My sentiments also Bryn. Robyn -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Bryn Town Sent: Sunday, 1 July 2012 10:57 AM To: Harry Vincett; [email protected] Subject: Re: [KENT-ENG] Ancestry In reality both points of view are valid. Ancestry can be extremely useful but like any resource it needs to be used with discretion. There is no substitute for proper research but unfortunately too many people simply copy information without checking it's veracity. You may say that's their problem but it becomes everyone's problem when it is copied over and over again and becomes "fact". I've had some useful contacts from "cousins". I've also had some extremely unhelpful contacts from people who take the lazy approach. Family history is no different from any other area of history. It needs to be the subject of rigorous research and analysis if it's to be really useful. For my own part I upload my data to Ancestry in Gedcom and without images. I also keep it private. I've had too many bad experiences of people "borrowing" my data and then misinterpreting it. I'm more than happy to share my research with genuine researchers .... it isn't hard to type a message and in the end it results in a more meaningful and useful contact as opposed to just copying information verbatim without checking. There for what it's worth is my two bob's worth. Enjoy your day ...... Bryn (Mt. Victoria, NSW, Australia) On Sun, Jul 1, 2012 at 3:15 AM, Harry Vincett <[email protected]> wrote: > Yes I agree Anne! > Why bother posting the info if you didn't expect ot swap information with > Cousins? > Harry in Oregon > > > ________________________________ > From: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> > To: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; > [email protected] > Sent: Friday, June 29, 2012 11:44 PM > Subject: Re: [KENT-ENG] Ancestry > > And oh what you have missed out on. The "new" cousins who contact you, > who exchange info with you and help you as you help them extend the > trees, to > more understand the people from whom you descend, to see pics of what they > looked like, of the places they lived and traveled to, of their progeny and > how these "new" cousins really don't differ too much from you and yours > since we all come from the same stock with the same mores and traditions. > > Annie in Minnesota > > > In a message dated 6/29/2012 3:31:11 P.M. Central Daylight Time, > [email protected] writes: > > Did you realise that when you create an Ancestry family tree, even if > it's a private tree, you "grant Ancestry a non-exclusive, > transferable, sublicenseable, royalty-free license to host, store, > copy, publish, distribute, provide access to and otherwise use such > material, including, hosting and access on co-branded services of that > material, and to use the data contained in that material as search > results and to integrate that data into the Service as Ancestry deems > appropriate"? > > No wonder I´ve never uploaded my family tree!! > > Diane > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject > and the body of the message > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message > ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

In reality both points of view are valid. Ancestry can be extremely useful but like any resource it needs to be used with discretion. There is no substitute for proper research but unfortunately too many people simply copy information without checking it's veracity. You may say that's their problem but it becomes everyone's problem when it is copied over and over again and becomes "fact". I've had some useful contacts from "cousins". I've also had some extremely unhelpful contacts from people who take the lazy approach. Family history is no different from any other area of history. It needs to be the subject of rigorous research and analysis if it's to be really useful. For my own part I upload my data to Ancestry in Gedcom and without images. I also keep it private. I've had too many bad experiences of people "borrowing" my data and then misinterpreting it. I'm more than happy to share my research with genuine researchers .... it isn't hard to type a message and in the end it results in a more meaningful and useful contact as opposed to just copying information verbatim without checking. There for what it's worth is my two bob's worth. Enjoy your day ...... Bryn (Mt. Victoria, NSW, Australia) On Sun, Jul 1, 2012 at 3:15 AM, Harry Vincett <[email protected]> wrote: > Yes I agree Anne! > Why bother posting the info if you didn't expect ot swap information with > Cousins? > Harry in Oregon > > > ________________________________ > From: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> > To: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; > [email protected] > Sent: Friday, June 29, 2012 11:44 PM > Subject: Re: [KENT-ENG] Ancestry > > And oh what you have missed out on. The "new" cousins who contact you, > who exchange info with you and help you as you help them extend the > trees, to > more understand the people from whom you descend, to see pics of what they > looked like, of the places they lived and traveled to, of their progeny and > how these "new" cousins really don't differ too much from you and yours > since we all come from the same stock with the same mores and traditions. > > Annie in Minnesota > > > In a message dated 6/29/2012 3:31:11 P.M. Central Daylight Time, > [email protected] writes: > > Did you realise that when you create an Ancestry family tree, even if > it's a private tree, you "grant Ancestry a non-exclusive, > transferable, sublicenseable, royalty-free license to host, store, > copy, publish, distribute, provide access to and otherwise use such > material, including, hosting and access on co-branded services of that > material, and to use the data contained in that material as search > results and to integrate that data into the Service as Ancestry deems > appropriate"? > > No wonder I´ve never uploaded my family tree!! > > Diane > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject > and the body of the message > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message >

Coming late to this discussion table, I know, but pray that Stuart lets me have one last crack at the subject. Caveat Emptor: It just goes to illustrate that one must always read the fine print before pouncing on the latest idea or trend in any arena and then understanding the ramifications of that fine print. Even though Ancestry has been around for a decade or more, they have always had those disclaimers and caveats in place. I maintain my own family data on my own websites which are free to anyone to use and thereby have kept for myself the ability to hit Ancestry for copyright infringement (which I have done successfully for myself and several friends) when my material turns up on their website. Although Ancestry is required by law to remove the infringing material, all they have to do is remove the material from their stock of data, including search results, as well as advise their poster that the material has to be taken down. Quite often the poster will move the material into a private tree. If the poster refused to move it to a private tree, then Ancestry must remove the infringing pages from its website unilaterally. Only going after the poster, which is almost impossible to do without a court order requiring Ancestry to reveal their identity, will eradicate the complete copyright infringement problem. By maintaining your own site or keeping your research in your own possession or publishing your own hard copy or digital ebook will keep your data adequately protected under the Universal Copyright Convention, but it will not stop others from "borrowing" from your research. I have always shared my work, but only through certain forums and avenues. I absolutely refuse to add another person's research to my own without first having used their clues to investigate the path myself and obtaining my own documentation along the way. Quite often, I am the one that turns up the 'run into the ditch' to which that other researcher managed to fall victim. Similarly, I never take another's persons suggestions of "correction" to my data without first having retraced my research steps and then the research of the other person. Just this person's opinion. Sincerely, Susan D. Young Chief Executive, Ancestry Solutions www.ancestrysolutions.com County Administrator, Kent OPC Project www.kent-opc.org ----- Original Message ----- From: "les wright" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Sunday, July 01, 2012 2:46 AM Subject: Re: [KENT-ENG] Ancestry > My sentiments also Bryn. > Robyn > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] > On Behalf Of Bryn Town > Sent: Sunday, 1 July 2012 10:57 AM > To: Harry Vincett; [email protected] > Subject: Re: [KENT-ENG] Ancestry > > In reality both points of view are valid. Ancestry can be extremely useful > but like any resource it needs to be used with discretion. There is no > substitute for proper research but unfortunately too many people simply > copy information without checking it's veracity. You may say that's their > problem but it becomes everyone's problem when it is copied over and over > again and becomes "fact". > > I've had some useful contacts from "cousins". I've also had > some extremely unhelpful contacts from people who take the lazy approach. > Family history is no different from any other area of history. It needs to > be the subject of rigorous research and analysis if it's to be really > useful. > > For my own part I upload my data to Ancestry in Gedcom and without images. > I also keep it private. I've had too many bad experiences of people > "borrowing" my data and then misinterpreting it. I'm more than happy to > share my research with genuine researchers .... it isn't hard to type a > message and in the end it results in a more meaningful and useful contact > as opposed to just copying information verbatim without checking. > > There for what it's worth is my two bob's worth. > > Enjoy your day ...... Bryn (Mt. Victoria, NSW, Australia) > > On Sun, Jul 1, 2012 at 3:15 AM, Harry Vincett <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Yes I agree Anne! >> Why bother posting the info if you didn't expect ot swap information with >> Cousins? >> Harry in Oregon >> >> >> ________________________________ >> From: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> >> To: [email protected]; [email protected]; >> [email protected]; >> [email protected] >> Sent: Friday, June 29, 2012 11:44 PM >> Subject: Re: [KENT-ENG] Ancestry >> >> And oh what you have missed out on. The "new" cousins who contact you, >> who exchange info with you and help you as you help them extend the >> trees, to >> more understand the people from whom you descend, to see pics of what >> they >> looked like, of the places they lived and traveled to, of their progeny > and >> how these "new" cousins really don't differ too much from you and yours >> since we all come from the same stock with the same mores and >> traditions. >> >> Annie in Minnesota >> >> >> In a message dated 6/29/2012 3:31:11 P.M. Central Daylight Time, >> [email protected] writes: >> >> Did you realise that when you create an Ancestry family tree, even if >> it's a private tree, you "grant Ancestry a non-exclusive, >> transferable, sublicenseable, royalty-free license to host, store, >> copy, publish, distribute, provide access to and otherwise use such >> material, including, hosting and access on co-branded services of that >> material, and to use the data contained in that material as search >> results and to integrate that data into the Service as Ancestry deems >> appropriate"? >> >> No wonder I´ve never uploaded my family tree!! >> >> Diane >> >> >> ------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to >> [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the >> quotes in the subject >> and the body of the message >> >> ------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to >> [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the >> quotes in the subject and the body of the message >> >> ------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to >> [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the >> quotes in the subject and the body of the message >> > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes > in the subject and the body of the message > > > > >

Sandra, According to the transcription I have they were no NASH baptisms in Hothfield 1798-1800. This is also true for Smarden and Headcorn. The Hothfield transcription has the William at the 1815 baptism with a birthdate of 6 Sep 1760! Regards Peter Hi Yvonne, A William was baptised as an adult (almost) in 1815 at Hothfield, with a birthdate, although difficult to make out the last digit, seems to be 7 Sept 1798. Parents are Richard and Elizabeth. William and Ann named their first son Richard, baptised at Hothfield. He died as an infant and their second son born at Heacorn was also named Richard. Sandra

I agree, which is why I check out every supposed connection to our family tree and make sure that it really connects. And I can tell you I have "cousins" who have gotten a bit upset with me as I work with them and make them prove their connections before those connections are put into my tree. I also keep my tree private. There are too many lazy "click happy" people out there -- "hey the name is the same and so is the year, they are ours" -- no matter that the name is William COOPER and there are thousands, and this one is in a different, county, state/provence, country, whatever. Or JONES, or SMITH. And I get really tired of having to do their research for them to show them where they went wrong so they will remove our family from their trees. They are the reason I keep my tree private. They are also the reason why I have copies of all documentation for each person in my online tree, so the cousins who are allowed access to the tree get the correct documentation to preclude that clicking if possible, as yes, I have even had "click happy" cousins that I have had to slow down and make to think about what they are doing. Keeping the online tree private but searchable gets me the new contacts, they only get a "hit" on that particular person, no connections. If they want to know more they have to contact me to see if it is their person. That gives me the opportunity to check out their work and see if it is correct, or what I come up with, and ask them to prove what they have if what I find is different. And I never work forward checking their info, I work backward from them to see if I can duplicate what they have. Then once I feel they could possibly be connected I contact our family research group of 38 cousin researchers and they all do the same using the resources available to them where ever they are in the world. Once we all pass it, then it is connected to our trees, and the "new cousin" is given access to the family tree. Works for us. We have had only one 5 year error. Two men born 3 years apart, uncle and nephew with the same name, fathers' names the same, fathers' occupations the same. Got them mixed up in the first census they each appeared in alone, ended up marrying the uncle to the nephew's wife. Five years later one of the cousin researchers stumbled across the grave for the nephew with his wife, while getting photos of gravestones for his own line, and we had to make the adjustment to the uncle being a batchelor when he died and the nephew having an extended family. And that error was made early in our collaborative research, more than 20 years ago. It served to remind us that even though we were being very careful since we were researching common names like COOPER, JONES and SMITH, that we needed to be even more so. Annie in Minnesota In a message dated 7/1/2012 1:49:56 A.M. Central Daylight Time, [email protected] writes: In reality both points of view are valid. Ancestry can be extremely useful but like any resource it needs to be used with discretion. There is no substitute for proper research but unfortunately too many people simply copy information without checking it's veracity. You may say that's their problem but it becomes everyone's problem when it is copied over and over again and becomes "fact".

Hi There this is all I could find.Don't know if they are yours. But in the 1861 census he states he was born in Headcorn and was down as a widower and strangly a son ages 14?? William is a Labourer Grocer. Pam in Oz name: Elizabeth OTTAWAY gender: Female birth: 30 Jun 1765 , , Kent, England death: 25 Jul 1856 , Benenden, Kent, England AFN: 135X-SWB Parents father: George OTTAWAY (AFN: 135X-SRH ) mother: Elizabeth HARDEN (AFN: 1362-1WV ) Marriages (1) spouse: John NASH (AFN: 135X-SV4 ) marriage: 4 Mar 1790 , , Kent, England Show children (7) child 1: Thomas NASH (AFN: 135X-T2B ) gender: Male BIRTH 5 Jan 1802 , , Kent, England DEATH Abt 1864 , , Kent, England child 2: John NASH (AFN: 135X-T5X ) gender: Male BIRTH 9 Jan 1791 , Staplehurst, Kent, England DEATH 29 Jan 1871 , Benenden, Kent, England BURIAL St George's Chur, Benenden, Kent, England child 3: Harriet NASH (AFN: 135Z-483 ) gender: Female BIRTH 21 Apr 1804 , , Kent, England DEATH Abt 1869 , , Kent, England child 4: David NASH (AFN: 135Z-499 ) gender: Male BIRTH 30 Jun 1807 Beckley, Rye, Sussex, England CHRISTENING 24 Apr 1831 , Rye, Sussex, England DEATH Abt 1874 , , Kent, England child 5: William NASH (AFN: 135Z-3TF ) gender: Male BIRTH 10 Mar 1799 , , Kent, England DEATH 17 Sep 1873 , Headcorn, Kent, England child 6: James NASH (AFN: 135X-XMC ) gender: Male BIRTH 21 Jul 1793 , , Kent, England DEATH Abt 1858 , , Kent, England child 7: Joseph NASH (AFN: 135X-XTL ) gender: Male BIRTH 30 Jan 1796 , Sandhurst, Kent, England CHRISTENING 13 Aug 1820 , Rye, Sussex, England DEATH 29 Dec 1868 , Cawdor, New South Wales, Australia BURIAL 30 Dec 1868 , Cawdor, Nsw, Aus Submitters (1) ----- Original Message ----- From: <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Saturday, June 30, 2012 8:23 AM Subject: [KENT-ENG] NASH Hi, William NASH son of John NASH and Elizabeth (nee OTTAWAY) was apparently born on 10 March 1799. Can anyone tell me where he was born or baptised? regards Sandra ----- Original Message ----- From: <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Saturday, June 30, 2012 8:23 AM Subject: [KENT-ENG] NASH Hi, William NASH son of John NASH and Elizabeth (nee OTTAWAY) was apparently born on 10 March 1799. Can anyone tell me where he was born or baptised? regards Sandra

I'd be very grateful for any help in finding family details for Ann RUBIN who was born in Deptford, Kent in 1811 to parents Lorenz/o RUBIN and Sarah (nee DAVENPORT) who married in Greenwich in 1798 please. Many thanks, Jan in beautiful Queensland

Hi Yvonne, Thanks for taking an interest. Unfortunately I have all the info you sent. However, it's not all correct. WIlliam married Ann GURR, but not until 25 Nov 1826 at Hothfield, as Ann was only 2 years old in 1811. They had 13 children in all, the last one (6th son) was named John. As William and Ann's father's were both reputed to be called John, I find this a little odd! My problem is with John NASH & Elizabeth OTTAWAY, as I don't believe they are MY William's parents, and this is why I need to know where the 10 March 1799 birth/baptism took place. So many people could be tracing the wrong ancestry for my William, hence the reason I need this resolving. John & Elizabeth's children appear to have various locations stated for birth/baptism, such as Staplehurst, Sandhurst and Rye, whereas William gives his birthplace on 3 consecutive census as Smarden, Headcorn and Hothfield. A William was baptised as an adult (almost) in 1815 at Hothfield, with a birthdate, although difficult to make out the last digit, seems to be 7 Sept 1798. Parents are Richard and Elizabeth. William and Ann named their first son Richard, baptised at Hothfield. He died as an infant and their second son born at Heacorn was also named Richard. I hope I find the info I need someday, so I can move on with this tree and let others know if my gut instinct is correct. Many thanks Sandra -----Original Message----- From: Yvonne Harris Sent: Saturday, June 30, 2012 9:22 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [KENT-ENG] NASH Hi Sandra, 1851 William Nash is living in Headcorn 1871 Living in Tenterden as father in law with married daughter Details from LDS Freesearch b 10 March 1799 married Ann Gurr 1811 Hotfield. Had ten children, died 1883 17 Sept Headcorn. Taken from Ancestral file All I could find Let me know if you want full details of 1851 census Yvonne ----- Original Message ----- From: <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, June 29, 2012 11:23 PM Subject: [KENT-ENG] NASH > Hi, William NASH son of John NASH and Elizabeth (nee OTTAWAY) was > apparently born on 10 March 1799. Can anyone tell me where he was born or > baptised? > > regards Sandra > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message ----- No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2012.0.2178 / Virus Database: 2437/5100 - Release Date: 06/29/12

Hi Pam, Thank you so much for trying to help. All the info you sent regarding the children of John & Elizabeth NASH has been sent to me several years ago, but although the person who sent me this tree has birth dates, he doesn't include locations to prove his data. The children seem to have been born in various places such as Staplehurst, Sandhurst and Rye. My William gives his place of birth on 3 different census as Smarden, Headcorn and Hothfield. I believe the latter to be the correct place, but don't believe his parents are John & Elizabeth, as so widely published. For this reason I need to prove it to inform his descendants they have the wrong family connection. The 1861 census info you gave is not the right William, mine was a 63 year old Labourer, living in Headcorn with his son, Charles and his married daughter and her family. Incidentally the marriage date for William to Ann GURR (b 1809) is also wrong, as it was 1826 and not 1811. There are so many flaws in this tree, it is difficult to know what to believe. I have been trying for years to find someone who can tell me how they know William was born on 10 March 1799, if they don't know where his birth or baptism took place, and perhaps I will never know. This said, I am not going to be another sheep following the flock who are so ready to believe every tree they see on Ancestry etc is true. Many thanks for your interest Sandra -----Original Message----- From: PAM BEER Sent: Saturday, June 30, 2012 10:22 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [KENT-ENG] NASH Hi There this is all I could find.Don't know if they are yours. But in the 1861 census he states he was born in Headcorn and was down as a widower and strangly a son ages 14?? William is a Labourer Grocer. Pam in Oz name: Elizabeth OTTAWAY gender: Female birth: 30 Jun 1765 , , Kent, England death: 25 Jul 1856 , Benenden, Kent, England AFN: 135X-SWB Parents father: George OTTAWAY (AFN: 135X-SRH ) mother: Elizabeth HARDEN (AFN: 1362-1WV ) Marriages (1) spouse: John NASH (AFN: 135X-SV4 ) marriage: 4 Mar 1790 , , Kent, England Show children (7) child 1: Thomas NASH (AFN: 135X-T2B ) gender: Male BIRTH 5 Jan 1802 , , Kent, England DEATH Abt 1864 , , Kent, England child 2: John NASH (AFN: 135X-T5X ) gender: Male BIRTH 9 Jan 1791 , Staplehurst, Kent, England DEATH 29 Jan 1871 , Benenden, Kent, England BURIAL St George's Chur, Benenden, Kent, England child 3: Harriet NASH (AFN: 135Z-483 ) gender: Female BIRTH 21 Apr 1804 , , Kent, England DEATH Abt 1869 , , Kent, England child 4: David NASH (AFN: 135Z-499 ) gender: Male BIRTH 30 Jun 1807 Beckley, Rye, Sussex, England CHRISTENING 24 Apr 1831 , Rye, Sussex, England DEATH Abt 1874 , , Kent, England child 5: William NASH (AFN: 135Z-3TF ) gender: Male BIRTH 10 Mar 1799 , , Kent, England DEATH 17 Sep 1873 , Headcorn, Kent, England child 6: James NASH (AFN: 135X-XMC ) gender: Male BIRTH 21 Jul 1793 , , Kent, England DEATH Abt 1858 , , Kent, England child 7: Joseph NASH (AFN: 135X-XTL ) gender: Male BIRTH 30 Jan 1796 , Sandhurst, Kent, England CHRISTENING 13 Aug 1820 , Rye, Sussex, England DEATH 29 Dec 1868 , Cawdor, New South Wales, Australia BURIAL 30 Dec 1868 , Cawdor, Nsw, Aus Submitters (1) ----- Original Message ----- From: <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Saturday, June 30, 2012 8:23 AM Subject: [KENT-ENG] NASH Hi, William NASH son of John NASH and Elizabeth (nee OTTAWAY) was apparently born on 10 March 1799. Can anyone tell me where he was born or baptised? regards Sandra ----- Original Message ----- From: <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Saturday, June 30, 2012 8:23 AM Subject: [KENT-ENG] NASH Hi, William NASH son of John NASH and Elizabeth (nee OTTAWAY) was apparently born on 10 March 1799. Can anyone tell me where he was born or baptised? regards Sandra ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message ----- No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2012.0.2178 / Virus Database: 2437/5100 - Release Date: 06/29/12

Yes I agree Anne! Why bother posting the info if you didn't expect ot swap information with Cousins? Harry in Oregon ________________________________ From: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> To: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Sent: Friday, June 29, 2012 11:44 PM Subject: Re: [KENT-ENG] Ancestry And oh what you have missed out on.  The "new" cousins who contact  you, who exchange info with you and help you as you help them extend the trees,  to more understand the people from whom you descend, to see pics of what they  looked like, of the places they lived and traveled to, of their progeny and how  these "new" cousins really don't differ too much from you and yours since we all  come from the same stock with the same mores and traditions. Annie in Minnesota In a message dated 6/29/2012 3:31:11 P.M. Central Daylight Time,  [email protected] writes: Did you  realise that when you create an Ancestry family tree, even if it's a  private tree, you "grant Ancestry a non-exclusive, transferable,  sublicenseable, royalty-free license to host, store, copy, publish,  distribute, provide access to and otherwise use such material, including,  hosting and access on co-branded services of that material, and to use the  data contained in that material as search results and to integrate that  data into the Service as Ancestry deems appropriate"? No wonder I´ve  never uploaded my family  tree!! Diane ------------------------------- To  unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to  [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes  in the subject and the body of the  message ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Hi Sandra, 1851 William Nash is living in Headcorn 1871 Living in Tenterden as father in law with married daughter Details from LDS Freesearch b 10 March 1799 married Ann Gurr 1811 Hotfield. Had ten children, died 1883 17 Sept Headcorn. Taken from Ancestral file All I could find Let me know if you want full details of 1851 census Yvonne ----- Original Message ----- From: <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, June 29, 2012 11:23 PM Subject: [KENT-ENG] NASH > Hi, William NASH son of John NASH and Elizabeth (nee OTTAWAY) was > apparently born on 10 March 1799. Can anyone tell me where he was born or > baptised? > > regards Sandra > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message

And oh what you have missed out on. The "new" cousins who contact you, who exchange info with you and help you as you help them extend the trees, to more understand the people from whom you descend, to see pics of what they looked like, of the places they lived and traveled to, of their progeny and how these "new" cousins really don't differ too much from you and yours since we all come from the same stock with the same mores and traditions. Annie in Minnesota In a message dated 6/29/2012 3:31:11 P.M. Central Daylight Time, [email protected] writes: Did you realise that when you create an Ancestry family tree, even if it's a private tree, you "grant Ancestry a non-exclusive, transferable, sublicenseable, royalty-free license to host, store, copy, publish, distribute, provide access to and otherwise use such material, including, hosting and access on co-branded services of that material, and to use the data contained in that material as search results and to integrate that data into the Service as Ancestry deems appropriate"? No wonder I´ve never uploaded my family tree!! Diane ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Hi, William NASH son of John NASH and Elizabeth (nee OTTAWAY) was apparently born on 10 March 1799. Can anyone tell me where he was born or baptised? regards Sandra

Did you realise that when you create an Ancestry family tree, even if it's a private tree, you "grant Ancestry a non-exclusive, transferable, sublicenseable, royalty-free license to host, store, copy, publish, distribute, provide access to and otherwise use such material, including, hosting and access on co-branded services of that material, and to use the data contained in that material as search results and to integrate that data into the Service as Ancestry deems appropriate"? No wonder I´ve never uploaded my family tree!! Diane

From The Standard ( London, England ), Thursday, April 10, 1851; Issue 8319.   DEATH. On the 9th inst., at his residence, in St. George's-place, Canterbury, Robert SMITHSON , Esq., proprietor of the Kentish Gazette newspaper, in the 83d year of his age.  He was a collateral descendant of the Yorkshire family of SMITHSON , of which Sir Hugh SMITHSON was created first Duke of Northumberland.

From Jackson's Oxford Journal ( Oxford, England ), Saturday, January 20, 1816; Issue 3274. DEATH. In Canterbury, aged 33, Mrs. KIRKBY , wife of Mr. G. KIRKBY, printer, one of the proprietors of the Kentish Gazette. 

Hi, I would love to hear from anyone who has information on Richard NASH & Elizabeth SKINNER who married at Headcorn on 6 May 1785. I have found baptisms for two adult children who I believe belong to this couple at Hothfield in 1806 and 1815, but have not found any further information, such as deaths for either Richard or Elizabeth. There is a possibility that Richard had a second marriage to Elizabeth WORSLEY (possible widow) at Edgerton West Ashford in 1816, but without a death for his first wife I can’t be sure. I will be grateful for any help, especially as most researchers have different parents for the William who I believe to be their son. Sandra

Thanks for replying Elizabeth, details as under My Grandmother Mary Anne O'CONNELL nee CONNOR born 1864 married John {possibley with second name of Patrick} O'CONNELL, have not been able to find when he passed away, Their issue Patrick born 1877 Mary Kate born 1883 Elizabeth {Lizzie} born 1885 Jeremiah born 1888 Frances born 1890 {my Mother} They were all born in Cork City, Cork Ireland Mary Kate aka Kate married a James Henry UEZZELL in London on the 2 April 1910. James died in the first world war, Kate passed away either just before James or just after. Phyllis ----- Original Message ----- From: "Elizabeth Dolan" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2012 3:52 PM Subject: Re: [KENT-ENG] County Asylum records and burial 1897 > Hi Phyllis > > Can you give me some more details like parents names and the sister's > name and marriage details pls? > > Liz > > On 27/06/12 2:18 PM, Phyllis wrote: >> Elizabeth >> >> I read your message with interest, I cannot help you unfortunately, but >> you >> mau be able to help me. >> >> Researching my Mother's lineage, I have a dead end in my Mother's sister >> Elizabeth O'CONNELL born in Cork City, Cork in 1885, about 1905 she with >> the >> family moved over to England, they lived in Vauxhall London.in 1910 >> Elizabeth was a witness at her sister Kate's marriage {in London}. >> >> > From 1910 all knowledge of her whereabouts have been lost, we do know >> > that >> she ended up in an asylum. >> >> Could you give me any leads that I can follow? >> >> >> Thanking you >> Phyllis Bartlett >> Wellington Point Qld. >> >> >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Elizabeth Dolan"<[email protected]> >> To:<[email protected]> >> Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2012 4:07 AM >> Subject: [KENT-ENG] County Asylum records and burial 1897 >> >> >>> Hi All, >>> >>> I have just come across a entry for a lady in the Kent County Asylum at >>> Maidstone for 1891 who I believe may be my long lost ancestor. >>> C.N. aged 49 widow born Lambeth, London >>> >>> Now there is a Charlotte Nicholson aged 55 dying in Maidstone Sep 1897 >>> and I am now wondering if the records for the Asylum are accessible for >>> research >>> and can any recommend a researcher that would be able to do this for >>> me. >>> >>> I am trying to confirm if the C.N. in the 1891 is Charlotte Nicholson >>> and secondly if the Charlotte Nicholson who died in 1897 was an >>> impatient of the >>> Asylum. >>> >>> Charlotte disappears in 1876 from Lambeth after placing all her children >>> in the workhouse. Her husband had died in 1874. The oldest 2 girls >>> ended up at the Royal Female Asylum at Beddington and the younger two >>> girls at the Lambeth Work school. Her son George was old enough to >>> go to work. I found a C.N. right age in the Wandsworth Asylum but no >>> death to match and no further entries for later censuses. >>> I am curious with the Maidstone entry because when her daughter died in >>> 1918 her place of residence was Maidstone even though she was buried in >>> Worthing along with her husband who was a Sompting man. >>> >>> Any advice would be appreciated. >>> >>> Regards >>> Liz Dolan >>> Manly Qld Aus >>> >>> >>> ------------------------------- >>> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to >>> [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the >>> quotes in the subject and the body of the message >>> >>> >>> ----- >>> No virus found in this message. >>> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com >>> Version: 2012.0.2178 / Virus Database: 2437/5095 - Release Date: >>> 06/26/12 >>> >> >> ------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to >> [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the >> quotes in the subject and the body of the message >> > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > > ----- > No virus found in this message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 2012.0.2178 / Virus Database: 2437/5096 - Release Date: 06/27/12 >

On Wed, 27 Jun 2012 19:23:30 +0100 Dave Dixon <[email protected]> wrote: Hello Dave, >At this time all pipes for gas and for water were made from lead, so >exactly the same skills were needed for the fitting and jointing of >these pipes. By and large, the same skills are required today, or course. Albeit far less of the lead work is involved. I still get a slightly odd feeling calling a local plumber to come and repair parts of our roof because it's clad in lead. -- Regards _ / ) "The blindingly obvious is / _)rad never immediately apparent" Go away, come back, go away, come back Leave Me Alone (I'm Lonely) - P!nk

Hi Annie Most likely is the same man. At this time all pipes for gas and for water were made from lead, so exactly the same skills were needed for the fitting and jointing of these pipes. The trade associated with these skills was also known as "whitesmith" All the best Dave Dixon BA (hons) - Economic & Social History - University of Kent - Canterbury 1997 www.fadedgenes.co.uk On 27 June 2012 16:34, <[email protected]> wrote: > Could someone tell me, would a man who is listed as father on a marriage > record in 1876 as a gasfitter and in 1871 as a gasfitter be the same as one > listed in 1851 and 1861 as a plumber? > > Annie in Minnesota > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message >