-name.org> and I will >> arrange for the IMP entries to be uploaded to the GMI. >> >> Cliff Kemball >> GMI Co-ordinator >> >> >> Read more at >> http://one-name.org/forums/topic/gmi-inferred-marriage-partners/#cKbwdCTuRlcmSVI6.99 >> _____________________________________________ >> >> Guild speakers list: >> http://one-name.org/speakers/ >> ------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to >> GOONS-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in >> the subject and the body of the message > > _____________________________________________ > > Guild speakers list: > http://one-name.org/speakers/ > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to GOONS-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Since my original message about the availability of microfilms (see below), the notice on the the London FHC website has been removed. It seems they should not have told everybody what was about to happen later this year!! Peter ----- Original Message ----- From: "Peter Armstrong" <godsland@one-name.org> To: <GOONS-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Friday, March 10, 2017 9:10 PM Subject: [G] London Family History Centre - microfilms > The permanent microfilm collection held by the London FHC (currently at > the TNA at Kew) is to be given to the Society of Genealogists. This will > be available at the SoG probably from 5 June this year. > > Film ordering from Salt Lake City for viewing at Family History Centers > around the world is to be discontinued probably within the next 12 months. > > See this announcement for further details > http://londonfamilyhistory.org/important-news/ > > Regards, > Peter Armstrong > > email: godsland@one-name.org > Godsland One Name Study > Researching GODSLAND, GOSLAND, GOSSLAND & similar variants World Wide > Website: http://www.godsland.co.uk > > Member No.1987 of the Guild of One Name Studies > Guild Website http://www.one-name.org/ >

Is this just for London or are the LDS going to stop film ordering all over the world? If this is the case it is certainly going to hurt us severely in Australia. I was only in at the SAG looking at a film I had ordered. We don't have access a place such as the Family History Centre in Kew. Karen -----Original Message----- From: GOONS [mailto:goons-bounces+waidemar=people.net.au@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Dai & Angela Bevan Sent: Saturday, March 11, 2017 5:59 PM To: goons@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [G] London Family History Centre - microfilms Merryl, Peter, A member of staff at the London Centre warned my a couple of weeks ago that this was a real possibility. They are unhappy at the arrangement, but have no choice. The reason given is that all the collection will go on line on Familysearch. Indeed, the majority of the Irish Registry deeds that I was going through are already there. The gaps on on Familysearch are almost identical to the films not held by the London Centre. Visitors to the London centre will then look at the records on computer instead of microfilm, but there will be no need to go there as they can be browsed and images downloaded at home. Dai Bevan, Gilbourne ONS

Normally "late" in a List of Ratepayers (or similar such as Tithe Apportionments) means that the property was "late in the occupation of", normally indicating that the property was at present empty (although sometimes you may get A. B. late X. Y. indicating a change of occupier) and that the last occupier had been the person named. All it means is that they have vacated that property. They may have moved to another property or a different place, but of course it may be death which has caused their departure.....then you will sometimes see that the "occupiers" are given as the "Executors of....X" or "Trustees of....X", especially if X had been the owner, when they would still be liable for any debts to his (or her) estate. But in this instance it doesn't mean that they are dead. Polly ----- Original Message ----- From: "S TANNER" <s.tanner645@btinternet.com> To: <goons@rootsweb.com> Sent: Saturday, March 11, 2017 7:33 PM Subject: [G] Meaning of "late" Can anyone offer their opinion on the following entries in the Mansfield 1813 Ratepayers’ list? Hempwall, Joseph, Stockwell Gate, £1 – 10s – 8 Hempwall, William, (late) Stockwell Gate, 2s – 9d (Hempwall being an error for Hempsall) Does “late” mean (a) that William had died during the year OR (b) that he was still alive but no longer resided there, so perhaps they were after him for what they thought he owed OR (c) that he was late with his payment, or had not paid at all. Of Joseph, I know he was a publican keeping the “Admiral Nelson” in 1822-26 (from an Alehouse recognizance list) and that the pub was taken over in 1827 by his son William after his death in 1826. So that would preclude meaning (1) above, assuming it was the same chap. But if it refers to an older man, then there should have been a burial in Mansfield PR around the time – and there isn’t one. The younger one died in 1840. Ideas welcome Steve Tanner HEMPSALL ONS _____________________________________________ RootsWeb Surname List - are your interests there? http://rsl.rootsweb.ancestry.com/ ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to GOONS-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

This is not just about speed but permission, and whether you are a member of the LDS. A lot of Kent records went online a few years ago but ONLY at FHCs (suppossedly - didn't work at first but I think it does now), in Kent libraries and to LDS members. The rest of us cannot see them at home, you just get a message re the restriction. But seeing them online at an FHC should be quicker and cheaper than ordering film, so long as they are not overwhelmed with demand. Hopefully mostly they'll be able to get the permission and we can see them at home. Teresa On 12/03/2017 06:42, Dai & Angela Bevan wrote: > Karen, > > From the notice on Peter's original link it is going to be worldwide > as they are unable to source microfilm to use. If access is from home > then you won't need to go anywhere. How good this will be depends on > how quickly the entire collection comes on-line. > > Dai > > Gilbourne ONS > > > On 11/03/2017 23:52, Karen Rogers wrote: >> Is this just for London or are the LDS going to stop film ordering >> all over >> the world? >> If this is the case it is certainly going to hurt us severely in >> Australia. >> I was only in at the SAG looking at a film I had ordered. We don't have >> access a place such as the Family History Centre in Kew. >> >> Karen >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: GOONS >> [mailto:goons-bounces+waidemar=people.net.au@rootsweb.com] On >> Behalf Of Dai & Angela Bevan >> Sent: Saturday, March 11, 2017 5:59 PM >> To: goons@rootsweb.com >> Subject: Re: [G] London Family History Centre - microfilms >> >> Merryl, Peter, >> >> A member of staff at the London Centre warned my a couple of weeks >> ago that >> this was a real possibility. They are unhappy at the arrangement, but >> have >> no choice. The reason given is that all the collection will go on >> line on >> Familysearch. Indeed, the majority of the Irish Registry deeds that I >> was >> going through are already there. The gaps on on Familysearch are almost >> identical to the films not held by the London Centre. Visitors to the >> London centre will then look at the records on computer instead of >> microfilm, but there will be no need to go there as they can be >> browsed and >> images downloaded at home. >> >> Dai Bevan, >> >> Gilbourne ONS --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus

Steve, I would suggest that the 'late' applies to William, and not to his address. It may also explain why his rates were much lower that Joseph's/ Of course this could also be because his property is much smaller. Dai Gilbourne ONS On 11/03/2017 19:33, S TANNER wrote: > > Can anyone offer their opinion on the following entries in the Mansfield 1813 Ratepayers’ list? > > Hempwall, Joseph, Stockwell Gate, £1 – 10s – 8 > Hempwall, William, (late) Stockwell Gate, 2s – 9d > > (Hempwall being an error for Hempsall) > > Does “late” mean > (a) that William had died during the year OR > (b) that he was still alive but no longer resided there, so perhaps they were after him for what they thought he owed OR > (c) that he was late with his payment, or had not paid at all. > > Of Joseph, I know he was a publican keeping the “Admiral Nelson” in 1822-26 (from an Alehouse recognizance list) and that the pub was taken over in 1827 by his son William after his death in 1826. So that would preclude meaning (1) above, assuming it was the same chap. But if it refers to an older man, then there should have been a burial in Mansfield PR around the time – and there isn’t one. The younger one died in 1840. > > Ideas welcome > > Steve Tanner > > HEMPSALL ONS > > _____________________________________________ > > RootsWeb Surname List - are your interests there? > http://rsl.rootsweb.ancestry.com/ > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to GOONS-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Karen, From the notice on Peter's original link it is going to be worldwide as they are unable to source microfilm to use. If access is from home then you won't need to go anywhere. How good this will be depends on how quickly the entire collection comes on-line. Dai Gilbourne ONS On 11/03/2017 23:52, Karen Rogers wrote: > Is this just for London or are the LDS going to stop film ordering all over > the world? > If this is the case it is certainly going to hurt us severely in Australia. > I was only in at the SAG looking at a film I had ordered. We don't have > access a place such as the Family History Centre in Kew. > > Karen > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: GOONS [mailto:goons-bounces+waidemar=people.net.au@rootsweb.com] On > Behalf Of Dai & Angela Bevan > Sent: Saturday, March 11, 2017 5:59 PM > To: goons@rootsweb.com > Subject: Re: [G] London Family History Centre - microfilms > > Merryl, Peter, > > A member of staff at the London Centre warned my a couple of weeks ago that > this was a real possibility. They are unhappy at the arrangement, but have > no choice. The reason given is that all the collection will go on line on > Familysearch. Indeed, the majority of the Irish Registry deeds that I was > going through are already there. The gaps on on Familysearch are almost > identical to the films not held by the London Centre. Visitors to the > London centre will then look at the records on computer instead of > microfilm, but there will be no need to go there as they can be browsed and > images downloaded at home. > > Dai Bevan, > > Gilbourne ONS > > > > _____________________________________________ > > RootsWeb Surname List - are your interests there? > http://rsl.rootsweb.ancestry.com/ > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to GOONS-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message > >

'Late of' an address just means they used to live there, 'deceased' (or abbreviation of it) was usually used when a person had died. The two were often used in combination, showing that 'late' did not imply a death. I'd be fairly sure you can rule out (a). Whether (b) or (c) - I don't know. Are there earlier or later lists to compare - if people with (late) after their name are at the same address in a subsequent year then it suggests (c), if there was always a change, then it suggests (b). Teresa On 11/03/2017 19:33, S TANNER wrote: > > Can anyone offer their opinion on the following entries in the Mansfield 1813 Ratepayers’ list? > > Hempwall, Joseph, Stockwell Gate, £1 – 10s – 8 > Hempwall, William, (late) Stockwell Gate, 2s – 9d > > (Hempwall being an error for Hempsall) > > Does “late” mean > (a) that William had died during the year OR > (b) that he was still alive but no longer resided there, so perhaps they were after him for what they thought he owed OR > (c) that he was late with his payment, or had not paid at all. > > Of Joseph, I know he was a publican keeping the “Admiral Nelson” in 1822-26 (from an Alehouse recognizance list) and that the pub was taken over in 1827 by his son William after his death in 1826. So that would preclude meaning (1) above, assuming it was the same chap. But if it refers to an older man, then there should have been a burial in Mansfield PR around the time – and there isn’t one. The younger one died in 1840. > > Ideas welcome > > Steve Tanner > > HEMPSALL ONS > > _____________________________________________ > > RootsWeb Surname List - are your interests there? > http://rsl.rootsweb.ancestry.com/ > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to GOONS-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus

I would think 'late' meant that William had died. Are there earlier Ratepayers' Lists for comparison? Do you know the name of Joseph's father? Were these Hempwalls in Mansfield earlier or come from somewhere else, that William could have been buried with family in another place. Have you looked at wills for William, or do they feature in Overseer's Accounts (as William appears to have been paying for a smaller property/land than Joseph)? From Merryl Wells of Luton, Beds. E-Mail: merryl.wells@one-name.org GOONS Mem. No. 1757 Reg. ONS: Bawtree; Gullick/ock, Moist/Moyst. ----- Original Message ----- From: "S TANNER" <s.tanner645@btinternet.com> To: <goons@rootsweb.com> Sent: Saturday, March 11, 2017 7:33 PM Subject: [G] Meaning of "late" > > > Can anyone offer their opinion on the following entries in the Mansfield > 1813 Ratepayers’ list? > > Hempwall, Joseph, Stockwell Gate, £1 – 10s – 8 > Hempwall, William, (late) Stockwell Gate, 2s – 9d > > (Hempwall being an error for Hempsall) > > Does “late” mean > (a) that William had died during the year OR > (b) that he was still alive but no longer resided there, so perhaps they > were after him for what they thought he owed OR > (c) that he was late with his payment, or had not paid at all. > > Of Joseph, I know he was a publican keeping the “Admiral Nelson” in > 1822-26 (from an Alehouse recognizance list) and that the pub was taken > over in 1827 by his son William after his death in 1826. So that would > preclude meaning (1) above, assuming it was the same chap. But if it > refers to an older man, then there should have been a burial in Mansfield > PR around the time – and there isn’t one. The younger one died in 1840. > > Ideas welcome > > Steve Tanner > > HEMPSALL ONS > > _____________________________________________ > > RootsWeb Surname List - are your interests there? > http://rsl.rootsweb.ancestry.com/ > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > GOONS-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes > in the subject and the body of the message

> From: Tim Treeby > Sent: 11 March 2017 17:55 > > Was trying to keep it as simple as possible without adding the confusion > of a Third type of "County". > Which is why I recommend that everyone looks at > http://www.gazetteer.org.uk/index.php (When dealing with UK place names) > and reads the section labelled Notes for Historians, which explains it > all a lot better then I can. What this page does for me is convince me even more than I thought it before, that the idea of fixed 'historic' counties is useless. The Welsh 'historic' counties are said to be as defined in 1539 (so what does one record for history before that?). The database returns *two* counties for detached parts of counties that were tidied up in 1844 and transferred to a contiguous county. The description has no recognition of the concept of a county corporate (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/County_corporate) although these were administrative units created between the 12th and 19th centuries - some of them are older than the 'historic' Welsh counties. According to their database, Berwick-on-Tweed was historically only in the County of Northumberland and in England, despite changing countries between England and Scotland 12 times between 1100 and 1482, being a county corporate since 1551, and requiring a special section in a 1746 Act of Parliament to make it explicit that it was part of England. In my database I try to record the places as given in the historic records, adding the historic administrative units contemporary with the record if necessary. The past was not static or uniform; I see no reason to distort history by pretending that it was. Best wishes Andrew -- Andrew Millard - A.R.Millard@durham.ac.uk Chair, Trustees of Genuki: www.genuki.org.uk Maintainer, Genuki Middx + London: www.genuki.org.uk/big/eng/MDX/ + ../LND/ Academic Co-ordinator, Guild of One-Name Studies: www.one-name.org Bodimeade one-name study: community.dur.ac.uk/a.r.millard/genealogy/Bodimeade/ My genealogy: community.dur.ac.uk/a.r.millard/genealogy/

Thank-you Polly What an answer! This is why, I love being a member of GOONS Of course what I haven't mentioned is that FMP or whosoever did the transcription, transcribed it as Vullurap Nest whereas the original is clearly Vultures Nest I might say I send transcription errors daily to FMP. Within the FMP 1939 Register is a map that has the location pinned, which can be very misleading as in this case as it showed Kington, many times the pin is in the wrong street or a completely wrong location What a jolly jape genealogy is! John P Laws Registrar Laws Family Register Putting Flesh on the Bones of History www.lawsandlawes.blogspot.co.uk John -----Original Message----- From: GOONS [mailto:goons-bounces+registrar=lawsfamilyregister.org.uk@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Polly Rubery Sent: 11 March 2017 17:26 To: goons@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [G] Place Names Hi John >>Vultures Nest, Kington RD HER UK<< Except that there are several things wrong with that statement. First, Herefordshire is notorious in the 1939 National Register for only identifying the Registration District (and the Sub-district if you understand the codes - which are the same as those in the printed census reports long ago used as indexes to the films at the PRO etc) and the name of the place itself. You have to work out the parish from the names of the properties, and these don't often help as each parish seems to duplicate most of the house/farm names in the next parish, and the next. I use the council's map (Google "Explore Herefordshire Map") which I use for finding properties when I am Electoral Register Canvassing to try and identify as many of the house names as possible and pin them down collectively to one place. If this fails (as it does with this name) then I search the places in our BMD index - mostly given as just parish, but sometimes you get lucky, but not in this case. Then I look at the "Herefordshire Field Names" (Google the quotes - they are taken from the Tithe Maps for Herefordshire) to see if they offer any clue. None here! And then I resort to Google as Chris Pitt has already done, and sometimes you do get lucky, although sometimes it can just be a reference to the document that I've just found it in.....very frustrating! However for some reason I cannot open the document, my AV program doesn't like it....so in this case I'm none the wiser about it, but it is quite likely, as the woods of Herefordshire are full of derelict cottage remains although they have been swept away in the fields....and looking at the old OS 6" map on FMP it is clearly marked in the place Chris describes. Looking for the nearest property named on that map in the modern Explore....map shows that is still there, although more prosaically "2 Woodside" now and is in Brilley Civil Parish. The old OS map shows that the parish boundary (even then CP but normally in rural HEF the same as the ecclesiastical parish) runs between the two properties along the wood boundary, so I guess that it was in Whitney-on-Wye parish. If you can tell me some of the other house names John then I can check on the Explore.... Map. The next thing is that the Chapman Code for Herefordshire is HEF, not HER, which could be easily confused with Hertfordshire (which is HRT) - and as the people in London think we live there quite often, even when the full county name is being used, there is enough of that already! And of course between 1974 and 1998 the county name was "Hereford and Worcester".....until we got a divorce and went back to living separately (except for the rubbish collection!). And while this place is actually in HEF, a lot of the parishes which made up the Kington RD were actually in RAD (Radnorshire) so you CANNOT allocate a county to a Registration District, unless you give the whole choice (and many cover three counties!). And then as a place Herefordshire is definitely part of England. I don't think that the UK is really helpful in this case..... HTH Polly HEF RR! ----- Original Message ----- From: "John P Laws" <registrar@lawsfamilyregister.org.uk> To: <goons@rootsweb.com> Sent: Saturday, March 11, 2017 3:06 PM Subject: Re: [G] Place Names Just occasionally one comes across a place name one can't fathom, I'm currently indexing from 1939 register and recently came across a Vultures Nest, Kington RD HER UK As to this string my conclusion is Roger & Ken have it about right, I like to use pre 1974 counties and love chapman codes and am very tempted to return to them, they served me well for 30-40 years. -----Original Message----- From: GOONS [mailto:goons-bounces+registrar=lawsfamilyregister.org.uk@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Roger Goacher Sent: 11 March 2017 14:01 To: goons@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [G] Place Names Like it Ken. But hey, there is no 'right' way. We are researching as a hobby not, usually, as some academic exercise. Do what suits you. I almost always use Chapman codes, State and Province codes. Why not? I know what they mean, and don't get confused. My wife was born in Bath, Somerset UK. We married in Bath, Avon UK, and my in-laws subsequently died in Bath, BANES (Bath and North East Somerset) UK. All the same place; different times; different designations. My records show, for all four events on UK exclusive tree, 'Bath SOM' - suits me. Roger Goacher Researching the surname Goacher & variants anytime anywhere www.goacher.org -----Original Message----- From: Ken Toll Sent: Saturday, March 11, 2017 10:33 AM To: Goons mailing list Subject: Re: [G] Place Names Marie, Just a contrary thought... - IF - I leave the locations somewhat ambiguous, perhaps visitors will get in touch, rather than rob the data and run! ...And just maybe I'll learn something from their research as well... Ken --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus _____________________________________________ RootsWeb Surname List - are your interests there? http://rsl.rootsweb.ancestry.com/ ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to GOONS-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message _____________________________________________ RootsWeb Surname List - are your interests there? http://rsl.rootsweb.ancestry.com/ ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to GOONS-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message _____________________________________________ RootsWeb Surname List - are your interests there? http://rsl.rootsweb.ancestry.com/ ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to GOONS-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Can anyone offer their opinion on the following entries in the Mansfield 1813 Ratepayers’ list? Hempwall, Joseph, Stockwell Gate, £1 – 10s – 8 Hempwall, William, (late) Stockwell Gate, 2s – 9d (Hempwall being an error for Hempsall) Does “late” mean (a) that William had died during the year OR (b) that he was still alive but no longer resided there, so perhaps they were after him for what they thought he owed OR (c) that he was late with his payment, or had not paid at all. Of Joseph, I know he was a publican keeping the “Admiral Nelson” in 1822-26 (from an Alehouse recognizance list) and that the pub was taken over in 1827 by his son William after his death in 1826. So that would preclude meaning (1) above, assuming it was the same chap. But if it refers to an older man, then there should have been a burial in Mansfield PR around the time – and there isn’t one. The younger one died in 1840. Ideas welcome Steve Tanner HEMPSALL ONS

Hi, Looking at Findmypast's Friday's new records under Victoria Wills & Probate is 'Henry Bawtree 1872/3 Admin. CTA'. Seeking Henry in my family trees think this could be Henry/Harry Bawtree born 1818 Colchester, Essex, England who married 1850 as a bachelor to Adelaide Susan Nunn in Victoria, Australia and had two daughters, had returned to England by 1856 (when his will was signed with Adelaide being executor) and died August 1872 in Colchester. In 1844 a Theodore Henry Bawtree was bapt. at Maitland, New South Wales, Australia to Mary Anne Bawtree wife of Henry Bawtree. Nothing further has been found on Theodore or Mary Anne. I am wondering if Henry Bawtree of Colchester was the father of Theodore, if the Admin. could reflect/prove this. Help appreciated. From Merryl Wells of Luton, Beds. E-Mail: merryl.wells@one-name.org GOONS Mem. No. 1757 Reg. ONS: Bawtree; Gullick/ock, Moist/Moyst.

Was trying to keep it as simple as possible without adding the confusion of a Third type of "County". Which is why I recommend that everyone looks at http://www.gazetteer.org.uk/index.php (When dealing with UK place names) and reads the section labelled Notes for Historians, which explains it all a lot better then I can. Tim. On 11/03/2017 17:30, Polly Rubery wrote: > And Tim you have forgotten "Registration Counties" which the GRO invented, > and are used in the 19th Century census returns as well as in the Civil > Registration system. As I have said in my reply to John's OP, RDs often > include parishes for more than one county in them - two is very common (as > with Kington RD which has parts of HEF and RAD in it - so both ENG and WLS), > there are many with three, and I wouldn't be surprised if there are some > with four - although I don't recall any? > Polly > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Tim Treeby"<treeby@ttenterprises.co.uk> > To:<goons@rootsweb.com> > Sent: Saturday, March 11, 2017 4:16 PM > Subject: Re: [G] Place Names > > > Just to repeat so no one is in any doubt. > > the "Historic County" Boundaries WERE NOT CHANGED in 1974. > What was changed was the "Administrative County" Boundary. > > So Bath is still in the "Historic County" of Somerset as it always has been. > > But yes will of moved from the "Administrative County" of Somerset to > the "Administrative County" of Avon to the "Administrative County" of > Bath& North East Somerset. > > So when applying the term "County" need to be absolutely sure if talking > about an "Historic County" or an "Administrative County". > So where records are to be found could depend on which "Administrative > County" a particular place was in at a certain time. But it will still > never of moved from the "Historic County". > > So when doing recording of places need to be sure if you are referring > to the "Historic" or the "Administrative" County. > > I suspect that most of us use the "Historic County" when recording the > places. Except possibly for London. > As the "Administrative County" of London is made up of parts of > Middlesex,Surrey,Kent,Essex etc and it's Boundaries constantly change. > But is constituent parts are still within the old "Historic Counties" > > Tim Treeby. > > --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus

And Tim you have forgotten "Registration Counties" which the GRO invented, and are used in the 19th Century census returns as well as in the Civil Registration system. As I have said in my reply to John's OP, RDs often include parishes for more than one county in them - two is very common (as with Kington RD which has parts of HEF and RAD in it - so both ENG and WLS), there are many with three, and I wouldn't be surprised if there are some with four - although I don't recall any? Polly ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tim Treeby" <treeby@ttenterprises.co.uk> To: <goons@rootsweb.com> Sent: Saturday, March 11, 2017 4:16 PM Subject: Re: [G] Place Names Just to repeat so no one is in any doubt. the "Historic County" Boundaries WERE NOT CHANGED in 1974. What was changed was the "Administrative County" Boundary. So Bath is still in the "Historic County" of Somerset as it always has been. But yes will of moved from the "Administrative County" of Somerset to the "Administrative County" of Avon to the "Administrative County" of Bath & North East Somerset. So when applying the term "County" need to be absolutely sure if talking about an "Historic County" or an "Administrative County". So where records are to be found could depend on which "Administrative County" a particular place was in at a certain time. But it will still never of moved from the "Historic County". So when doing recording of places need to be sure if you are referring to the "Historic" or the "Administrative" County. I suspect that most of us use the "Historic County" when recording the places. Except possibly for London. As the "Administrative County" of London is made up of parts of Middlesex,Surrey,Kent,Essex etc and it's Boundaries constantly change. But is constituent parts are still within the old "Historic Counties" Tim Treeby. On 11/03/2017 14:00, Roger Goacher wrote: > Like it Ken. > > But hey, there is no 'right' way. We are researching as a hobby not, > usually, as some academic exercise. Do what suits you. I almost > always use Chapman codes, State and Province codes. Why not? I know > what they mean, and don't get confused. > > My wife was born in Bath, Somerset UK. We married in Bath, Avon UK, > and my in-laws subsequently died in Bath, BANES (Bath and North East > Somerset) UK. All the same place; different times; different > designations. My records show, for all four events on UK exclusive > tree, 'Bath SOM' - suits me. > > Roger Goacher > Researching the surname Goacher & variants anytime anywhere > www.goacher.org > --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus _____________________________________________ RootsWeb Surname List - are your interests there? http://rsl.rootsweb.ancestry.com/ ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to GOONS-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Hi John >>Vultures Nest, Kington RD HER UK<< Except that there are several things wrong with that statement. First, Herefordshire is notorious in the 1939 National Register for only identifying the Registration District (and the Sub-district if you understand the codes - which are the same as those in the printed census reports long ago used as indexes to the films at the PRO etc) and the name of the place itself. You have to work out the parish from the names of the properties, and these don't often help as each parish seems to duplicate most of the house/farm names in the next parish, and the next. I use the council's map (Google "Explore Herefordshire Map") which I use for finding properties when I am Electoral Register Canvassing to try and identify as many of the house names as possible and pin them down collectively to one place. If this fails (as it does with this name) then I search the places in our BMD index - mostly given as just parish, but sometimes you get lucky, but not in this case. Then I look at the "Herefordshire Field Names" (Google the quotes - they are taken from the Tithe Maps for Herefordshire) to see if they offer any clue. None here! And then I resort to Google as Chris Pitt has already done, and sometimes you do get lucky, although sometimes it can just be a reference to the document that I've just found it in.....very frustrating! However for some reason I cannot open the document, my AV program doesn't like it....so in this case I'm none the wiser about it, but it is quite likely, as the woods of Herefordshire are full of derelict cottage remains although they have been swept away in the fields....and looking at the old OS 6" map on FMP it is clearly marked in the place Chris describes. Looking for the nearest property named on that map in the modern Explore....map shows that is still there, although more prosaically "2 Woodside" now and is in Brilley Civil Parish. The old OS map shows that the parish boundary (even then CP but normally in rural HEF the same as the ecclesiastical parish) runs between the two properties along the wood boundary, so I guess that it was in Whitney-on-Wye parish. If you can tell me some of the other house names John then I can check on the Explore.... Map. The next thing is that the Chapman Code for Herefordshire is HEF, not HER, which could be easily confused with Hertfordshire (which is HRT) - and as the people in London think we live there quite often, even when the full county name is being used, there is enough of that already! And of course between 1974 and 1998 the county name was "Hereford and Worcester".....until we got a divorce and went back to living separately (except for the rubbish collection!). And while this place is actually in HEF, a lot of the parishes which made up the Kington RD were actually in RAD (Radnorshire) so you CANNOT allocate a county to a Registration District, unless you give the whole choice (and many cover three counties!). And then as a place Herefordshire is definitely part of England. I don't think that the UK is really helpful in this case..... HTH Polly HEF RR! ----- Original Message ----- From: "John P Laws" <registrar@lawsfamilyregister.org.uk> To: <goons@rootsweb.com> Sent: Saturday, March 11, 2017 3:06 PM Subject: Re: [G] Place Names Just occasionally one comes across a place name one can't fathom, I'm currently indexing from 1939 register and recently came across a Vultures Nest, Kington RD HER UK As to this string my conclusion is Roger & Ken have it about right, I like to use pre 1974 counties and love chapman codes and am very tempted to return to them, they served me well for 30-40 years. -----Original Message----- From: GOONS [mailto:goons-bounces+registrar=lawsfamilyregister.org.uk@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Roger Goacher Sent: 11 March 2017 14:01 To: goons@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [G] Place Names Like it Ken. But hey, there is no 'right' way. We are researching as a hobby not, usually, as some academic exercise. Do what suits you. I almost always use Chapman codes, State and Province codes. Why not? I know what they mean, and don't get confused. My wife was born in Bath, Somerset UK. We married in Bath, Avon UK, and my in-laws subsequently died in Bath, BANES (Bath and North East Somerset) UK. All the same place; different times; different designations. My records show, for all four events on UK exclusive tree, 'Bath SOM' - suits me. Roger Goacher Researching the surname Goacher & variants anytime anywhere www.goacher.org -----Original Message----- From: Ken Toll Sent: Saturday, March 11, 2017 10:33 AM To: Goons mailing list Subject: Re: [G] Place Names Marie, Just a contrary thought... - IF - I leave the locations somewhat ambiguous, perhaps visitors will get in touch, rather than rob the data and run! ...And just maybe I'll learn something from their research as well... Ken --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus _____________________________________________ RootsWeb Surname List - are your interests there? http://rsl.rootsweb.ancestry.com/ ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to GOONS-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message _____________________________________________ RootsWeb Surname List - are your interests there? http://rsl.rootsweb.ancestry.com/ ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to GOONS-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message