Very interesting - I wish I had known that! Carolyn -----Original Message----- From: middlesex_county_uk-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:middlesex_county_uk-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Charani Sent: 12 September 2010 11:19 To: middlesex_county_uk@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [MDX] Missing Admins/Wills Nivard Ovington wrote: > The standard wait was always four weeks and would expect that to have > doubled with the release of the Calendars on Ancestry, until they get over > the backlog it is bound to cause delays > > It must have increased demand many times over the norm Apparently you can apply to local regional offices as well as York. -- Charani (UK) OPC for Walton, Greinton and Clutton, SOM Asst OPC for Ashcott and Shapwick, SOM http://wsom-opc.org.uk ************************************** Send your List messages using **PLAIN TEXT** and always **TRIM AWAY** superfluous old messages in replies. List Admin can be contacted at: Middlesex_County_UK-admin@rootsweb.com ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to MIDDLESEX_COUNTY_UK-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Hi, In Ancestry "London, England, Marriages and Banns, 1754-1921", I have found the following record: Mary WASPER married John THOROUGHWOOD on 21 July 1822 at St Mary, Staines. She was noted as being from Longford, Middlesex, and John THOROUGHWOOD was noted as being from Saffron Walden in Essex. They were both sojourners in this parish, ie St Mary, Staines. I have Mary WASPER's baptism...as VASPER, but this little branch of the family used both,....at Harmondsworth, and can fit her with confidence into my tree up to this marriage. But I can find no record of either of them after the marriage. THOROUGHWOOD seems to be an extremely rare name, and there are none of them spelt like this, in any census, Free BMD indexes, or Familysearch, as far as I can find. There are, however, dozens of variants, and I am stumped. Can any clever person give me a clue? Also, there are 2 original copies of the record of this marriage (both no. 72)...they are identical except that on one of them the witnesses and Mary have signed their names...Mary's is a bit wobbly but very clear, and the other one has the vicar filling in the whole thing. I am guessing that he had assumed no-one could write, and they put him straight and insisted on doing it themselves. Could this have happened? I just noticed there are several other duplicates, and now wonder if the vicar rewrote them thinking the ones with the original signatures were a bit messy!!? Jan South Australia

One register is a copy of the other. The original is the signed one. Anne South Australia Jan wrote: snip > > Also, there are 2 original copies of the record of this marriage (both no. > 72)...they are identical except that on one of them the witnesses and Mary > have signed their names...Mary's is a bit wobbly but very clear, and the > other one has the vicar filling in the whole thing. I am guessing that he > had assumed no-one could write, and they put him straight and insisted on > doing it themselves. Could this have happened? > > I just noticed there are several other duplicates, and now wonder if the > vicar rewrote them thinking the ones with the original signatures were a bit > messy!!? > > Jan > South Australia