I received a photo of my gg grandmother Eliza Quillinan. The bottom of the photo part of the name of the company that took the picture is missing it saids ? Eberhardt Rommel now I don't know if this was taken in England or New York but she looks very young so I am guessing it was taken in England.She was born in 1838 and she came to the US in 1890 so she was about 52 years old when she came to New York. Is there any why to fine out if this Company was in England. Thank you Gail

Hi , Do a Google Search - for Eberhardt ROMMELL - there are references to the name - in New York - though I can't find other information. There had been a Rootsweb Mail List - re photographers or ? memory fails me - I cannot find it at this time Cheers, Stella At 04:18 PM 21/09/2012, you wrote: >I received a photo of my gg grandmother Eliza Quillinan. The bottom >of the photo part of the name of the company that took the picture >is missing it saids ? Eberhardt Rommel now I don't know if this was >taken in England or New York but she looks very young so I am >guessing it was taken in England.She was born in 1838 and she came >to the US in 1890 so she was about 52 years old when she came to New >York. Is there any why to fine out if this Company was in England. > >Thank you Gail >************************************** >Send your List messages using **PLAIN TEXT** and always **TRIM >AWAY** superfluous old messages in replies. > >**MEANINGFUL Subject Lines - who, what, where, when, with SURNAMES >in CAPITAL letters** > >List Admin can be contacted at: [email protected] >------------------------------- >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

I have an ancestor who was buried on this cemetery. Does this mean that he would have been a non-conformist? Steven Hollis Senior Metallurgist 1 Sleat Rd, Applecross, Western Australia 6153 M +61 439 951 802 E [email protected] W www.processminerals.com.au Process Minerals International is a subsidiary of Mineral Resources -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of [email protected] Sent: Thursday, 20 September 2012 7:02 PM To: Judy Mann; Judy Mann; [email protected] Subject: Re: [MDX] New Bunhill Fields Burial Ground > I have a burial from 1848 from "New Bunhill Fields Burial Ground" In > the last column titled "Where buried" lists lower ground. Just a section of the Fields, in a fairly built up area even then, where small plots were acquired from time to time to extend the graveyard. I think Upper ground was the first one, after which they bought new space, and this was the way they described it, for the convenience of the cemetery keepers. Normally people bought a grave s[pave which would accommodate six, over the two years, and subsequent family burials meant a reopening of the right grave. Most in Bunhill Burial ground were marked, I believe, since the occupants were the better-off nonconformists in London. I have a notion that when the burial grouind was closed, it became a garden with seats, and it is likely that stones would have been moved to the edges of the area. EVE Author of The McLaughlin Guides for Family Historians Secretary, Bucks Genealogical Society -------------------------------------------------------------------------- IMPORTANT PLEASE READ - Email Disclaimer -------------------------------------------------------------------------- This email message (including any attachments) is intended only for the addressee(s) and is to be kept strictly confidential unless otherwise agreed in writing with its sender. If you are not the intended recipient please notify the sender by reply email and immediately delete this email. Use, disclosure or reproduction of this email (or any of its attachments) by anyone other than the intended recipient(s) is strictly prohibited. No representation is made that this email or any attachments are free of viruses. Virus scanning is recommended and is the responsibility of the recipient. --------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hi Laurence I am very happy to stand corrected on this. I have been a constant and enthusiastic user of FreeBMD since it started and yet, to my eternal shame, I never realised that one could use a date of birth or age range in that way in the "death age/dob" field. No excuses either, because it is explained perfectly clearly in the FAQs. Many thanks for the tip Caroline (red-faced and contrite) Sent from my iPad On 20 Sep 2012, at 09:14, Lawrence Pearse <[email protected]> wrote: > > Caroline - why do you say "only Ancestry allows you to search the death index on an approximate date of birth"? On a death search FreeBMD allows you to enter into its "Death age/DOB box" something like "@1834-1838" to give the approximate year range of birth, while FMP has a year of birth box (with +/-). With its more flexible use of year range, FreeBMD is always my first port of call for deaths up to about 1950 - and its option to limit searches to one or more reg districts or counties is an added bonus. > > Lawrence > > > > >> From: [email protected] >> To: [email protected] >> Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2012 07:47:09 +0100 >> Subject: Re: [MDX] COOLER ? & LUCAS Margaret Florence >> >> Hi Marcelle >> >> FreeBMD should always be ones first port of call for searching civil >> registration indices (except possibly for deaths after 1865 - only Ancestry >> allows you to search the death index on an approximate date of birth) and is >> now pretty much complete well into the 20th century. > > ************************************** > Send your List messages using **PLAIN TEXT** and always **TRIM AWAY** superfluous old messages in replies. > > **MEANINGFUL Subject Lines - who, what, where, when, with SURNAMES in CAPITAL letters** > > List Admin can be contacted at: [email protected] > ------------------------------- > 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

Hello Caroline Thank you so much for your help - fantastic. No brain function today....well any day it seems!! Thanks again, much appreciated. Cheers Marcelle -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Caroline Bradford Sent: Thursday, 20 September 2012 2:47 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [MDX] COOLER ? & LUCAS Margaret Florence

> > New Bunhill Fields (aka Little Bunhill Fields) burial ground was a bit > further south, originally attached to the nonconformist Upper Street > Independent Chapel. There is now nothing left of the graveyard, as that > whole area has been built over. I thought John Bowmer would know what was going to happen - he tried to stop it but you can't beat developers splashing a lot of money around. EVE Author of The McLaughlin Guides for Family Historians Secretary, Bucks Genealogical Society

David, St Mary's Church Gardens belongs to the parish church of St Mary Islington. New Bunhill Fields (aka Little Bunhill Fields) burial ground was a bit further south, originally attached to the nonconformist Upper Street Independent Chapel. There is now nothing left of the graveyard, as that whole area has been built over. HTH Judy London, UK -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of David Railton Do I take it that what was known as NEW Bunhill Burial Ground is now known as St Mary's Church Gardens. David

Apologies if I have confused. All I can say is that the burial ground where Bunyon and Blake were buried still has their tombs and many other memorial stones also. Do I take it that what was known as NEW Bunhill Burial Ground is now known as St Mary's Church Gardens. David -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Katie de Haan Sent: 20 September 2012 13:23 To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [MDX] New Bunhill Fields Burial Ground - apologies Oh dear, my apologies for the same misunderstanding. Katie -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- Van: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] Namens Judy Lester Verzonden: donderdag 20 september 2012 14:15 Aan: [email protected] Onderwerp: Re: [MDX] New Bunhill Fields Burial Ground David (and Eve?) This is a different burial ground. The OP was enquiring about *New* Bunhill Fields, which is adjacent to St Mary Islington. HTH Judy ************************************** Send your List messages using **PLAIN TEXT** and always **TRIM AWAY** superfluous old messages in replies. **MEANINGFUL Subject Lines - who, what, where, when, with SURNAMES in CAPITAL letters** List Admin can be contacted at: [email protected] ------------------------------- 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 List I've found the following marriage on Ancestry Margaret F Lucas Spouse Name: Cooler Date of Reg: Jul-Aug-Sept 1958 Reg District: Wood Green Inferred County: Middlesex Vol 5f Page No. 1659 Even though I have the Vol & Page number, when I click 'find Spouse' I'm told there's insufficient information. Is someone able to help me with the 'given' name of COOLER please. Cheers Marcelle Western Australia

Oh dear, my apologies for the same misunderstanding. Katie -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- Van: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] Namens Judy Lester Verzonden: donderdag 20 september 2012 14:15 Aan: [email protected] Onderwerp: Re: [MDX] New Bunhill Fields Burial Ground David (and Eve?) This is a different burial ground. The OP was enquiring about *New* Bunhill Fields, which is adjacent to St Mary Islington. HTH Judy

I'm afraid it did go through, Eve and list, or at least some attempt was made to alter it. I was one of those London office workers and I used to pass through there back in the sixties. It was always a special spot, though I hadn't the slightest notion then that some of my own ancestors were buried there. If only I'd known. These days, you can still pass through and there ARE benches and even a plan of the graves, so you can just about work out where, say, Bunyan and Blake were buried, but you can't see anything properly. Much of the ground is fenced off in what doesn't appear to be a well thought out 'conservation' project and I couldn't even begin to surmise just where my family were laid to rest. Not that I often make it to London anyway, but when I do, I survey it with some regret. Katie de Haan The Netherlands -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- Van: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] Namens [email protected] Verzonden: donderdag 20 september 2012 13:52 Aan: David Railton; [email protected] Onderwerp: Re: [MDX] New Bunhill Fields Burial Ground > Memorial stones are still in place. That's good - I remember about 40/45 years ago being told (by the venerable archivist of the Methodists, Rev John Bowmer,then based in London, that an application had been made to turn the ground into a park with seats for the London office workers, which involved moving many of the stones. Usually these things go through so I took it that it had. EVE Author of The McLaughlin Guides for Family Historians Secretary, Bucks Genealogical Society ************************************** Send your List messages using **PLAIN TEXT** and always **TRIM AWAY** superfluous old messages in replies. **MEANINGFUL Subject Lines - who, what, where, when, with SURNAMES in CAPITAL letters** List Admin can be contacted at: [email protected] ------------------------------- 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 List 2nd Qtr of 1927 Henry J E J LUCAS married Mabel Florence EDMED in Barnet, Middlesex. Mabel Florence was the daughter of John Edmed and Agnes Barter and was born in 1897 Potters Bar. Mabel's brother William James Edmed born 1888 in Potters Bar was my grandfather. It seems Mabel is the only child in that generation of the family to have married and had a child (apart from William James), and I think the daughter is Margaret Florence LUCAS born 1933 in Gravesend, Surrey, Kent. I'm hoping someone out there is related to these people. Thanks & cheers Marcelle in Western Australia

David (and Eve?) This is a different burial ground. The OP was enquiring about *New* Bunhill Fields, which is adjacent to St Mary Islington. HTH Judy London, UK -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of David Railton Memorial stones are still in place. See Google Maps Street View at: http://goo.gl/maps/QZmne Also there are a number of photographs on the same website of graves including for John Bunyan and William Blake at: http://goo.gl/maps/Nj1Sk David -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of [email protected] Sent: 20 September 2012 12:02 To: Judy Mann; Judy Mann; [email protected] Subject: Re: [MDX] New Bunhill Fields Burial Ground > I have a burial from 1848 from "New Bunhill Fields Burial Ground" > In the last column titled "Where buried" lists lower ground. Just a section of the Fields, in a fairly built up area even then, where small plots were acquired from time to time to extend the graveyard. I think Upper ground was the first one, after which they bought new space, and this was the way they described it, for the convenience of the cemetery keepers. Normally people bought a grave s[pave which would accommodate six, over the two years, and subsequent family burials meant a reopening of the right grave. Most in Bunhill Burial ground were marked, I believe, since the occupants were the better-off nonconformists in London. I have a notion that when the burial grouind was closed, it became a garden with seats, and it is likely that stones would have been moved to the edges of the area. EVE Author of The McLaughlin Guides for Family Historians Secretary, Bucks Genealogical Society

From Jackson's Oxford Journal ( Oxford, England ), Saturday, August 21, 1824; Issue 3721. CURIOUS WILL. - John Aylett STOW , late of the parish of St. Andrew, Holborn, deceased, proved the 8th of June, 1781:- " I hereby direct my executors to lay out five guineas in the purchase of a picture of the viper biting the benevolent hand of the person who saved him from perishing in the snow ( if the same can be bought for that money), and that they do, in memory of me, give it to Edward BEARCROFT ,Esq., a King's Counsel, whereby he may have frequent opportunities of contemplating, and by a comparison between that and his own virtues, be able to form a certain judgment which is best and most profitable, a grateful remembrance of past friendship and almost parental regard, or ingratitude and insolence - this I direct to be presented to him in lieu of £3,000, I had by a former will ( now revoked and burnt ) left him. " 

> Memorial stones are still in place. That's good - I remember about 40/45 years ago being told (by the venerable archivist of the Methodists, Rev John Bowmer,then based in London, that an application had been made to turn the ground into a park with seats for the London office workers, which involved moving many of the stones. Usually these things go through so I took it that it had. EVE Author of The McLaughlin Guides for Family Historians Secretary, Bucks Genealogical Society

Memorial stones are still in place. See Google Maps Street View at: http://goo.gl/maps/QZmne Also there are a number of photographs on the same website of graves including for John Bunyan and William Blake at: http://goo.gl/maps/Nj1Sk David -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of [email protected] Sent: 20 September 2012 12:02 To: Judy Mann; Judy Mann; [email protected] Subject: Re: [MDX] New Bunhill Fields Burial Ground > I have a burial from 1848 from "New Bunhill Fields Burial Ground" > In the last column titled "Where buried" lists lower ground. Just a section of the Fields, in a fairly built up area even then, where small plots were acquired from time to time to extend the graveyard. I think Upper ground was the first one, after which they bought new space, and this was the way they described it, for the convenience of the cemetery keepers. Normally people bought a grave s[pave which would accommodate six, over the two years, and subsequent family burials meant a reopening of the right grave. Most in Bunhill Burial ground were marked, I believe, since the occupants were the better-off nonconformists in London. I have a notion that when the burial grouind was closed, it became a garden with seats, and it is likely that stones would have been moved to the edges of the area. EVE Author of The McLaughlin Guides for Family Historians Secretary, Bucks Genealogical Society

> I have a burial from 1848 from "New Bunhill Fields Burial Ground"  > In the last column titled "Where buried"  lists lower ground.   Just a section of the Fields, in a fairly built up area even then, where small plots were acquired from time to time to extend the graveyard. I think Upper ground was the first one, after which they bought new space, and this was the way they described it, for the convenience of the cemetery keepers. Normally people bought a grave s[pave which would accommodate six, over the two years, and subsequent family burials meant a reopening of the right grave. Most in Bunhill Burial ground were marked, I believe, since the occupants were the better-off nonconformists in London. I have a notion that when the burial grouind was closed, it became a garden with seats, and it is likely that stones would have been moved to the edges of the area. EVE Author of The McLaughlin Guides for Family Historians Secretary, Bucks Genealogical Society

Often ancestry can't find the spouse but you can always search for it by first going to the image and then using the search tools at the top - in this instance go to 'C' and judging by the number of pages in total guess where the COOLER name would be - there are actually 177 pages and I chose to go to 70 too low so then try 80 too high - remember your Math binary chop method? So go to 75 too short so then just tag through and you find him on pp 77. Yes it's quicker in this instance to go to freebmd maybe but this is more fun. BTW the original index itself is at fault it has "COOLER" as the spouse where it should be COOLEN.   Paul Eggleton ________________________________ From: Caroline Bradford <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2012 11:47 PM Subject: Re: [MDX] COOLER ? & LUCAS Margaret Florence Hi Marcelle FreeBMD should always be ones first port of call for searching civil registration indices (except possibly for deaths after 1865 - only Ancestry allows you to search the death index on an approximate date of birth) and is now pretty much complete well into the 20th century. Here is the marriage Marriages Sep 1958  COOLEN  Charles J  LUCAS  Wood Green  5f 1659    LUCAS  Margaret F  COOLER  Wood Green  5f 1659 Ancestry was clearly struggling because of the difference in Charles's surname. Best wishes Caroline > > Hi List > > I've found the following marriage on Ancestry > > Margaret F Lucas > Spouse Name: Cooler > Date of Reg: Jul-Aug-Sept 1958 > Reg District: Wood Green > Inferred County: Middlesex > Vol 5f > Page No. 1659 > > Even though I have the Vol & Page number, when I click 'find Spouse' > I'm told there's insufficient information. > Is someone able to help me with the 'given' name of COOLER please. > > Cheers > > Marcelle > Western Australia > ************************************** Send your List messages using **PLAIN TEXT** and always **TRIM AWAY** superfluous old messages in replies. **MEANINGFUL Subject Lines - who, what, where, when, with SURNAMES in CAPITAL letters** List Admin can be contacted at: [email protected] ------------------------------- 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

Caroline - why do you say "only Ancestry allows you to search the death index on an approximate date of birth"? On a death search FreeBMD allows you to enter into its "Death age/DOB box" something like "@1834-1838" to give the approximate year range of birth, while FMP has a year of birth box (with +/-). With its more flexible use of year range, FreeBMD is always my first port of call for deaths up to about 1950 - and its option to limit searches to one or more reg districts or counties is an added bonus. Lawrence > From: [email protected] > To: [email protected] > Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2012 07:47:09 +0100 > Subject: Re: [MDX] COOLER ? & LUCAS Margaret Florence > > Hi Marcelle > > FreeBMD should always be ones first port of call for searching civil > registration indices (except possibly for deaths after 1865 - only Ancestry > allows you to search the death index on an approximate date of birth) and is > now pretty much complete well into the 20th century.

Out of area Baptism No.560, St. Alphage, Canterbury, Kent. On August 28th 1825, Sydney, son of William & Heather SMITH , of Blackfriars, was Baptised at St. Alphage, in the City of Canterbury, Kent.William SMITH's occupation was a Solicitor.  Baptism performed by John BIRT, Rector.  NOT connected to our research.