I agree St Mary Le Bone As it really looks like Titchfield - although the ch bit is vague First glance it is Mary le Bow with a flourish but clicking the eye shows the w becoming n and the flourish is e as in e in midddlesex I'm trying to get to grips with 17th century registers in Somerset at the moment. Its the abbreviations that throw you Ron Lankshear -Sydney NSW (from London-Shepherds Bush/Chiswick) try my links http://freepages.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~lankshear/ On 2011-06-02 4:53 PM, mcreyn02@tpg.com.au wrote: > Possibly it's Saint Mary le Bone - h

Thanks Caroline, Possibly it's Saint Mary le Bone - he gives his address as Goldsmith Square parish of St Leonard, Shoreditch. Regards, Maureen -----Original Message----- As Ron, quite rightly says, Little Titchfield Street is not in the parish of St Mary le Bow. But it *is* in the parish of St Mary le Bone (i.e. Marylebone). So perhaps you have Titchfield right after all and have confused "Bone" with "Bow". Hope this helps, Caroline > In the 1808 will of Thomas Thomlinson I can't quite make out the name > of a street. The best I can make of it is: > two leasehold houses Nos. 11 & 12 in Little ........field Street in > the parish of Saint Mary le Bow in the said County of Middlesex. > > Could it be Titchfield or something else? > > Thanks for any help, > Maureen in Sydney >

Hello Ron, I don't think it starts with an "M" - it looks more like a "T" - it could possibly be a "C". Could I crop that bit and send you an image to look at for me please? A distant rellie is leaving Perth tomorrow evening - he will end up in London at the end of the month and he wants to photograph family places of interest while he is there. Regards, Maureen -----Original Message----- From: Ron Lankshear [mailto:ronlank@yahoo.com.au] Sent: Thursday, 2 June 2011 1:06 PM To: mcreyn02@tpg.com.au Cc: london@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [LON] London street name suggestions Titchfield is some 3 miles from St Mary le Bow Could it be Little Moorfields which is 1/2 north of Cheapside Ron Lankshear -Sydney NSW (from London-Shepherds Bush/Chiswick) try my links http://freepages.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~lankshear/ On 2011-06-02 11:25 AM, mcreyn02@tpg.com.au wrote: > In the 1808 will of Thomas Thomlinson I can't quite make out the name > of a street. The best I can make of it is: > two leasehold houses Nos. 11& 12 in Little ........field Street in > the parish of Saint Mary le Bow in the said County of Middlesex. > > Could it be Titchfield or something else? > > Thanks for any help, > Maureen in Sydney

Titchfield is some 3 miles from St Mary le Bow Could it be Little Moorfields which is 1/2 north of Cheapside Ron Lankshear -Sydney NSW (from London-Shepherds Bush/Chiswick) try my links http://freepages.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~lankshear/ On 2011-06-02 11:25 AM, mcreyn02@tpg.com.au wrote: > In the 1808 will of Thomas Thomlinson I can't quite make out the name of a > street. The best I can make of it is: > two leasehold houses Nos. 11& 12 in Little ........field Street in the > parish of Saint Mary le Bow in the said County of Middlesex. > > Could it be Titchfield or something else? > > Thanks for any help, > Maureen in Sydney

In the 1808 will of Thomas Thomlinson I can't quite make out the name of a street. The best I can make of it is: two leasehold houses Nos. 11 & 12 in Little ........field Street in the parish of Saint Mary le Bow in the said County of Middlesex. Could it be Titchfield or something else? Thanks for any help, Maureen in Sydney

As Ron, quite rightly says, Little Titchfield Street is not in the parish of St Mary le Bow. But it *is* in the parish of St Mary le Bone (i.e. Marylebone). So perhaps you have Titchfield right after all and have confused "Bone" with "Bow". Hope this helps, Caroline > In the 1808 will of Thomas Thomlinson I can't quite make out the name > of a > street. The best I can make of it is: > two leasehold houses Nos. 11 & 12 in Little ........field Street in the > parish of Saint Mary le Bow in the said County of Middlesex. > > Could it be Titchfield or something else? > > Thanks for any help, > Maureen in Sydney >

I note the marriage was by Banns Also a Witness was William Catleugh who could be a brother or possibly a father or a cousin. That might help when you find a possible baptism for Mary - I could not see any. The other witness was John Geo Leigh. What else do you know about the Skinners? Their children? Occupation etc. So they can be found in census? I could not see any likely James married to a Mary in 1851 census which should give clear ages and places born Looking at 1841 census I suppose this might be the couple as they are around St Geo area HO107; Piece 690; Book: 10; Civil Parish: Kensington; County: Middlesex; Enumeration District: 1; Folio: 8; Page: 11 James Skinner 50 born Ireland a Tailor Mary Skinner 35 born Middlesex Sarah Skinner 15 Agnes Skinner 11 William Skinner 6 James Skinner 4 Ron Lankshear -Sydney NSW (from London-Shepherds Bush/Chiswick) try my links http://freepages.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~lankshear/ On 2011-06-01 7:44 PM, David Lindsell wrote: >>> I have a marriage certificate number 680 of St Georges, Hanover Square, >>> >> dated the 8 September 1821 for the marriage of Mary Catleugh to James >>> >> Skinner. Parents to Sarah Skinner. No ages or addresses on the >>> >> certificate but I believe that Mary was born in 1799. > Can anyone please tell me any more information on the Skinners? >>> >> David Lindsell

Hi All I have been searching for the death of Felix Rickard Werry born Islington 1855 for some time!! Today I decided to "look outside the Box" of UK and there it was in Australia 1886 His wife Frances Louise Werry is still "hiding" they were married in 1883 in Hackney Felix and his 2 brothers were Lithographic Artists but no one mentioned that Felix had gone down under. Now does anyone have access to Australian Census if there was one between 1883 and 1886 or if you can "see him" in Australia during that period to see if there is any other information about them. He was living with Frances Louisa her Husband Robert Holmes and their daughter Florence in 1881 Then Robert dies and Felix steps into the breach and marries Frances in 1883 So did he go to Australia with or without Frances and Florence?? sad he only had a short time before he died in 1886 I wonder what the story was??? Eve (Canada now)

Thank you Ron. The information you provided ties in with some information already supplied by another mailing list. My interest in the Skinners stems from Sarah's marriage to my 2 x great Grandfather, Charles Lindsell, in 1853. I am trying to find a birth or baptism date fro Sarah and a birth and death date for her parents, Mary and James. Regards, David ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ron Lankshear" <ronlank@yahoo.com.au> To: "David Lindsell" <trained@tiscali.co.uk> Cc: <LONDON@rootsweb.com> Sent: Wednesday, June 01, 2011 2:21 PM Subject: Re: [LON] SARAH SKINNER >I note the marriage was by Banns > Also a Witness was William Catleugh > who could be a brother or possibly a father or a cousin. > That might help when you find a possible baptism for Mary - I could not > see any. > The other witness was John Geo Leigh. > > What else do you know about the Skinners? > Their children? Occupation etc. > So they can be found in census? > > I could not see any likely James married to a Mary in 1851 census which > should give clear ages and places born > > Looking at 1841 census I suppose this might be the couple as they are > around St Geo area > > HO107; Piece 690; Book: 10; Civil Parish: Kensington; County: Middlesex; > Enumeration District: 1; Folio: 8; Page: 11 > > James Skinner 50 born Ireland a Tailor > Mary Skinner 35 born Middlesex > Sarah Skinner 15 > Agnes Skinner 11 > William Skinner 6 > James Skinner 4 > > Ron Lankshear -Sydney NSW (from London-Shepherds Bush/Chiswick) > try my links http://freepages.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~lankshear/ > > On 2011-06-01 7:44 PM, David Lindsell wrote: >>>> I have a marriage certificate number 680 of St Georges, Hanover Square, >>>> >> dated the 8 September 1821 for the marriage of Mary Catleugh to >>>> >> James >>>> >> Skinner. Parents to Sarah Skinner. No ages or addresses on the >>>> >> certificate but I believe that Mary was born in 1799. >> Can anyone please tell me any more information on the Skinners? >>>> >> David Lindsell >

Hello David, > ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Lindsell" <trained@tiscali.co.uk> >>>> I have a marriage certificate number 680 of St Georges, Hanover Square, >>>> dated the 8 September 1821 for the marriage of Mary Catleugh to James >>>> Skinner. Parents to Sarah Skinner. No ages or addresses on the >>>> certificate but I believe that Mary was born in 1799. >> Can anyone please tell me any more information on the Skinners? >>>> David Lindsell *If* the marriage was By Licence rather than After Banns then the marriage licence allegation may have survived. Regards John Henley

Where would I look for Marriage Licence Allegations, pre-1837 - St. Botolphs Bishopsgate and St. Leonard Shoreditch? Thanks, Glenys -- Glenys www.quietacre.net

>> I have a marriage certificate number 680 of St Georges, Hanover Square, >> dated the 8 September 1821 for the marriage of Mary Catleugh to James >> Skinner. Parents to Sarah Skinner. No ages or addresses on the >> certificate but I believe that Mary was born in 1799. Can anyone please tell me any more information on the Skinners? >> David Lindsell > > > > ************************************** > Send your List messages using **PLAIN TEXT** and always **TRIM AWAY** > superfluous old messages

As John H has said, these are corrections to entries, officially known as 'Numbered Errors'. The significant thing about this method of correction is that it should only be used to correct errors detected before the informant and registrar sign the entry in the register. The rules are: 1. If a word is incorrect the registrar must cross it out with a line drawn through it so that the word remains legible and write the correct word above it. 2. If, in any group of numbers, one or more is incorrect the registrar must cross out all of the fihures by drawing a line through them so that they remain legible. The correct figures are written above. 3. If a word has been omitted the registrar must place a caret ^ where the omission occurs and write the word above it. If there is sufficient space to write the omitted word in the place of the omission, then the word is written in the space and underlined. 4. The number of the error is noted in figures next to the error and in words, plus the registrar's initials, in the margin of the entry. Certificates issued by Register Offices for such entries will not normally show the correction. They will be made out as if the correct information was supplied in the first place. I suspect the certificate referred to is a photocopy issued by GRO. If the 'father's name' has been crossed through and not replaced, then my guess is that the mother came to register the birth and the entry was made as if she was married to the father. But then it was ascertained that this was not the case, and as he was not present, his deatils were deleted. Tony >I was recently shown a birth certificate that has had information deleted - but not quite ! The name of the father has been struck-through - although it is still quite visible - and the number (9) written next to it. Other information has also been struck-through and the numbers (10) (11) and (12) written next to the deletions. I can understand why information may have been deleted (although it almost seems as though someone meant it to remain as it's readable with a little effort) but I don't know the meaning of the numbers. Can someone please add to my knowledge in this matter ? Regards, John. Plester One-Name Study: www.plester.info<

John, Do you have her in the 1911 census? - I have looked in the census index for a Flora BENTER born 1910 +/- 2 but no luck. Where does the information you have on her come from? Birth registration, which I presume you have Flora Antoinette Benter Date of Registration: Apr-May-Jun 1910 Registration district: West Ham Inferred County: Essex, Greater London Volume: 4a Page: 91 Anne On 31 May 2011, at 22:37, John Bridgeman wrote: > I am looking for any information of Flora BENTER, b 1910 Star Lane > Plaistow (father unknown) > She married in 1929 in Croydon, died 2002 Worthing. > > Many thanks > > John > e

Hi John ----- Original Message ----- From: "John Plester" <john@plester.info> >I was recently shown a birth certificate that has had information deleted - but not quite ! > The name of the father has been struck-through - although it is still quite visible - and the > number (9) written next to it. > Other information has also been struck-through and the numbers (10) (11) and (12) written next to > the deletions. > I can understand why information may have been deleted (although it almost seems as though > someone meant it to remain as it's > readable with a little effort) but I don't know the meaning of the numbers. > > Can someone please add to my knowledge in this matter ? > > Regards,> > John. You do not give the source of this certificate - G.R.O or local Register Office, nor whether it is a typed/handwritten copy of the entry or a certificate incorporating a photocopy of the original entry from the quarterly return (G.R.O.) or from the register (local office). Correction numbers in registers run consecutively throughout the register, and the series created thus unique to any individual register. Each number refers to a marginal note(which should be, if room, against the particular entry) A marginal note to the entry (even if just the initials of the person making the alteration) should be reproduced in the certificate of the entry and thus you should contact the source of the certificate and ask for a fresh certificate. Initials (& date?) only are required for corrections made *before* the entry is completed: after the entry has been completed by signatures then the marginal note *must* include the reason for the correction, registrar's signature and date. Kind regards, John Henley

I was recently shown a birth certificate that has had information deleted - but not quite ! The name of the father has been struck-through - although it is still quite visible - and the number (9) written next to it. Other information has also been struck-through and the numbers (10) (11) and (12) written next to the deletions. I can understand why information may have been deleted (although it almost seems as though someone meant it to remain as it's readable with a little effort) but I don't know the meaning of the numbers. Can someone please add to my knowledge in this matter ? Regards, John. Plester One-Name Study: www.plester.info

I am looking for any information of Flora BENTER, b 1910 Star Lane Plaistow (father unknown) She married in 1929 in Croydon, died 2002 Worthing. Many thanks John

Thanks to everyone who responded to this with their helpful comments. regards Norman Jessup

This edition of the Law Notices contains the following entry: CHANCERY, LINCOLN'S-INN at half-past 10. [Before the LORDS JUSTICES] Lunatic petitions: Re Redmayne-Re King-Re Sombre-Re Rawlings-Re Saunders= Re rolleston-Re Scarpelain. Bankrupt petitiions(4). Appeal: Reimers v Druce, part heard. Can anyone say if this means that Redmayne was the subject of a petition or was presenting the petition? or can help interpret what this means ? Thank you Norman Jessup

Norman, I believe REDMAYNE will have been the subject of the petition. This page of the TNA research guide on mental health might help. http://tinyurl.com/3zctqhd HTH Judy London, UK -----Original Message----- From: london-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:london-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Norman Jessup Sent: 28 May 2011 11:44 To: LONDON-L@rootsweb.com Subject: [LON] London Law Notices Friday March 6th 1857 This edition of the Law Notices contains the following entry: CHANCERY, LINCOLN'S-INN at half-past 10. [Before the LORDS JUSTICES] Lunatic petitions: Re Redmayne-Re King-Re Sombre-Re Rawlings-Re Saunders= Re rolleston-Re Scarpelain. Bankrupt petitiions(4). Appeal: Reimers v Druce, part heard. Can anyone say if this means that Redmayne was the subject of a petition or was presenting the petition? or can help interpret what this means ? Thank you Norman Jessup