Hi Evelyn This appears to be your ancestor LOCKE Ann / age. 81y / 22.10.1879 / in the Ryde Cemetery Registers You can make inquiries through Bereavement Services Section Isle of Wight Crematorium Station Lane Whippingham East Cowes Isle of Wight PO32 6NJ There are several Lock with a (e) listed at this website http://www.rshg.org.uk/ under graves. Unfortunately your Ann doesn't appear here yet All the best John ----- Original Message ----- From: "Evelyn Smith" <kesmith1@tpg.com.au> To: <isle-of-wight@rootsweb.com> Sent: Sunday, September 27, 2009 5:27 PM Subject: [IoW] Burial Place on the IOW > Dear Listers, > > Could someone suggest to me the cemetery an ancestor would have been > buried > in whose death was registered in 1879 in Ryde. This is, I hope, the death > of > my 3 x great grandmother, Ann LOCK. A record which I have searched for > for > many years and only now found with the assistance of a helpful person on > this list.
On 27 Sep 2009 at 19:39, Joy Langdon wrote: > I don't claim any knowledge or wisdom but Roy has said he values > attention to detail and hates it if anyone gets anything wrong about > genealogy so I knew he wouldn't want to continue telling people that > they were misquoting Shakespeare when they were actually quoting > Homer. Sorry if that makes me lacking in humility, I thought I was > being helpful! > Joy was quite correct! I had forgotten that Shakespeare plagiarised the saying from someone else and if she says it was Homer I am sure she's right. But, then, Shakespeare was never averse to a bit of plagiarism - just like Oscar Wilde. As a Yorkshireman, I happen to believe that it was The Bard who also invented the myth of the Roses, Lancashire red, Yorkshire white, in Henry VI Part 1. In real life it never happened until Shakespeare dreamed it up. We should always remember he was a dramatist and not a historian. -- Roy Stockdill Professional genealogical researcher, writer & lecturer Newbies' Guide to Genealogy & Family History: www.genuki.org.uk/gs/Newbie.html "There is only one thing in the world worse than being talked about, and that is not being talked about." OSCAR WILDE
I don't claim any knowledge or wisdom but Roy has said he values attention to detail and hates it if anyone gets anything wrong about genealogy so I knew he wouldn't want to continue telling people that they were misquoting Shakespeare when they were actually quoting Homer. Sorry if that makes me lacking in humility, I thought I was being helpful! From: Drp Budden <drpbudden@yahoo.co.uk> To: isle-of-wight@rootsweb.com Sent: Sunday, 27 September, 2009 7:47:38 PM Subject: Re: [IoW] Joy I do hate emails of the type of Joy's! She seems to have knowledge and wisdom, but what about humilty! Den ************************************** You can contact the Isle of Wight List Administrator by emailing: Isle-of-Wight-Admin@rootsweb.com ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to ISLE-OF-WIGHT-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message
On 27 Sep 2009 at 18:23, Ian Dunbar wrote: > Hello Roy, > > Ancestry transcribes it letter for letter. I have looked though the > entire section to get a feel for the enumerator's handwriting style, > and the choice of City comes from other entries which look very > similar the note. It is of course all up for interpretation. > > I don't know how the Surname was transcribed on Findmypast. I found > nothing searching variants of COUGHLAN so I searched by profile. That > is to say I used the info I had about them and left the Surname out > completely as it is so open to variation. > > There daughter Ellen's birth certificate is the first instance I have > of her maiden name, and is an old typed version which gives the name > as DURN. Having used BMD I have tracked down the marriage which looks > like this .... > > Surname First name(s) District Vol Page > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > ------ ---- Marriages Dec 1874 (>99%) > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > ------ ---- > > Coughlan John Holborn 1b 1015 > DUNN Emily Holborn 1b 1015 > Pope Alfred Holborn 1b 1015 > Rope Alfred Holborn 1b 1015 > Warden Elizabeth Holborn 1b 1015 > > > This fits all the criteria perfectly and gives a far more plausible > Surname of DUNN. > FMP have the name indexed in 1891 as COUGHTON but I tend to doubt that is correct. The name looks more like COUGHLON when you examine the image. There is what could be the cross-bar of a letter T but it isn't connected to the upright and looks more like a mark on the page. I looked at the marriage entry you have found and thought that might be the right one. There are two other names on the page but the 1881 census suggests that Alfred Pope married Elizabeth Warden. However, I have so far failed to find any of the family in any other census, though the 1871 has an Emily C Dunn born in Birmingham about 1851. -- Roy Stockdill Professional genealogical researcher, writer & lecturer Newbies' Guide to Genealogy & Family History: www.genuki.org.uk/gs/Newbie.html "There is only one thing in the world worse than being talked about, and that is not being talked about." OSCAR WILDE
It appears that Mr Stockdill has failed to recognise that he is a "professional genealogist" who no doubt has plenty of time for family history research whereas there are a lot of us who do not as we have other more pressing commitments like for example having to work. If all of us spent all of our time on research then nothing else would get done and the country would fall into rack and ruin. I, for one, have to fit my research around my job and other responsibilities which may mean I have to fit it in with my holiday time and sometimes months go past without me even looking at my trees. Also when I set out on my research I was pointed to this email list as being helpful. I too asked "silly questions" as I wanted to know the best route to take in my research and where to find such things as births/deaths and marriages. They may be silly questions to you, Mr Stockdill, but unless the questions are asked how are they supposed to find out where to go to get the information. I was brought up to be polite and helpful - clearly you were not. If you can't be polite and helpful with a lot less arrogance in your replies then perhaps you ought to consider not replying at all. You appear to have upset a lot of people. After all politeness costs nothing and you gain respect. Rant over . . . . . for now! -----Original Message----- From: isle-of-wight-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:isle-of-wight-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Graham Anstey Sent: 27 September 2009 18:31 To: Isle-of-Wight-L@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [IoW] Marriage certificate/father! > To me, genealogy is not a hobby to be "played at" now and then but an > academic > discipline which, like all disciplines, demands close attention to > detail, patience, > knowledge and good research skills, otherwise there seems little point > in pursuing it. That's fair enough. However not everyone has the time/patience/ability to treat it as you do. But each to their own. > I am very sorry that I seem to have upset a few hypersensitive little > souls, but that > seems to be the way of the world now! Political correctness demands > that no-one > must ever say anything that might be held to offend somebody else. > Whatever > happened to the centuries-old, hard-won British tradition of freedom of > speech, > thought and opinion and our right to a good old-fashioned, vigorous > debate? It has nothing to do with political correctness, just common decency and respect. The rights and traditions of which you speak also include being treated with respect by your fellow man, and the freedom to ask a question without being insulted. > The point of my message was, quite simply, that beginners should be > expected to do > a little research and homework of their own before asking questions on > a mailing list. > Haven't they heard of libraries where you can borrow jolly valuable > things called Many libraries are being closed as councils struggle to make the books balance, and the OP may not have access to a library. > BOOKS? Haven't they heard of Google, where just about any question it's > possible to > think of can be answered in minutes? I just tried entering "change of details on UK marriage certificates" into Google, and although it gave me many hundreds of thousands of results, none of those on the first 2 pages answered the question. Remember, the question was whether the details requested by the certificate had changed, not when were certificates first issued. > As some listers appear to recognise - and I am particularly grateful > for the support > from Mark Urry - my expertise born of long experience (well over 30 > years in > genealogy) is at the disposal of everyone here. When someone has > obviously made a > genuine attempt to solve a problem and run into a brick wall, then I > will use every > endeavour to help them. In fact, I did this for several years in my > long-running series in > Practical Family History, the magazine for which I write every month, > helping readers > to solve their Brick Wall problems. Anyone can e-mail me either > privately or via a list > with a genuine problem that they cannot solve and I will do my utmost > to help them. That's very laudable. However I won't be taking you up on your offer, as I fear we won't get along. > However, I won't waste my time on frivolous questions that can be > answered quite > easily with just a bit of thought and online research. Then it would probably have been better to have just not replied to it at all. > We Yorkshire folks believe in calling a spade a spade and we are > uncompromising in > our approach to life. If some folks cannot live with that, well it's > their problem and not > mine. My final word on the subject! I know many Yorkshire people, and whilst they have strong opinions, they manage to get them across in a respectful way. I think we ought to close this topic here, unless Roy wishes to respond. Graham No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 8.5.416 / Virus Database: 270.13.107/2382 - Release Date: 09/27/09 05:51:00 ************************************** You can contact the Isle of Wight List Administrator by emailing: Isle-of-Wight-Admin@rootsweb.com ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to ISLE-OF-WIGHT-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message
Ladies and Gentlemen, This salutation does not include Roy Stockdale because he does not fall into either category. This professional genealogist is an old hand at this game - drop into a mailing list, join in a few discussions and wait for an oppurtunity to set the cat among the pigeons (or sitting ducks). A simple question sets him up nicely for his patented barrage of insults which are both cruel and unwarranted. He claims to be "frankly astonished" when he knows full well it is just the type of question that a "Newbie" would ask. Why this list is his target has not yet emerged, but a few months ago he was unsubscribed from a list for exactly the same behavior. There he subscribed to the list as Robin Lane-Pudsey apparently primarily to draw the list administrator into a battle. The name, he later informed us with glee, was actually "his dear old mum's address - Robin Lane, Pudsey, Yorkshire. He retired from the list after handing out some extremely rude comments. Why this admittedly well-informed man has to play these tiresome and childish games when he has so much more he could offer is a puzzle. But now people here have risen to his bait and are getting hot under the collar and most conveniently fufilling his ambition to stir things up. It has made the list lively for a few days but now it is uncomfortable and should end. I have hopes that he will now retire from this one. Gill Smith
> To me, genealogy is not a hobby to be "played at" now and then but an > academic > discipline which, like all disciplines, demands close attention to > detail, patience, > knowledge and good research skills, otherwise there seems little point > in pursuing it. That's fair enough. However not everyone has the time/patience/ability to treat it as you do. But each to their own. > I am very sorry that I seem to have upset a few hypersensitive little > souls, but that > seems to be the way of the world now! Political correctness demands > that no-one > must ever say anything that might be held to offend somebody else. > Whatever > happened to the centuries-old, hard-won British tradition of freedom of > speech, > thought and opinion and our right to a good old-fashioned, vigorous > debate? It has nothing to do with political correctness, just common decency and respect. The rights and traditions of which you speak also include being treated with respect by your fellow man, and the freedom to ask a question without being insulted. > The point of my message was, quite simply, that beginners should be > expected to do > a little research and homework of their own before asking questions on > a mailing list. > Haven't they heard of libraries where you can borrow jolly valuable > things called Many libraries are being closed as councils struggle to make the books balance, and the OP may not have access to a library. > BOOKS? Haven't they heard of Google, where just about any question it's > possible to > think of can be answered in minutes? I just tried entering "change of details on UK marriage certificates" into Google, and although it gave me many hundreds of thousands of results, none of those on the first 2 pages answered the question. Remember, the question was whether the details requested by the certificate had changed, not when were certificates first issued. > As some listers appear to recognise - and I am particularly grateful > for the support > from Mark Urry - my expertise born of long experience (well over 30 > years in > genealogy) is at the disposal of everyone here. When someone has > obviously made a > genuine attempt to solve a problem and run into a brick wall, then I > will use every > endeavour to help them. In fact, I did this for several years in my > long-running series in > Practical Family History, the magazine for which I write every month, > helping readers > to solve their Brick Wall problems. Anyone can e-mail me either > privately or via a list > with a genuine problem that they cannot solve and I will do my utmost > to help them. That's very laudable. However I won't be taking you up on your offer, as I fear we won't get along. > However, I won't waste my time on frivolous questions that can be > answered quite > easily with just a bit of thought and online research. Then it would probably have been better to have just not replied to it at all. > We Yorkshire folks believe in calling a spade a spade and we are > uncompromising in > our approach to life. If some folks cannot live with that, well it's > their problem and not > mine. My final word on the subject! I know many Yorkshire people, and whilst they have strong opinions, they manage to get them across in a respectful way. I think we ought to close this topic here, unless Roy wishes to respond. Graham No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 8.5.416 / Virus Database: 270.13.107/2382 - Release Date: 09/27/09 05:51:00
Hello Roy, Ancestry transcribes it letter for letter. I have looked though the entire section to get a feel for the enumerator's handwriting style, and the choice of City comes from other entries which look very similar the note. It is of course all up for interpretation. I don't know how the Surname was transcribed on Findmypast. I found nothing searching variants of COUGHLAN so I searched by profile. That is to say I used the info I had about them and left the Surname out completely as it is so open to variation. There daughter Ellen's birth certificate is the first instance I have of her maiden name, and is an old typed version which gives the name as DURN. Having used BMD I have tracked down the marriage which looks like this .... Surname First name(s) District Vol Page ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- Marriages Dec 1874 (>99%) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- Coughlan John Holborn 1b 1015 DUNN Emily Holborn 1b 1015 Pope Alfred Holborn 1b 1015 Rope Alfred Holborn 1b 1015 Warden Elizabeth Holborn 1b 1015 This fits all the criteria perfectly and gives a far more plausible Surname of DUNN. The family verbal tradition says the children ended up in care, due to the parents being drunken Irish. John COUGHLAN, despite the name, is in fact born in London. There is however a nugget of truth to the story as it seems Emily and John died ... Surname First name(s) Age District Vol Page ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- Deaths Mar 1895 (>99%) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- Coughlan Emily 39 Westminster 1a 514 Deaths Sep 1893 (>99%) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- Coughlan John 39 Holborn 1b 476 This would leave Ellen parentless at the age of 15. Not an age, I know that children weren't regularly fending for themselves. It does however show why there is no record of them after 1981 in the census. I have found nothing at all that fits Emily DUNN that helps with her origins. Regards Ian -----Original Message----- From: isle-of-wight-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:isle-of-wight-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Roy Stockdill Sent: 27 September 2009 15:16 To: Isle-of-Wight-L@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [IoW] Impossible Place Name On 26 Sep 2009 at 23:06, Ian Dunbar wrote: > Hello All, > I have no idea if this is related to the Isle of Wight as I can't read > it! > Emily COUGHLAN is listed in the 1891 census as being born in (and this > is what it looks like) B(e)ightminan not city > I have spent hours trying to work this out, and failed utterly. > It is here in the 1891 census. > Class: RG12; Piece: 219; Folio 62; Page 72; GSU roll: 6095329 .....Snip rest..... The transcriber for Findmypast obviously thought it was supposed to be Birmingham, since that is what appears in the index. However, looking at the image the two words written in a different handwriting after the place name appear to me to be "not abs" (not city). Offhand, I've no idea what this means, but I would be surprised if an enumerator in 1891 didn't know how to spell Birmingham, even a London enumerator. Have you tried finding her or any of the family in an earlier or later census, or perhaps in her maiden name (if you know it) before she was married? -- Roy Stockdill Professional genealogical researcher, writer & lecturer Newbies' Guide to Genealogy & Family History: www.genuki.org.uk/gs/Newbie.html "There is only one thing in the world worse than being talked about, and that is not being talked about." OSCAR WILDE ************************************** You can contact the Isle of Wight List Administrator by emailing: Isle-of-Wight-Admin@rootsweb.com ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to ISLE-OF-WIGHT-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 8.5.409 / Virus Database: 270.13.113/2396 - Release Date: 09/26/09 17:51:00
Just to be correct, the quote "It is a wise child that knows his own father" is actually a quote from Homer's Odyssey. Shakespeare changed it to "It is a wise father that knows his own child". "My mother, answered Telemachus, tells me I am a son to Ulysses but it is a wise child that knows his own father". ________________________________ From: Roy Stockdill <roy.stockdill@btinternet.com> To: Isle-of-Wight-L@rootsweb.com Sent: Sunday, 27 September, 2009 5:30:08 PM Subject: Re: [IoW] Family History versus Genealogy On 27 Sep 2009 at 17:08, anne@celliddu.freeserve.co.uk wrote: > > Hello Listers, > what a lot of people seem to get muddled upis familyhistory and > genealogy. > > Family history is what most of us are interested in.It concerns who > our ancestors were, how they lived and what was going on in the world > around them. > > Genealogy is the academicstudy of the paternal line. > > Now Mr. Stockdill will be correcting me on this > > Regards, > Anne in Wales > I completely agree, but the two are surely indivisible from one another. Actually, I would say that genealogy is the academic study of blood lines, not just the paternal line. Some people follow what is called a matrilineal line, i.e. your mother's mother's mother and so on. This line is harder to follow because the name usually changes in every generation with marriage, however at least it is a line about which there can be the minimum of doubt. As Shakespeare wrote: "It's a wise father that knows his own child" which is often misquoted as "It's a wise man who knows his own father". I suspect you will have the feminists jumping up and down in some agitation if you are suggesting that female lines are not important! However, there can be no family history without genealogy, otherwise we would not know who our ancestors were. Family history concerns everything to do with the lives of our ancestors - often called putting flesh on the bones, a cliche but I've yet to hear a better description. -- Roy Stockdill Professional genealogical researcher, writer & lecturer Newbies' Guide to Genealogy & Family History: www.genuki.org.uk/gs/Newbie.html "There is only one thing in the world worse than being talked about, and that is not being talked about." OSCAR WILDE ************************************** You can contact the Isle of Wight List Administrator by emailing: Isle-of-Wight-Admin@rootsweb.com ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to ISLE-OF-WIGHT-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message
On 27 Sep 2009 at 17:08, anne@celliddu.freeserve.co.uk wrote: > > Hello Listers, > what a lot of people seem to get muddled upis familyhistory and > genealogy. > > Family history is what most of us are interested in.It concerns who > our ancestors were, how they lived and what was going on in the world > around them. > > Genealogy is the academicstudy of the paternal line. > > Now Mr. Stockdill will be correcting me on this > > Regards, > Anne in Wales > I completely agree, but the two are surely indivisible from one another. Actually, I would say that genealogy is the academic study of blood lines, not just the paternal line. Some people follow what is called a matrilineal line, i.e. your mother's mother's mother and so on. This line is harder to follow because the name usually changes in every generation with marriage, however at least it is a line about which there can be the minimum of doubt. As Shakespeare wrote: "It's a wise father that knows his own child" which is often misquoted as "It's a wise man who knows his own father". I suspect you will have the feminists jumping up and down in some agitation if you are suggesting that female lines are not important! However, there can be no family history without genealogy, otherwise we would not know who our ancestors were. Family history concerns everything to do with the lives of our ancestors - often called putting flesh on the bones, a cliche but I've yet to hear a better description. -- Roy Stockdill Professional genealogical researcher, writer & lecturer Newbies' Guide to Genealogy & Family History: www.genuki.org.uk/gs/Newbie.html "There is only one thing in the world worse than being talked about, and that is not being talked about." OSCAR WILDE
Hello Listers, what a lot of people seem to get muddled up is family history and genealogy. Family history is what most of us are interested in. It concerns who our ancestors were, how they lived and what was going on in the world around them. Genealogy is the academic study of the paternal line. Now Mr. Stockdill will be correcting me on this Regards, Anne in Wales
Treat others how one would like to be treated themselves. Mr Stockdill writes in an arrogant fashion, that needs to be toned down. > From: roy.stockdill@btinternet.com > To: urry@aliceadsl.fr; joy.langdon@btopenworld.com > Date: Sun, 27 Sep 2009 13:13:17 +0100 > CC: Isle-of-Wight-L@rootsweb.com > Subject: Re: [IoW] Marriage certificate/father! > > On 26 Sep 2009 at 22:36, Joy Langdon wrote: > > > > > Roy's explanations are helpful and gratefully received. However, I > > object to it being accompanied by a "rap on the knuckles" and I > > certainlydon't think anyone deserves it for asking a question.I > > wouldn't toleratebullying or abuse in any other walk of life and I > > certainly won't accept it from a stranger here. All we are asking is > > that we canhelp each other and enjoyour hobby withoutany > > unpleasantness. > > > To me, genealogy is not a hobby to be "played at" now and then but an academic > discipline which, like all disciplines, demands close attention to detail, patience, > knowledge and good research skills, otherwise there seems little point in pursuing it. > > I am very sorry that I seem to have upset a few hypersensitive little souls, but that > seems to be the way of the world now! Political correctness demands that no-one > must ever say anything that might be held to offend somebody else. Whatever > happened to the centuries-old, hard-won British tradition of freedom of speech, > thought and opinion and our right to a good old-fashioned, vigorous debate? > > The point of my message was, quite simply, that beginners should be expected to do > a little research and homework of their own before asking questions on a mailing list. > Haven't they heard of libraries where you can borrow jolly valuable things called > BOOKS? Haven't they heard of Google, where just about any question it's possible to > think of can be answered in minutes? If anyone wishes to have a list of books on > genealogy and family history that I believe all newcomers to the subject ought to have > read, then I will be very happy to post one. > > The answer to when civil registration began in England and Wales and father's names > first appeared on marriage certificates can be found instantly in my own Newbies' > Guide, URL clearly posted below. In fact, there are rare exceptions to the rule and > very occasionally parents were mentioned in parish register entries of marriages > (especially in Yorkshire, my own home county where we had wonderful things called > Dade Registers in some parishes) but, in general, the principle was established from > July 1st 1837 onwards. This was one of the five most seminal dates in English > genealogy, as I explained, and anyone who doesn't know this perhaps should ask > themselves whether they should be in family history at all. > > As some listers appear to recognise - and I am particularly grateful for the support > from Mark Urry - my expertise born of long experience (well over 30 years in > genealogy) is at the disposal of everyone here. When someone has obviously made a > genuine attempt to solve a problem and run into a brick wall, then I will use every > endeavour to help them. In fact, I did this for several years in my long-running series in > Practical Family History, the magazine for which I write every month, helping readers > to solve their Brick Wall problems. Anyone can e-mail me either privately or via a list > with a genuine problem that they cannot solve and I will do my utmost to help them. > However, I won't waste my time on frivolous questions that can be answered quite > easily with just a bit of thought and online research. > > We Yorkshire folks believe in calling a spade a spade and we are uncompromising in > our approach to life. If some folks cannot live with that, well it's their problem and not > mine. My final word on the subject! > > -- > Roy Stockdill > Professional genealogical researcher, writer & lecturer > Newbies' Guide to Genealogy & Family History: www.genuki.org.uk/gs/Newbie.html > > "There is only one thing in the world worse than being talked about, > and that is not being talked about." > OSCAR WILDE > > > > ************************************** > You can contact the Isle of Wight List Administrator by emailing: > Isle-of-Wight-Admin@rootsweb.com > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to ISLE-OF-WIGHT-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message _________________________________________________________________ With Windows Live, you can organise, edit, and share your photos. http://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/134665338/direct/01/
On 26 Sep 2009 at 23:06, Ian Dunbar wrote: > Hello All, > I have no idea if this is related to the Isle of Wight as I can't read > it! > Emily COUGHLAN is listed in the 1891 census as being born in (and this > is what it looks like) B(e)ightminan not city > I have spent hours trying to work this out, and failed utterly. > It is here in the 1891 census. > Class: RG12; Piece: 219; Folio 62; Page 72; GSU roll: 6095329 .....Snip rest..... The transcriber for Findmypast obviously thought it was supposed to be Birmingham, since that is what appears in the index. However, looking at the image the two words written in a different handwriting after the place name appear to me to be "not abs" (not city). Offhand, I've no idea what this means, but I would be surprised if an enumerator in 1891 didn't know how to spell Birmingham, even a London enumerator. Have you tried finding her or any of the family in an earlier or later census, or perhaps in her maiden name (if you know it) before she was married? -- Roy Stockdill Professional genealogical researcher, writer & lecturer Newbies' Guide to Genealogy & Family History: www.genuki.org.uk/gs/Newbie.html "There is only one thing in the world worse than being talked about, and that is not being talked about." OSCAR WILDE
On 26 Sep 2009 at 11:33, Peter Spencer wrote: > Hello List, > > In volume 4 issue 221 Roy Stockdill reminded us of important dates in > relation to genealogical research one of which was 1752 when our > calendar changed. > > For the benefit of those who may not already be aware I > would like to expand on what happened and why in 1752. > > Our present day calendar works on the calendar devised by Pope > Gregory XIII in 1582 called the Gregorian calendar. The United Kingdom > did not adopt the Gregorian calendar until 1752. Until then we were > using the Julian calendar which had a leap year every four years. As > we all should know to determine if a year is a leap year you divide > the number by 4 and if there is no remainder that year is a leap year. > The only exception is when the last two digits are 00 as in 1900, 2000 > etc in which case the number should be divided by 400. Thus 2000 was a > leap year, but 1900 was not and 2100 will not be. Because of the error > with the Julian calendar by 1752 our year was 11 days behind. The gap > between the Julian and Gregorian calendar increases by three days > every 400 years. > > > Prior to 1752 the year began on 25th March; for > example the date following 24th March 1750 was 25th March > 1751; some what confusing. An Act of Parliament decreed that 1752 > would start on 1st January thus 1751 was a short year which only ran > from 25th March to 31st December. > > The United Kingdom decided to adopt the Gregorian calendar from 2nd > September 1752 which was followed by 14th September thus correcting > the 11 day error. This caused a lot of upset at the time with rioters > demanding, âGive us our eleven days!â > Actually, Peter, I have often thought it debatable as to whether there were actually riots in London and other cities over people believing the government had "stolen" 11 days out of their lives. I was told this at school by my history teacher but have discovered little firm evidence, despite extensive Googling. There is, however, a rather splendid current example of how those clever people at Ancestry have fallen into an obvious dating trap! Take a look at their website on London parish registers at: http://landing.ancestry.co.uk/lma/default.aspx and see the two-paragraph potted biography of Samuel Pepys. When it originally went up the writer of the "promo" material said that Pepys' work was a major source for those studying the English REFORMATION (which actually occurred a century earlier under Henry VIII). The writer meant, of course, the RESTORATION and I got them to change this. However, there is another howler in the second paragraph which reads as follows..... "He is said to have been born in Salisbury Court, Fleet Street, London on 23 February 1633 however the record of his baptism in the Parish Register of Baptisms at St Bride Fleet Street clearly shows an earlier date of 3 March 1632." The twerp who wrote this has obviously failed to understand that Pepys was baptised on 3 March 1632/3 (using the New Style dating) a few days after his birth. Ancestry have been inconsistent in adjusting his birth date to New Style but failing to adjust the baptismal date! I have informed them of the error and await results. -- Roy Stockdill Professional genealogical researcher, writer & lecturer Newbies' Guide to Genealogy & Family History: www.genuki.org.uk/gs/Newbie.html "There is only one thing in the world worse than being talked about, and that is not being talked about." OSCAR WILDE
I wish to make the list aware of my reply to Joy: Hi Joy, Thankyou for the reply. I understand now, and got the wrong impression, I was not being personal by the way! I have alwaysfound you to so very helpful to people on the list, so I offer an apology to you. Best wishes, Den
why is everyone getting so uptight about all this? How much longer is this going to continue? can we forget all about it, please? best wishes, Alandra, British Columbia, Canada ----- Original Message ----- From: "Joy Langdon" <joy.langdon@btopenworld.com> To: "Drp Budden" <drpbudden@yahoo.co.uk>; <isle-of-wight@rootsweb.com> Sent: Sunday, September 27, 2009 12:39 PM Subject: Re: [IoW] Joy I don't claim any knowledge or wisdom but Roy has said he values attention to detail and hates it if anyone gets anything wrong about genealogy so I knew he wouldn't want to continue telling people that they were misquoting Shakespeare when they were actually quoting Homer. Sorry if that makes me lacking in humility, I thought I was being helpful! From: Drp Budden <drpbudden@yahoo.co.uk> To: isle-of-wight@rootsweb.com Sent: Sunday, 27 September, 2009 7:47:38 PM Subject: Re: [IoW] Joy I do hate emails of the type of Joy's! She seems to have knowledge and wisdom, but what about humilty! Den ************************************** You can contact the Isle of Wight List Administrator by emailing: Isle-of-Wight-Admin@rootsweb.com ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to ISLE-OF-WIGHT-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message ************************************** You can contact the Isle of Wight List Administrator by emailing: Isle-of-Wight-Admin@rootsweb.com ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to ISLE-OF-WIGHT-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message
On 26 Sep 2009 at 22:36, Joy Langdon wrote: > > Roy's explanations are helpful and gratefully received. However, I > object to it being accompanied by a "rap on the knuckles" and I > certainlydon't think anyone deserves it for asking a question.I > wouldn't toleratebullying or abuse in any other walk of life and I > certainly won't accept it from a stranger here. All we are asking is > that we canhelp each other and enjoyour hobby withoutany > unpleasantness. > To me, genealogy is not a hobby to be "played at" now and then but an academic discipline which, like all disciplines, demands close attention to detail, patience, knowledge and good research skills, otherwise there seems little point in pursuing it. I am very sorry that I seem to have upset a few hypersensitive little souls, but that seems to be the way of the world now! Political correctness demands that no-one must ever say anything that might be held to offend somebody else. Whatever happened to the centuries-old, hard-won British tradition of freedom of speech, thought and opinion and our right to a good old-fashioned, vigorous debate? The point of my message was, quite simply, that beginners should be expected to do a little research and homework of their own before asking questions on a mailing list. Haven't they heard of libraries where you can borrow jolly valuable things called BOOKS? Haven't they heard of Google, where just about any question it's possible to think of can be answered in minutes? If anyone wishes to have a list of books on genealogy and family history that I believe all newcomers to the subject ought to have read, then I will be very happy to post one. The answer to when civil registration began in England and Wales and father's names first appeared on marriage certificates can be found instantly in my own Newbies' Guide, URL clearly posted below. In fact, there are rare exceptions to the rule and very occasionally parents were mentioned in parish register entries of marriages (especially in Yorkshire, my own home county where we had wonderful things called Dade Registers in some parishes) but, in general, the principle was established from July 1st 1837 onwards. This was one of the five most seminal dates in English genealogy, as I explained, and anyone who doesn't know this perhaps should ask themselves whether they should be in family history at all. As some listers appear to recognise - and I am particularly grateful for the support from Mark Urry - my expertise born of long experience (well over 30 years in genealogy) is at the disposal of everyone here. When someone has obviously made a genuine attempt to solve a problem and run into a brick wall, then I will use every endeavour to help them. In fact, I did this for several years in my long-running series in Practical Family History, the magazine for which I write every month, helping readers to solve their Brick Wall problems. Anyone can e-mail me either privately or via a list with a genuine problem that they cannot solve and I will do my utmost to help them. However, I won't waste my time on frivolous questions that can be answered quite easily with just a bit of thought and online research. We Yorkshire folks believe in calling a spade a spade and we are uncompromising in our approach to life. If some folks cannot live with that, well it's their problem and not mine. My final word on the subject! -- Roy Stockdill Professional genealogical researcher, writer & lecturer Newbies' Guide to Genealogy & Family History: www.genuki.org.uk/gs/Newbie.html "There is only one thing in the world worse than being talked about, and that is not being talked about." OSCAR WILDE
My final word: Mr. Stockdill, you may have a lot of knowledge but you have no wisdom. Joy Langdon ________________________________ From: Angela Sherry <angela@justabunchofmutts.net> To: Roy Stockdill <roy.stockdill@btinternet.com>; MSU <urry@aliceadsl.fr>; Joy Langdon <joy.langdon@btopenworld.com> Cc: Isle-of-Wight-L@rootsweb.com Sent: Sunday, 27 September, 2009 1:31:54 PM Subject: RE: [IoW] Marriage certificate/father! Your final word? Hallelujah! What a relief! -----Original Message----- From: isle-of-wight-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:isle-of-wight-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Roy Stockdill Sent: Sunday, September 27, 2009 8:13 AM To: MSU; Joy Langdon Cc: Isle-of-Wight-L@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [IoW] Marriage certificate/father! On 26 Sep 2009 at 22:36, Joy Langdon wrote: > > Roy's explanations are helpful and gratefully received. However, I > object to it being accompanied by a "rap on the knuckles" and I > certainlydon't think anyone deserves it for asking a question.I > wouldn't toleratebullying or abuse in any other walk of life and I > certainly won't accept it from a stranger here. All we are asking is > that we canhelp each other and enjoyour hobby withoutany > unpleasantness. > To me, genealogy is not a hobby to be "played at" now and then but an academic discipline which, like all disciplines, demands close attention to detail, patience, knowledge and good research skills, otherwise there seems little point in pursuing it. I am very sorry that I seem to have upset a few hypersensitive little souls, but that seems to be the way of the world now! Political correctness demands that no-one must ever say anything that might be held to offend somebody else. Whatever happened to the centuries-old, hard-won British tradition of freedom of speech, thought and opinion and our right to a good old-fashioned, vigorous debate? The point of my message was, quite simply, that beginners should be expected to do a little research and homework of their own before asking questions on a mailing list. Haven't they heard of libraries where you can borrow jolly valuable things called BOOKS? Haven't they heard of Google, where just about any question it's possible to think of can be answered in minutes? If anyone wishes to have a list of books on genealogy and family history that I believe all newcomers to the subject ought to have read, then I will be very happy to post one. The answer to when civil registration began in England and Wales and father's names first appeared on marriage certificates can be found instantly in my own Newbies' Guide, URL clearly posted below. In fact, there are rare exceptions to the rule and very occasionally parents were mentioned in parish register entries of marriages (especially in Yorkshire, my own home county where we had wonderful things called Dade Registers in some parishes) but, in general, the principle was established from July 1st 1837 onwards. This was one of the five most seminal dates in English genealogy, as I explained, and anyone who doesn't know this perhaps should ask themselves whether they should be in family history at all. As some listers appear to recognise - and I am particularly grateful for the support from Mark Urry - my expertise born of long experience (well over 30 years in genealogy) is at the disposal of everyone here. When someone has obviously made a genuine attempt to solve a problem and run into a brick wall, then I will use every endeavour to help them. In fact, I did this for several years in my long-running series in Practical Family History, the magazine for which I write every month, helping readers to solve their Brick Wall problems. Anyone can e-mail me either privately or via a list with a genuine problem that they cannot solve and I will do my utmost to help them. However, I won't waste my time on frivolous questions that can be answered quite easily with just a bit of thought and online research. We Yorkshire folks believe in calling a spade a spade and we are uncompromising in our approach to life. If some folks cannot live with that, well it's their problem and not mine. My final word on the subject! -- Roy Stockdill Professional genealogical researcher, writer & lecturer Newbies' Guide to Genealogy & Family History: www.genuki.org.uk/gs/Newbie.html "There is only one thing in the world worse than being talked about, and that is not being talked about." OSCAR WILDE ************************************** You can contact the Isle of Wight List Administrator by emailing: Isle-of-Wight-Admin@rootsweb.com ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to ISLE-OF-WIGHT-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message
I do hate emails of the type of Joy's! She seems to have knowledge and wisdom, but what about humilty! Den
Hello All, After not using my copy of the LDS Vital Records Index for years, I reinstalled it to my PC and whilst looking for the instructions to load all the CD's onto my PC I came across this link. http://pilot.familysearch.org/recordsearch/start.html#start Although they say this is an ongoing transfer of the old Second Edition (both Births and Marriages) I haven't found any records that aren't in the online version. These records, to my knowledge, are not in the main LDS vital records index, or the certainly weren't. Anyway they have always had a lot of Isle of Wight data that the main one doesn't. Regards Ian