On 07/05/2014 14:43, Brian Binns wrote: > I have many instances in my family tree of a child dying, and the subsequent > child of the same sex, being given the same name, and I'm sure that I'm not > alone in this. Now notwithstanding the story in The Archers, I have always > though that that was rather odd and creepy. The succeeding child could go > through life thinking that he/she would not have existed if his/her sibling > hadn't died. Or am I thinking too deeply? Was life, and more particularly > death, treated somewhat differently in the 19th century? Would one William > for instance even know that there had been another William who had > previously died? With families regularly getting towards double figures - > births at least - perhaps the death of a child was sadly forgotten. It > certainly was almost expected that all your children would not survive to > adulthood. The inability of older people to know their age, we are told, was > due to the fact that simply they were not aware of their birth year - for > instance they wouldn't have celebrated each and every birthday as children > do today, so childhood was most certainly different - and much shorter. As a well known professional genealogist is fond of saying: "yesterday was a different world" (or words to that effect). I think you are over thinking somewhat. Family was very much more important 150+ years ago than it is today, so using a deceased child's name for the surviving child of the same gender wasn't as bizarre as might seem, especially if the name was important to the parents. On one of my lines, a couple named six children Barnabus, the previous holder of the name having died each time, including the last one. The name was obviously very important but I have no idea why. The parents were baptised (although I suspect they already had been as babies), but that didn't work either. Their only son to survive was named Edward. If the name was important enough, and the first bearer of the name was sickly and not expected to survive whilst the mother was already expecting the next child when that one was born it may have been given the same name only for the first one to survive so you end up with two children still living with the same name. I don't think mother's simply shrugged when their child died, lay back, thought of England and produced the next one. There was less in the way of birth control back then and I believe couples were as loving towards each other as they can be today. I get the impression the view of families being slightly callous and careless of the loss of their children is mistaken. I don't believe the lost children were forgotten either, at least not by the parents. Some of the children may not have known about older siblings who'd died. I don't think a child would have thought that had an older sibling not died, they wouldn't have been born. I don't think children think like that at all, even today. Older people not knowing their age? I think that's a partial myth. Almost all of my people did seem to know exactly how old they were which has been of mild surprise. It's mostly when they've died their ages go awry because the informant wasn't sure. It's also surprised me that children actually knew their parents names. It's always portrayed that the children didn't because their parents referred to each other as 'mother' and 'father' in the presence of the children. Childhood was very different. We don't have 7 year olds working in the way a 17 or 27 year old would today. That was part of the resentment to compulsory schooling and why there still are long holidays in the summer. As to the guilt Tom Archer feels, that would have happened anyway where an older sibling dies so the expectations for that child fall on the next one down. A degree of resentment would be understandable. I know I'd be less than happy if I had plans for my life which the death of an older sibling had put pay to. -- Connie http://oursalmons.wordpress.com/

On Wed, 7 May 2014 14:43:03 +0100 "Brian Binns" <bnbinns@gmail.com> wrote: Hello Brian, >though that that was rather odd and creepy. The succeeding child could I've got several such instances in my tree, too. In one case, there are even two *living* children with the same first name. >go through life thinking that he/she would not have existed if his/her >sibling hadn't died. Or am I thinking too deeply? Was life, and more Possibly. Death is one of the few immutable facts of life, and was far more commonly experienced by everybody 100 years ago than it is now, taking people of all ages without a care. People back then seem (from my PoV anyway) to have been far more pragmatic than we are regarding death. Giving a succeeding child the same name as a previously departed sibling may just be their way of remembering the deceased. >particularly death, treated somewhat differently in the 19th century? >Would one William for instance even know that there had been another Maybe, maybe not. If there were several older siblings, you can bet your bottom dollar that the existence of a previous child with the same name would have been revealed at some point in time. -- Regards _ / ) "The blindingly obvious is / _)rad never immediately apparent" I'll be the rubbish you'll be the bin Love Song - The Damned

The lists have been very quiet of late, so I thought that I would air some thoughts that have been swirling inside my head for a few weeks - bear with me, it is genealogy related. I am a fairly regular listener to "The Archers", which for people abroad who don't know, is a BBC radio serial - the oldest continuous radio serial in the world - ostensibly about a farming community in rural England. The main story that has been running in recent weeks concerns Tom Archer who was due to be married, in what would have been one of the biggest events in "The Archers" for years. I say was due, because at the last minute - actually inside the church - he jilted his bride to be, and has since "disappeared". At first he wouldn't/couldn't explain why he did what he did, but finally admitted to his mother that he felt his whole life had been a sham, with it all being mapped out - getting married, eventually inheriting the farm etc etc, and that this was due to the fact that his (fictitious) brother John had been killed in a farm accident many years ago. In other words, if John had not died, Tom's life would have been totally different and he had carrying this guilt ever since. Very deep and thought provoking I know, but it made me think about some of the lines in my family tree. I have many instances in my family tree of a child dying, and the subsequent child of the same sex, being given the same name, and I'm sure that I'm not alone in this. Now notwithstanding the story in The Archers, I have always though that that was rather odd and creepy. The succeeding child could go through life thinking that he/she would not have existed if his/her sibling hadn't died. Or am I thinking too deeply? Was life, and more particularly death, treated somewhat differently in the 19th century? Would one William for instance even know that there had been another William who had previously died? With families regularly getting towards double figures - births at least - perhaps the death of a child was sadly forgotten. It certainly was almost expected that all your children would not survive to adulthood. The inability of older people to know their age, we are told, was due to the fact that simply they were not aware of their birth year - for instance they wouldn't have celebrated each and every birthday as children do today, so childhood was most certainly different - and much shorter. A bit deep I accept, but as I say the thought of a child growing up with a dead child's name has always concerned me. Brian Binns

Brian-Your "story" hits home bcause it happened to my husband. He was given the same name as the son that died.The baby died at 6 weeks, my husband was conceived and voila. He never told me the story, his sister did and I'm sure that it bothered him greatly. The day that he graduated college, he changed his name set-up. He used the initial if his name and inserted his middle name, used it all of his life. Only family called him by the "given" name or even knew that it existed. After I started with the genealogy, I tried to locate the burial site but still to no avail. In fact, it seemed to be pretty popular among acadians in Nova Scotia and a new-found cousin accused me of using wrong data when 2 female names in the same family were same, the 1st one had died very young. They had to stay with the "naming patterns". Nice story and you are correct, it has been very quiet. Gusee that I'll have to get back to searching for my Suttons and Bradfords. Sadie Pegnatop ----- Original Message ----- From: "Brian Binns" <bnbinns@gmail.com> To: NOTTSGEN-L@rootsweb.com, leicestershire-plus@rootsweb.com Sent: Wednesday, May 7, 2014 9:43:03 AM Subject: [LEI] Sibling deaths The lists have been very quiet of late, so I thought that I would air some thoughts that have been swirling inside my head for a few weeks - bear with me, it is genealogy related. I am a fairly regular listener to "The Archers", which for people abroad who don't know, is a BBC radio serial - the oldest continuous radio serial in the world - ostensibly about a farming community in rural England. The main story that has been running in recent weeks concerns Tom Archer who was due to be married, in what would have been one of the biggest events in "The Archers" for years. I say was due, because at the last minute - actually inside the church - he jilted his bride to be, and has since "disappeared". At first he wouldn't/couldn't explain why he did what he did, but finally admitted to his mother that he felt his whole life had been a sham, with it all being mapped out - getting married, eventually inheriting the farm etc etc, and that this was due to the fact that his (fictitious) brother John had been killed in a farm accident many years ago. In other words, if John had not died, Tom's life would have been totally different and he had carrying this guilt ever since. Very deep and thought provoking I know, but it made me think about some of the lines in my family tree. I have many instances in my family tree of a child dying, and the subsequent child of the same sex, being given the same name, and I'm sure that I'm not alone in this. Now notwithstanding the story in The Archers, I have always though that that was rather odd and creepy. The succeeding child could go through life thinking that he/she would not have existed if his/her sibling hadn't died. Or am I thinking too deeply? Was life, and more particularly death, treated somewhat differently in the 19th century? Would one William for instance even know that there had been another William who had previously died? With families regularly getting towards double figures - births at least - perhaps the death of a child was sadly forgotten. It certainly was almost expected that all your children would not survive to adulthood. The inability of older people to know their age, we are told, was due to the fact that simply they were not aware of their birth year - for instance they wouldn't have celebrated each and every birthday as children do today, so childhood was most certainly different - and much shorter. A bit deep I accept, but as I say the thought of a child growing up with a dead child's name has always concerned me. Brian Binns ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to LEICESTERSHIRE-PLUS-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

What a fun topic, Brian! In the US, the situation was exactly the same. I think in most cases, it was intended as an honor, but that doesn't mean that it was always interpreted that way. Similar naming has always happened across generations. Most common is when sons are named the same as their fathers, or less commonly, daughters who are given the same name as their mothers. In these cases, the younger generation is always saddled with comments about how they "measure up to their parents, or grandparents. Personally, if I were in that situation, I think I would prefer a unique name! Winston may recall this extreme bit of nonsense perpetrated by an arrogant minor celebrity in the United States, George Foreman. I think he was a boxer (don't hold me to that, I don't follow boxing) when he was younger. Now he sells small kitchen appliances. Were you all aware that George Foreman has a rather large family and that ALL his children are legally named George! Why would his wife put up with that? Some listers have mentioned plans or patterns for naming children. I am aware of published plans for naming schemes that I have seen occasionally in various genealogy literature. If anyone is interested, I can attempt to find one of these for you. All of these schemes are similar--the first son is named after his father. The first daughter is named after her mother, the third child is supposed to be named after somebody else (probably grandparents, and so forth. In my maternal line, there was a scheme where the first daughter of the second child (I dare you to try to figure out how to keep that going!) was supposed to be named Gertrude! My mother fell into this web! She hated her name, but hated Trudy and Gertie worse. She could have used her middle name, Mae, but some of the Gertrudes were still alive and she didn't want to hurt anyone's feelings, so she was stuck. I am so glad that it was my cousin Sally who was supposed to be named Gertrude instead of me! I think she may be MORE thankful that my mother talked her sister into ending this tradition! Another interesting, but sad situation involved Mrs. Abraham Lincoln. We now know her by the name Mary Todd Lincoln. She began life as Mary Ann Todd When she was a young child (around four or five, her mother died and her father remarried. When they had a daughter, the new Mrs. Lincoln wanted the name Mary Ann for her baby, so weak-willed Mr. Todd allowed Ann to be stripped from Mary Ann's name and given to this new interloper in her family. The new baby was Mary Ann Todd. Former Mary Ann Todd was known by Mary Todd until she married. No wonder Mary Todd Lincoln was always a bit insecure! When it comes to baby names, apparently anything goes! Carolyn, in Minnesota, USA

I have several instances of names of deceased children being given to the next-born appropriate gender as well, and have perhaps a different perspective. First were naming conventions, and it is possible that it was a way of keeping the names persons for whom the deceased child was named in the family. And keeping granny or grandpa or auntie or uncle connected. In some instances in my family it was to curry favour with an employer or well-to-do relative or friend for whom the deceased child was named. In my family these instances occurred both in England and Wales Cheers Karin Sent from my iPad > On May 7, 2014, at 10:52 AM, "Winston Cochrane" <wwc4@fuse.net> wrote: > > Brian, > > I have a few instances of the same situation. I think it does a disservice > to both children, because I think each child should have a distinct name. To > remember the first child, they could have given a subsequent child the same > first name with a unique middle name, or a unique first name with a middle > name the same as the first child. Or maybe use Roman numerals, I, II, etc. > Maybe that is just the genealogist in me speaking, because it is simpler to > identify people with different names. It's hard to say what their reasoning > was. > > I agree with you that our ancestors were a lot more practical. They had to > be to survive. They needed lots of children as free labor on the farm, and a > you said, the survival rate wasn't assured to be good. I think it is natural > for people to think of "what ifs", but a waste of time to dwell on them. The > "what ifs" might have been worse! I will be interested to see what others > have to say about your questions. > > Thanks for a very thought provoking subject. > > Winston Cochrane > Maineville, OH, US > > -----Original Message----- > From: leicestershire-plus-bounces@rootsweb.com > [mailto:leicestershire-plus-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Brian Binns > Sent: Wednesday, May 7, 2014 9:43 AM > To: NOTTSGEN-L@rootsweb.com; leicestershire-plus@rootsweb.com > Subject: [LEI] Sibling deaths > > The lists have been very quiet of late, so I thought that I would air some > thoughts that have been swirling inside my head for a few weeks - bear with > me, it is genealogy related. > > > > I am a fairly regular listener to "The Archers", which for people abroad who > don't know, is a BBC radio serial - the oldest continuous radio serial in > the world - ostensibly about a farming community in rural England. The main > story that has been running in recent weeks concerns Tom Archer who was due > to be married, in what would have been one of the biggest events in "The > Archers" for years. I say was due, because at the last minute - actually > inside the church - he jilted his bride to be, and has since "disappeared". > At first he wouldn't/couldn't explain why he did what he did, but finally > admitted to his mother that he felt his whole life had been a sham, with it > all being mapped out - getting married, eventually inheriting the farm etc > etc, and that this was due to the fact that his (fictitious) brother John > had been killed in a farm accident many years ago. In other words, if John > had not died, Tom's life would have been totally different and he had > carrying this guilt ever since. Very deep and thought provoking I know, but > it made me think about some of the lines in my family tree. > > > > I have many instances in my family tree of a child dying, and the subsequent > child of the same sex, being given the same name, and I'm sure that I'm not > alone in this. Now notwithstanding the story in The Archers, I have always > though that that was rather odd and creepy. The succeeding child could go > through life thinking that he/she would not have existed if his/her sibling > hadn't died. Or am I thinking too deeply? Was life, and more particularly > death, treated somewhat differently in the 19th century? Would one William > for instance even know that there had been another William who had > previously died? With families regularly getting towards double figures - > births at least - perhaps the death of a child was sadly forgotten. It > certainly was almost expected that all your children would not survive to > adulthood. The inability of older people to know their age, we are told, was > due to the fact that simply they were not aware of their birth year - for > instance they wouldn't have celebrated each and every birthday as children > do today, so childhood was most certainly different - and much shorter. > > > > A bit deep I accept, but as I say the thought of a child growing up with a > dead child's name has always concerned me. > > > > Brian Binns > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > LEICESTERSHIRE-PLUS-request@rootsweb.com 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 LEICESTERSHIRE-PLUS-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message >

Brian, I have a few instances of the same situation. I think it does a disservice to both children, because I think each child should have a distinct name. To remember the first child, they could have given a subsequent child the same first name with a unique middle name, or a unique first name with a middle name the same as the first child. Or maybe use Roman numerals, I, II, etc. Maybe that is just the genealogist in me speaking, because it is simpler to identify people with different names. It's hard to say what their reasoning was. I agree with you that our ancestors were a lot more practical. They had to be to survive. They needed lots of children as free labor on the farm, and a you said, the survival rate wasn't assured to be good. I think it is natural for people to think of "what ifs", but a waste of time to dwell on them. The "what ifs" might have been worse! I will be interested to see what others have to say about your questions. Thanks for a very thought provoking subject. Winston Cochrane Maineville, OH, US -----Original Message----- From: leicestershire-plus-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:leicestershire-plus-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Brian Binns Sent: Wednesday, May 7, 2014 9:43 AM To: NOTTSGEN-L@rootsweb.com; leicestershire-plus@rootsweb.com Subject: [LEI] Sibling deaths The lists have been very quiet of late, so I thought that I would air some thoughts that have been swirling inside my head for a few weeks - bear with me, it is genealogy related. I am a fairly regular listener to "The Archers", which for people abroad who don't know, is a BBC radio serial - the oldest continuous radio serial in the world - ostensibly about a farming community in rural England. The main story that has been running in recent weeks concerns Tom Archer who was due to be married, in what would have been one of the biggest events in "The Archers" for years. I say was due, because at the last minute - actually inside the church - he jilted his bride to be, and has since "disappeared". At first he wouldn't/couldn't explain why he did what he did, but finally admitted to his mother that he felt his whole life had been a sham, with it all being mapped out - getting married, eventually inheriting the farm etc etc, and that this was due to the fact that his (fictitious) brother John had been killed in a farm accident many years ago. In other words, if John had not died, Tom's life would have been totally different and he had carrying this guilt ever since. Very deep and thought provoking I know, but it made me think about some of the lines in my family tree. I have many instances in my family tree of a child dying, and the subsequent child of the same sex, being given the same name, and I'm sure that I'm not alone in this. Now notwithstanding the story in The Archers, I have always though that that was rather odd and creepy. The succeeding child could go through life thinking that he/she would not have existed if his/her sibling hadn't died. Or am I thinking too deeply? Was life, and more particularly death, treated somewhat differently in the 19th century? Would one William for instance even know that there had been another William who had previously died? With families regularly getting towards double figures - births at least - perhaps the death of a child was sadly forgotten. It certainly was almost expected that all your children would not survive to adulthood. The inability of older people to know their age, we are told, was due to the fact that simply they were not aware of their birth year - for instance they wouldn't have celebrated each and every birthday as children do today, so childhood was most certainly different - and much shorter. A bit deep I accept, but as I say the thought of a child growing up with a dead child's name has always concerned me. Brian Binns ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to LEICESTERSHIRE-PLUS-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

I sometimes get the feeling that folks confuse having to get up and keep working and being too busy to talk about the past as forgetting. I keep thinking of my grandparents, who needed to work until they passed, and there were few instances that I remember when they would be still to talk about things long gone by. Economics and survival precluded any wish to reminisce about the past. On May 7, 2014 9:29 AM, "Connie" <connie.sparrer@gmail.com> wrote: > I don't think mother's simply shrugged when their child died, lay > back, thought of England and produced the next one. There was less in > the way of birth control back then and I believe couples were as > loving towards each other as they can be today. > > I get the impression the view of families being slightly callous and > careless of the loss of their children is mistaken. I don't believe > the lost children were forgotten either, at least not by the parents. > Some of the children may not have known about older siblings

I think that there are many reasons why children received the same name as their deceased predecessors. It was sometimes an honorific, sometimes an inherited name, sometimes a lack of creativity, sometimes just a really common name, a la Mary or John. I think whether the children knew there were others with the same name depended on the circumstances of the renaming. A child given the name of an honored previous child might know, but a child with a common name might not know that they were John #2, or #2 might go by a nickname and the parents might quietly let their name reasoning die off. I had the same thought as you, Brian, that it is creepy, but then I realized that I was applying 21st century ideals to say, 18th century practices. My husband pointed it out to me that I was applying a bias I shouldn't. After that, I've sort of learned to mourn those poor children who died and in most cases, the family could not afford time to mourn in their economic conditions and in some cases, barely afford a burial. On May 7, 2014 8:49 AM, "Brian Binns" <bnbinns@gmail.com> wrote: > The lists have been very quiet of late, so I thought that I would air some > thoughts that have been swirling inside my head for a few weeks - bear with > me, it is genealogy related. > > > > I am a fairly regular listener to "The Archers", which for people abroad > who > don't know, is a BBC radio serial - the oldest continuous radio serial in > the world - ostensibly about a farming community in rural England. The main > story that has been running in recent weeks concerns Tom Archer who was due > to be married, in what would have been one of the biggest events in "The > Archers" for years. I say was due, because at the last minute - actually > inside the church - he jilted his bride to be, and has since "disappeared". > At first he wouldn't/couldn't explain why he did what he did, but finally > admitted to his mother that he felt his whole life had been a sham, with it > all being mapped out - getting married, eventually inheriting the farm etc > etc, and that this was due to the fact that his (fictitious) brother John > had been killed in a farm accident many years ago. In other words, if John > had not died, Tom's life would have been totally different and he had > carrying this guilt ever since. Very deep and thought provoking I know, but > it made me think about some of the lines in my family tree. > > > > I have many instances in my family tree of a child dying, and the > subsequent > child of the same sex, being given the same name, and I'm sure that I'm not > alone in this. Now notwithstanding the story in The Archers, I have always > though that that was rather odd and creepy. The succeeding child could go > through life thinking that he/she would not have existed if his/her sibling > hadn't died. Or am I thinking too deeply? Was life, and more particularly > death, treated somewhat differently in the 19th century? Would one William > for instance even know that there had been another William who had > previously died? With families regularly getting towards double figures - > births at least - perhaps the death of a child was sadly forgotten. It > certainly was almost expected that all your children would not survive to > adulthood. The inability of older people to know their age, we are told, > was > due to the fact that simply they were not aware of their birth year - for > instance they wouldn't have celebrated each and every birthday as children > do today, so childhood was most certainly different - and much shorter. > > > > A bit deep I accept, but as I say the thought of a child growing up with a > dead child's name has always concerned me. > > > > Brian Binns > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > LEICESTERSHIRE-PLUS-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' > without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message >

Now on FreeReg for Market Harborough are Marriages 1696-1837 Baptisms 1783-1875 Marilyn Free lookups are available from Northamptonshire Baptism, Marriage and Burial indexes at http://www.familyhistorynorthants.co.uk/

Hi all These are the latest releases on Ancestry Why am I posting to a Leicestershire list you ask? In the Police Records I searched for keyword Leicester and got 51 hits for men born in Leicester So may be worth your while checking NEW West Yorkshire, England, Prison Records, 1801-1914 NEW West Yorkshire, England, Police Records, 1833-1914 NEW West Yorkshire, England, Reformatory School Records, 1856-1914 NEW West Yorkshire, England, Militia, 1779-1826 -- Nivard Ovington in Cornwall (UK)

Mike, That's exactly how I did it - prior to your note - but thanks anyway, and to all the other similar suggestions. Brian Binns -----Original Message----- From: leicestershire-plus-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:leicestershire-plus-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Mike Gould Sent: 20 April 2014 13:55 To: leicestershire-plus@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [LEI] Newspapers on Find my Past Hi Brian, If you have MS Word, then you can capture a screenshot by using the PrintScreen button, paste into Word, crop as necessary, then right-click the image and Save As Picture to a jpeg file. If you're using a modern version of Word, I find it easiest to add the Crop button to the Quick Access Toolbar, using "More Commands" from the Customize drop down menu. Best wishes, Mike Gould -----Original Message----- From: leicestershire-plus-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:leicestershire-plus-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Brian Binns Sent: 20 April 2014 11:50 To: NOTTSGEN-L@rootsweb.com; leicestershire-plus@rootsweb.com Subject: [LEI] Newspapers on Find my Past I am a subscriber to Find my past and have in the past downloaded Newspaper pages as a PDF, from which I was then able to select the required article, change it to a jpeg, and add to my family tree. When I have tried to do it recently - following major changes on the Findmypast website - all I have got is a jumbled up version of the required page. Anyone else tried it who could offer a solution? Brian Binns ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to LEICESTERSHIRE-PLUS-request@rootsweb.com 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 LEICESTERSHIRE-PLUS-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Hi All In the 1841 and 1851 censuses a forebear of mine lived at 18 Middle Street, The Newark. Could someone tell me whether this street still exists or whether it has been absorbed into the redevelopment in that area. Some of his children were christened in St Mary de Castro. Robert Lee Melbourne, Australia

Hi Mike I just replied to Notts but will repeat here in case its of interest to others I use TNT with Win 7 (as I used to with XP) it has much better capabilities over the Windows snipping tool You can annotate, add arrows etc and email direct from it, it can also be set to save in various formats and also keep an automatic copy to a folder of your choice, very handy when doing several It cuts out the need to edit the capture or copy and paste into word or whatever Nivard Ovington in Cornwall (UK) On 20/04/2014 13:55, Mike Gould wrote: > Hi Brian, > > If you have MS Word, then you can capture a screenshot by using the > PrintScreen button, paste into Word, crop as necessary, then right-click the > image and Save As Picture to a jpeg file. > > If you're using a modern version of Word, I find it easiest to add the Crop > button to the Quick Access Toolbar, using "More Commands" from the Customize > drop down menu. > > Best wishes, > > Mike Gould

Tip - if you want to just screenshot a particular window EG internet explorer, make sure it is 'active' then hold the ALT key down and press your print screen button. You can still crop the result in Word, but the file size is smaller than a full screen Neil > On 20 Apr 2014, at 13:55, "Mike Gould" <mike.gould@ndirect.co.uk> wrote: > > Hi Brian, > > If you have MS Word, then you can capture a screenshot by using the > PrintScreen button, paste into Word, crop as necessary, then right-click the > image and Save As Picture to a jpeg file. > > If you're using a modern version of Word, I find it easiest to add the Crop > button to the Quick Access Toolbar, using "More Commands" from the Customize > drop down menu. > > Best wishes, > > Mike Gould > > -----Original Message----- > From: leicestershire-plus-bounces@rootsweb.com > [mailto:leicestershire-plus-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Brian Binns > Sent: 20 April 2014 11:50 > To: NOTTSGEN-L@rootsweb.com; leicestershire-plus@rootsweb.com > Subject: [LEI] Newspapers on Find my Past > > I am a subscriber to Find my past and have in the past downloaded Newspaper > pages as a PDF, from which I was then able to select the required article, > change it to a jpeg, and add to my family tree. > > > > When I have tried to do it recently - following major changes on the > Findmypast website - all I have got is a jumbled up version of the required > page. > > > > Anyone else tried it who could offer a solution? > > > > Brian Binns > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > LEICESTERSHIRE-PLUS-request@rootsweb.com 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 LEICESTERSHIRE-PLUS-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Hi Brian, If you have MS Word, then you can capture a screenshot by using the PrintScreen button, paste into Word, crop as necessary, then right-click the image and Save As Picture to a jpeg file. If you're using a modern version of Word, I find it easiest to add the Crop button to the Quick Access Toolbar, using "More Commands" from the Customize drop down menu. Best wishes, Mike Gould -----Original Message----- From: leicestershire-plus-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:leicestershire-plus-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Brian Binns Sent: 20 April 2014 11:50 To: NOTTSGEN-L@rootsweb.com; leicestershire-plus@rootsweb.com Subject: [LEI] Newspapers on Find my Past I am a subscriber to Find my past and have in the past downloaded Newspaper pages as a PDF, from which I was then able to select the required article, change it to a jpeg, and add to my family tree. When I have tried to do it recently - following major changes on the Findmypast website - all I have got is a jumbled up version of the required page. Anyone else tried it who could offer a solution? Brian Binns ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to LEICESTERSHIRE-PLUS-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

On 20/04/2014 11:49, Brian Binns wrote: > I am a subscriber to Find my past and have in the past downloaded Newspaper > pages as a PDF, from which I was then able to select the required article, > change it to a jpeg, and add to my family tree. > > When I have tried to do it recently - following major changes on the > Findmypast website - all I have got is a jumbled up version of the required > page. > > Anyone else tried it who could offer a solution? Find the article, then take a screenshot either by using the PrtScr key and an image program such as Irfanview or one of the special programs/tools. I use the screenshot method. Irfanview allows me to crop and annotate the image as required. I no longer use FMP. -- Connie http://oursalmons.wordpress.com/

On Sun, 20 Apr 2014 11:49:49 +0100 "Brian Binns" <bnbinns@gmail.com> wrote: Hello Brian, >Anyone else tried it who could offer a solution? FMP have yet to reintroduce d/l'ing newspaper imagery. -- Regards _ / ) "The blindingly obvious is / _)rad never immediately apparent" Bet you thought you had it all worked out Problem - Sex Pistols

I am a subscriber to Find my past and have in the past downloaded Newspaper pages as a PDF, from which I was then able to select the required article, change it to a jpeg, and add to my family tree. When I have tried to do it recently - following major changes on the Findmypast website - all I have got is a jumbled up version of the required page. Anyone else tried it who could offer a solution? Brian Binns

Hi Robert Middle street is long gone I am afraid I will send a couple of snips of maps to show where it was in comparison to today Middle street ran between Goswell street (now Newark close) and Mill Lane which still exists (and which becomes Bonners Lane) The houses would most likely be terraced back to backs If you look on google maps for Richmond Street and continue its line across The Gateway you would cross what was once Middle Street I doubt there is a single brick remaining from the period around what was Middle street apart from the Church and Castle area Nivard Ovington in Cornwall (UK) On 20/04/2014 05:23, Robert Lee wrote: > Hi All > > In the 1841 and 1851 censuses a forebear of mine lived at 18 Middle Street, The Newark. > > Could someone tell me whether this street still exists or whether it has been absorbed into the redevelopment in that area. Some of his children were christened in St Mary de Castro. > > Robert Lee > Melbourne, Australia >