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 >

Judy, I believe this refers to the section of the burial ground where each interment took place. The LMA catalogue description of the relevant register (B/NBF/003) has 'Register of burials, giving date, name and age of deceased, where brought from, where buried, i.e., Lower/Middle Ground'. If you look at the first page of the register (image 2 on Ancestry) you can compare the fees charged for burials in the Upper, Middle and Lower Ground. HTH Judy London, UK -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Judy Mann I have a burial from 1848 from "New Bunhill Fields Burial Ground"  In the last column titled "Where buried"  lists lower ground.   Most burials on the page are lower ground with a few listed as middle ground.  I have two different opinions from family members on what "lower ground" means.  I'd appreciate if someone could clarify what "lower ground" means please.  Thank you Judy 

I have a burial from 1848 from "New Bunhill Fields Burial Ground"  In the last column titled "Where buried"  lists lower ground.   Most burials on the page are lower ground with a few listed as middle ground.  I have two different opinions from family members on what "lower ground" means.  I'd appreciate if someone could clarify what "lower ground" means please.  Thank you Judy 

sylvia wrote: > Unfortunately Harriott doesn't know much herself. In 1841 she is 35+/-, in > 1851 she is 48 and when she dies in 1856 she is 55 (agreed, this according > to her daughter). I'm thoroughly confused! Her age in the 1841 and 1851 censuses concur with an 1802 birth. Her age at death is only a year out for an 1802 birth and 2 years for a 1799 birth. I think it's close enough for you to run with an 1802 birth. I agree with those who've said to have a look at the original parish register though. If you can't get to an LDS FHC or there's no film available, perhaps someone who is going to the Westminster Archives could kindly take a few minutes out of their own research to see what it says. -- Charani (UK) OPC for Walton, Ashcott, Shapwick, Greinton and Clutton, SOM http://wsom-opc.org.uk

I don't agree - if you look at the page, the only years that are written out are *not* 1802. It would seem that if a year is not stated, then it must be 1802....they cannot all be baptisms of children born before 1802. Anne South Australia Connie wrote: > sylvia wrote: >> Hi: Can anyone with ancestry look at Harriot Higgs, baptized 21 March 1802, >> St. George Hanover Square (this exactly), please help me understand what the >> date of birth is. I can't quite figure out what the date is as the months >> and days and years keep changing in the "born" column. Thx > > Hallo > > Harriot was baptised March 21 1802 and was born November 21 1799. > > The entry before for Maria is November 6 1799. The vicar has not > included the month or year of birth for Harriot because it is the same > as Maria's. > > The vicar is using a kind of shorthand. He gives the date of birth in > full where it is a new month, day and year. He gives the month and > day where the year of birth is the same as the previous entry. He > gives just the day where the month and year are the same in the > previous entry. > > The last five entries for baptisms that took place on March 21 are: > > Thomas born February 16 1801 > Maria born November 6 1799 > Harriot born November 21 1799 > George born November 28 1799 > Thomas born January 30 1799 > > The entries are probably in the order they were booked, hence the > apparent jumping around of birth dates. I think this may be a day > book. Ancestry had access to what was in the LMA. St George Hanover > Square is in Westminster which has their own archives. It isn't > included in the LMA records. > > You should be able to get confirmation of Harriot's age from the 1841 > census (40) and 1851 census (51) and her death certificate if the > informant knew how old she was. > > Connie in London

Actually, you sent it to me...you might want to send it again ;) Anne South Australia mvs wrote: > Hi > > Apologies for incorrect answer I sent to List for this query. > > My answer should have said: Harriot was born 21 November 1799 and baptized > 21 March 1802, as per Ancestry. > > I've sent a copy of Baptism record off List to Sylvia. > > Marcelle

Personally I would not infer much at all from the Bishops Transcripts. BTs in general are notorious for mistranscriptions. Unless the PRs can be referenced I would treat these dates, specifically the dates of birth, with extreme caution. Just to add to the debate I would draw attention to the baptism of Harriott (note different spelling, 2 Ts) daughter of James and Sarah Higgs in the same place on 30th November 1801 with a birth date of Oct 22 (probably 1801, the "customary" 5 or 6 weeks from birth to baptism). I find it difficult to believe that this is not the same couple and maybe the same daughter. I say maybe unless Harriott died between 30 Nov 1801 and 21 Mar 1802 and they re-used the name, common practice in the 18th/19th centuries. If this were the case then it would certainly imply also that Harriot (1 T) was born in 1802, not 1799. As I said though, believe nothing without reference to the PRs. Regards Jon Baker -----Original Message----- I agree on the date of 21st Feb 1802, but its not quite as simple as all those listed without the year are 1802. Charlotte Hicks for example, also baptized on the 21st March 1802 is given the birth date of Oct 8th, so clearly not 1802. I think for that example the year 1801 is inferred. Only if the child is a year or more old is the year given to avoid ambiguity. Steve

Hi Apologies for incorrect answer I sent to List for this query. My answer should have said: Harriot was born 21 November 1799 and baptized 21 March 1802, as per Ancestry. I've sent a copy of Baptism record off List to Sylvia. Marcelle

I agree on the date of 21st Feb 1802, but its not quite as simple as all those listed without the year are 1802. Charlotte Hicks for example, also baptized on the 21st March 1802 is given the birth date of Oct 8th, so clearly not 1802. I think for that example the year 1801 is inferred. Only if the child is a year or more old is the year given to avoid ambiguity. Steve -----Original Message----- From: Paul Eggleton Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2012 4:47 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [MDX] Help with Date on Image Definitely Feb 21 1) all those listed without the year are 1802 2) can't be Mar 21, as that's the date of the burial 3) isn't January because the after the next one (28th) they have actually entered January for the next one Paul Eggleton ________________________________ From: sylvia <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Monday, September 17, 2012 9:12 PM Subject: [MDX] Help with Date on Image Hi: Can anyone with ancestry look at Harriot Higgs, baptized 21 March 1802, St. George Hanover Square (this exactly), please help me understand what the date of birth is. I can't quite figure out what the date is as the months and days and years keep changing in the "born" column. Thx ************************************** 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 ************************************** 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

A very long standing brick wall:- Looking for Elizabeth ANDREW and James BOOKER (James born 18 June 1834 St. Mary Newington, Bermondsey, Southwark, Middlesex) who married on 14th September 1864 St. Mary Magdalene, Burmondsey, Southwark, Middlesex. James listed as age 30 bachelor, Wine Cooper, Residence Burmondsey, father Edward Booker a Brewer. Elizabeth Andrew aged 33 widow, Residence Burmondsey father John Drew Colebrook Butcher. (John was actually deceased at the time of both her marriages) I have searched for many years, for them after their marriage, with no success, cannot find them on the 1871 census. Further details:- I am particularly following Elizabeth who was born Elizabeth Colebrook on 9th August 1831 in Great Bookham, Epsom, Surrey. She had an illigitimate daughter born 1851. I have her on all the census' with her family including her illigitimate daughter up until 1851. She married John Thomas Andrew in 1856, they are on the 1861 census with Elizabeth's illigitimate daughter being passed off as her sister. John died 1863 in Shoreditch,London,Middlesex. She then married James Booker as above. There were at least 5 deaths of James Booker's between 1864 and 1867 in London, plus others in the general area. Also a number of deaths for Elizabeth Booker. One may have died and the other remarried. Any help to solve this long standing puzzle would be much appreciated. Kind Regards, Norma Johnson in New Zealand

Hi Sylvia. Harriot was born 21 November 1802 and baptized 21 March 1802, as per Ancestry. If you contact me [email protected] I'll send you the image. Cheers Marcelle Western Australia

http://search.ancestry.ca/search/db.aspx?dbid=2271 (From the search page, click on the Card Catalogue link and then type "Great Britain Masters and Mates" in the search box.) Anne South Australia Alaine Bastow wrote: > Would someone please tell me how to locate the file of "Masters and Mates " > on ancestry.ca > > Thank you very much > > Alaine > > Alaine Bastow

I would say 21 February 1802 - it's the month last named before the 1799 birth. Anne South Australia sylvia wrote: > Hi: Can anyone with ancestry look at Harriot Higgs, baptized 21 March 1802, > St. George Hanover Square (this exactly), please help me understand what the > date of birth is. I can't quite figure out what the date is as the months > and days and years keep changing in the "born" column. Thx >

Unfortunately Harriott doesn't know much herself. In 1841 she is 35+/-, in 1851 she is 48 and when she dies in 1856 she is 55 (agreed, this according to her daughter). I'm thoroughly confused! ----- Original Message ----- From: "Connie" <[email protected]>> > Harriot was born November 21 1799. The person who asked the question > originally will be able to find out in the censuses whether she was > given as 35 or 40 in the 1841 census or 48/9 or 50 in the 1851 census. > ************************************** > 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 >

Right, I did see that first birth Jon. I had supposed also that this first Harriott might possibly have died - one reason for trying to figure out what the second Harriot dates were about. Very confusing. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jon Baker" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2012 11:35 AM Subject: Re: [MDX] Help with Date on Image > Personally I would not infer much at all from the Bishops Transcripts. BTs > in general are notorious for mistranscriptions. Unless the PRs can be > referenced I would treat these dates, specifically the dates of birth, > with > extreme caution. > > Just to add to the debate I would draw attention to the baptism of > Harriott > (note different spelling, 2 Ts) daughter of James and Sarah Higgs in the > same place on 30th November 1801 with a birth date of Oct 22 (probably > 1801, > the "customary" 5 or 6 weeks from birth to baptism). I find it difficult > to > believe that this is not the same couple and maybe the same daughter. I > say > maybe unless Harriott died between 30 Nov 1801 and 21 Mar 1802 and they > re-used the name, common practice in the 18th/19th centuries. If this were > the case then it would certainly imply also that Harriot (1 T) was born in > 1802, not 1799. > > As I said though, believe nothing without reference to the PRs. > > Regards > > Jon Baker > > -----Original Message----- > > > I agree on the date of 21st Feb 1802, but its not quite as simple as all > those listed without the year are 1802. Charlotte Hicks for example, also > baptized on the 21st March 1802 is given the birth date of Oct 8th, so > clearly not 1802. I think for that example the year 1801 is inferred. Only > if the child is a year or more old is the year given to avoid ambiguity. > > Steve > > ************************************** > 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 >

Unless we are looking at different images the only 1801 I can see is for Charlotte Lucy baptized 14th March 1802 and born March 22nd 1801, so she was nearly a year old. You are not suggesting are you that all the children listed after her were also born in 1801 unless otherwise stated ? That would be highly unlikely, the majority would have been born in 1802 surely. Steve -----Original Message----- From: Connie Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2012 12:51 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [MDX] Help with Date on Image Steve Lancaster wrote: > Looking at just this register it is clear that the pattern used for birth > dates is to assume the child was born recently, but naturally the dates > jump > around and there are exceptions. So for baptisms on 21st March 1802 we > have: > > Sarah b. Feb 5th 1802 > Thomas b. Feb 16th 1802 > Maria b. Nov 6th 1799 > Harriot b. Feb 21st 1802 > George b. Feb 28th 1802 > > The order of these children in the transcript is just the order in which > they were baptized, there is no significance to Maria's brother Thomas > being > listed before her. Hallo Perhaps you'd like to have a look at the register again. Thomas's date of birth is clearly given as February 16 1801, not 1802. I don't believe the conclusion you have drawn is right. It think it is based on an assumption that a lack of specific information means the bishop was to assume that a single figure meant it belonged to the year the baptism took place in and the previous month where the figure was great than that of the date of the baptism. The year and month are as per the entry above unless stated otherwise. The only reason for Thomas to be given before Maria is that boys and men were considered to be more important than girls and women at that time. I do not think the order of the children was necessarily the order in which they were baptised because the register wasn't made up at the time but later. It is not likely to be the order the baptisms were booked since it is not a day book as I first thought. Connie in London ************************************** 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

Steve Lancaster wrote: > Looking at just this register it is clear that the pattern used for birth > dates is to assume the child was born recently, but naturally the dates jump > around and there are exceptions. So for baptisms on 21st March 1802 we have: > > Sarah b. Feb 5th 1802 > Thomas b. Feb 16th 1802 > Maria b. Nov 6th 1799 > Harriot b. Feb 21st 1802 > George b. Feb 28th 1802 > > The order of these children in the transcript is just the order in which > they were baptized, there is no significance to Maria's brother Thomas being > listed before her. Hallo Perhaps you'd like to have a look at the register again. Thomas's date of birth is clearly given as February 16 1801, not 1802. I don't believe the conclusion you have drawn is right. It think it is based on an assumption that a lack of specific information means the bishop was to assume that a single figure meant it belonged to the year the baptism took place in and the previous month where the figure was great than that of the date of the baptism. The year and month are as per the entry above unless stated otherwise. The only reason for Thomas to be given before Maria is that boys and men were considered to be more important than girls and women at that time. I do not think the order of the children was necessarily the order in which they were baptised because the register wasn't made up at the time but later. It is not likely to be the order the baptisms were booked since it is not a day book as I first thought. Connie in London

Very sorry, maybe I should have expressed it differently, when I said 'the system used to record birth dates' I was referring purely to the register in question, I quite agree that there was no universal system in place and everyone had their own 'system', if at all. Looking at just this register it is clear that the pattern used for birth dates is to assume the child was born recently, but naturally the dates jump around and there are exceptions. So for baptisms on 21st March 1802 we have: Sarah b. Feb 5th 1802 Thomas b. Feb 16th 1802 Maria b. Nov 6th 1799 Harriot b. Feb 21st 1802 George b. Feb 28th 1802 The order of these children in the transcript is just the order in which they were baptized, there is no significance to Maria's brother Thomas being listed before her. Steve -----Original Message----- From: Connie Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2012 12:17 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [MDX] Help with Date on Image Steve Lancaster wrote: > I agree with Anne. The system used to record birth dates is written > assuming > the child was born a month or two before baptism. Only if the child is > older > than that is the date expanded to remove ambiguity. For those baptized on > 21st March 1802 the dates refer to the previous few months, except for > Maria > who was born in 1799. So, Harriot was born Feb 21st 1802 Hallo I'm sorry but that cannot be assumed at all. A child was often expected to be baptised the first Sunday after birth. This was not a law or a requirement. It did not happen with every birth. A date of birth or age was not required either. It may be that in London or Westminster this was an encouraged item but it was not something that had to be done with every baptism in every register in every parish in every county in the whole of England and Wales. If you have a look at Maria's baptism, you will see her younger brother was baptised the same day as her. He was born in February 16 1801. His baptism is listed before Maria's. Harriot was born November 21 1799. The person who asked the question originally will be able to find out in the censuses whether she was given as 35 or 40 in the 1841 census or 48/9 or 50 in the 1851 census. ************************************** 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

Anne Chambers wrote: > I don't agree - if you look at the page, the only years that are > written out are *not* 1802. It would seem that if a year is not > stated, then it must be 1802....they cannot all be baptisms of > children born before 1802. Hallo I did look at the page. The date on the left is the date of baptism. The date on the right is the date of birth. If the date on the right, by your reckoning, is November 21 1802, then Harriot was baptised before she was born. This would not be possible. If the date was the 21st of the previous month, then the vicar would have written in "February". It is left blank. I have seen many registers where only the part of the date that is different has been written in. Sometimes there is "do" or ditto mark under to year or month or date. More often there is nothing there. If the vicar was new to the parish it is possible he checked up to see if there were any unbaptised children. If the parents didn't know or couldn't remember or couldn't prove their child had been baptised or the previous vicar hadn't baptised or recorded the baptisms, the vicar would appear to have insisted on baptising them again with the words like "if this child has not previously been baptised . . . ". I'm sure someone will know the exact wording. Judy Lester has said this book is a bishop's transcript. Perhaps the original register from which the transcrip was made would be clearer. Connie in London

Steve Lancaster wrote: > I agree with Anne. The system used to record birth dates is written assuming > the child was born a month or two before baptism. Only if the child is older > than that is the date expanded to remove ambiguity. For those baptized on > 21st March 1802 the dates refer to the previous few months, except for Maria > who was born in 1799. So, Harriot was born Feb 21st 1802 Hallo I'm sorry but that cannot be assumed at all. A child was often expected to be baptised the first Sunday after birth. This was not a law or a requirement. It did not happen with every birth. A date of birth or age was not required either. It may be that in London or Westminster this was an encouraged item but it was not something that had to be done with every baptism in every register in every parish in every county in the whole of England and Wales. If you have a look at Maria's baptism, you will see her younger brother was baptised the same day as her. He was born in February 16 1801. His baptism is listed before Maria's. Harriot was born November 21 1799. The person who asked the question originally will be able to find out in the censuses whether she was given as 35 or 40 in the 1841 census or 48/9 or 50 in the 1851 census.