If anyone has an e-address for Donna Porter, please contact me. The address I have is no longer in service. Dr. Bill (Bill@Dr-Fox.Com) .

Any who knows the e-address of Shirley K. of the Home List please contact me. I am on my older computer, having crashed my new one, and have an address which is no longer valid. Dr. Bill (Bill@Dr-Fox.Com) .

Think it is time to say THANKS to all who so willingly put up the URL's for all of us to go check out. Also to repost them when we have lost them. I recently had a cousin who lost all his email and addresses. It was so much easier to help him rebuild his list by using the URL's I had stored from this website. I THANK all of you!! He is now nearly back to where he was before. Sue Ellen "Life is what happens while you are making other plans"

Bill, can you tell me(us) why you need so many website visitors in a months time? I guess I was asleep when you told us. I just know you get concerned when the count is down. I dont think to click it when not hunting things, but would if I knew more about it. I have been missing the chats as my hubby is now home on Monday evenings. I now am cooking or getting things done for him. I would enjoy a late morning chat time if anyone else is around then. Sue Ellen "Life is what happens while you are making other plans"

But Roy - Has Great Britain ever had to decide between a nerd and a nincompoop? <g> Grit ----- Original Message ----- From: "Roy Stockdill" <roystock@compuserve.com> To: <NEWGEN-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Sunday, November 12, 2000 5:27 AM Subject: [NEWGEN] Estimating dates - BAD advice in FamilySearch! > Dr Bill wrote..... > > >>Roy, I do not claim to be as knowledgeable as you in the area of > genealogy > but I think you should "lighten up" <grin> > In my lexicon, the word estimate is to guess at a number which will narrow, > somewhat, the area in which you are looking. > vis-a-vis if I estimate that Joe was 25 at the time of his marriage to > Josie (18), I now can begin my search for documentation in a much narrower > time frame. If such documentation is not forthcoming, then I widen the > time frame perhaps 5 years at a time.<< > > I think perhaps you misunderstand me. I have no problem with the principle > of "educated guesses" as long as it is used strictly as a starting point in > a search - fine. What does concern me is that the LDS Church apparently > goes rather further than this and instructs members to use the "deduct 25 > or 21 years from a marriage to get the birth date" as part of its > ordinances programme. I have been told by others that ordinances cannot be > done unless there is a birth date (no doubt if there are any members of the > LDS Church on this list they will correct me if I am wrong) which surely > encourages submitting members to invent them. > > Hence, we have umpteen totally bogus "about" birth dates on the IGI which > are utterly misleading to those newcomers who have not learnt their way > around the system. I think there is a division, perhaps, between what the > LDS uses genealogy for and how we, non-members, view it. Let's remember > that the vast majority of visitors to the FamilySearch site will be non-LDS > and many will be newcomers who will follow faithfully the advice they find > there. > > >>I further recognize that the Brits are much further along in the science > of > Genealogy.....having not much else to do in the past thousand or so years<< > > What - apart from conquering a quarter of the world, fighting wars against > the French, Spanish, Dutch, Germans and sundry other nations, bringing > civilisation to the natives wherever we went and populating America, you > mean??? At least we know how to run an election that gets a result on the > same day and doesn't require an army of grossly over-paid lawyers to decide > it! <b.g.> > > Roy Stockdill > Editor, The Journal of One-Name Studies > The Stockdill Family History Society (Guild of One-Name Studies, FedFHS) > STOCKDILL PREST YELLOW BOLTON WORSNOP > GIBSON MIDGLEY BRACEWELL SHACKLETON BRADLEY MOODY in Yorkshire North & > West Ridings > MEAD YOUNG in Somerset, Wiltshire & Gloucestershire > Web page of the Stockdill Family History Society:- > http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/roystock > Web page of the Guild of One-Name Studies:- http://www.one-name.org > "Never ask a man if he comes from Yorkshire. If he does he will tell you. > If he does not, why humiliate him?" - Canon Sydney Smith (scholar and > humorist 1771-1845) > > > ==== NEWGEN Mailing List ==== > ROOTSWEB..............R.I.P. >

Dr Bill wrote..... >>Roy, I do not claim to be as knowledgeable as you in the area of genealogy but I think you should "lighten up" <grin> In my lexicon, the word estimate is to guess at a number which will narrow, somewhat, the area in which you are looking. vis-a-vis if I estimate that Joe was 25 at the time of his marriage to Josie (18), I now can begin my search for documentation in a much narrower time frame. If such documentation is not forthcoming, then I widen the time frame perhaps 5 years at a time.<< I think perhaps you misunderstand me. I have no problem with the principle of "educated guesses" as long as it is used strictly as a starting point in a search - fine. What does concern me is that the LDS Church apparently goes rather further than this and instructs members to use the "deduct 25 or 21 years from a marriage to get the birth date" as part of its ordinances programme. I have been told by others that ordinances cannot be done unless there is a birth date (no doubt if there are any members of the LDS Church on this list they will correct me if I am wrong) which surely encourages submitting members to invent them. Hence, we have umpteen totally bogus "about" birth dates on the IGI which are utterly misleading to those newcomers who have not learnt their way around the system. I think there is a division, perhaps, between what the LDS uses genealogy for and how we, non-members, view it. Let's remember that the vast majority of visitors to the FamilySearch site will be non-LDS and many will be newcomers who will follow faithfully the advice they find there. >>I further recognize that the Brits are much further along in the science of Genealogy.....having not much else to do in the past thousand or so years<< What - apart from conquering a quarter of the world, fighting wars against the French, Spanish, Dutch, Germans and sundry other nations, bringing civilisation to the natives wherever we went and populating America, you mean??? At least we know how to run an election that gets a result on the same day and doesn't require an army of grossly over-paid lawyers to decide it! <b.g.> Roy Stockdill Editor, The Journal of One-Name Studies The Stockdill Family History Society (Guild of One-Name Studies, FedFHS) STOCKDILL PREST YELLOW BOLTON WORSNOP GIBSON MIDGLEY BRACEWELL SHACKLETON BRADLEY MOODY in Yorkshire North & West Ridings MEAD YOUNG in Somerset, Wiltshire & Gloucestershire Web page of the Stockdill Family History Society:- http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/roystock Web page of the Guild of One-Name Studies:- http://www.one-name.org ”Never ask a man if he comes from Yorkshire. If he does he will tell you. If he does not, why humiliate him?" - Canon Sydney Smith (scholar and humorist 1771-1845)

Maybe, but the consensus is that it is "Have I Told You Lately That I Love You." Dr. Bill (Bill@Dr-Fox.Com) . ----- Original Message ----- From: <Aadcmom@aol.com> To: <NEWGEN-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Saturday, November 11, 2000 9:47 PM Subject: Re: [NEWGEN] NTT : Is the song Leave My Troubles Behind Me ? :) :) On the Who We Are page. : Cheri : : : ==== NEWGEN Mailing List ==== : HTTP://WWW.DR-FOX.COM HAS A LINKS PAGE WITH : MANY, MANY HOOK-UPS TO VALUABLE INFORMATION SITES.

Hi....I have lost the URL for the US Map ...broken down by states the came from an 1895 Gazeteer. Does any one know where I can access it again ? Thanks....malinda

To all three or four of you who check out the Name That Tune each week on the website www.dr-fox.com I have a new number playing and have listed last weeks winner. I have also changed the music on the other pages and on the Juke Box. I have a tune on the Who We Are page for which I have no title. If one of you can help me I would appreciate it. Dr. Bill (Bill@Dr-Fox.Com) .

http://www.livgenmi.com/1895.htm Cora << Hi....I have lost the URL for the US Map ...broken down by states the came from an 1895 Gazeteer. Does any one know where I can access it again ? >>

Is the song Leave My Troubles Behind Me ? :) :) On the Who We Are page. Cheri

Who was visitor # 37,000 to http://www.dr-fox.com/ ? Rose

Hello to fellow searchers: Are you a DESCENDENT or RELATIVE of this couple? CONKLIN/ MCFEETERS MARRIAGE May 06 1909. Walden NY BRIDE: Catherine Elizabeth MC FEETERS, aged 20. Residence Walden NY GROOM: Elmer Frederick CONKLIN, aged 26. Residence Walden NY Known child: Edwin CONKLIN Unknown - at least one? More info: Bride's parents: William MC FEETERS & Julin HALEY, Both of United States Grooms parents: John M. CONKLIN & Celestia PORTER Both United States Sorry, I do not have any siblings for Catherine. John and Celestia had six children, Chester A. bn 1879; Edward James bn 1881; Elmer Frederick bn 1881; Senith D. bn 1884; Gilbert Oats bn 1886; Elmira bn 1890. Looking for any descendents of these couples or relatives who would have some knowledge of them. My sincere thanx, June Conklin Ridsdale BC Canada

Roy, I do not claim to be as knowledgeable as you in the area of genealogy but I think you should "lighten up" <grin> In my lexicon, the word estimate is to guess at a number which will narrow, somewhat, the area in which you are looking. vis-a-vis if I estimate that Joe was 25 at the time of his marriage to Josie (18), I now can begin my search for documentation in a much narrower time frame. If such documentation is not forthcoming, then I widen the time frame perhaps 5 years at a time. I further recognize that the Brits are much further along in the science of Genealogy.....having not much else to do in the past thousand or so years, they have honed recordkeeping to a fine art. One day our genealogists will be there and we most certainly shall stumble a few times along the way. Also, we are a country of discards and malcontents as well as visionaries. Few worried about recordkeeping as they were busy populating a bountiful country. Thus, some of these pioneers left we genealogists with little to work with in the way of recorded family history. Rebuilding that history from land records, photographs, marriage licenses from those who bothered to be married and death records of those who were killed along the trails west by hostiles is a challenge which almost dictates some "estimating" and since there is no intercontinental contest to see who is the most accurate, I encourage a wee bit of estimating in the interest of maintaining ones interest in the science. Dr. Bill (Bill@Dr-Fox.Com) . ----- Original Message ----- From: "Roy Stockdill" <roystock@compuserve.com> To: <NEWGEN-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Saturday, November 11, 2000 5:24 AM Subject: [NEWGEN] Estimating dates - BAD advice in FamilySearch! : WHILST browsing around the Research Guidance section in FamilySearch.org : today, purely out of idle interest, I came by chance upon some advice on : "estimating dates". I was startled - and not a little horrified - to : discover that the LDS are still giving the following advice..... : : >>Use standard genealogical approximations. From a marriage date estimate : that a man was married at age twenty-five and a woman at age twenty-one. : You can also estimate that a first child was born one year after the : parents' marriage and that subsequent children were born every two years : after that.<< : : >>For example, if a couple married in 1825, you would estimate that the : husband was born "abt 1800," the wife was born "abt 1804," their first : child was born "abt 1826," their second child was born "abt 1828," and so : on.<< : : The LDS do a lot of outstanding work for us, but this is ludicrous in my : opinion. I have been in family history for 25 years and I have never heard : of these "standard genealogical approximations" in any book on family : history I have ever read or heard any expert lecturer recommend them.These : may be "standard genealogical approximations" among American genealogists, : but certainly not amongst British ones. I consider it not only bad advice : but dangerous! : : The device of deducting 25 years for a man and 21 years for a woman from a : marriage date to arrive at an "About....." birth date is responsible for : more erroneous and inaccurate entries on the IGI than virtually any other : single feature (apart perhaps from the dreaded "Relative" entries). Time : and time again you see private patron submissions in the IGI where someone : is shown as having been born in a particular parish "about...." such and : such a date when this is not substantiated by any christening entry from : the parish registers or BTs under the controlled extraction program. In : effect, fictitious people have been invented simply because the submitter : has failed to find the person in that parish and just assumed they were : born there either 25 years of 21 years before their marriage. : : You simply cannot assume that everyone - or even a majority - of men : married at 25 and women at 21, had their first child a year after the : marriage and then produced others at 2-year intervals. This is much too : simplistic and misleading an assumption. There are so many different : patterns of marriages and child-producing relationships that it is : impossible to define one general standard. Many people married in their 30s : and 40s etc, and produced children late. Some couples had one child and : then not another for 10 years and then produced five more very quickly : after that. I have come across entries for my own ancestors on the IGI : where clearly the "take off 25 years from a marriage" principle has been : used to arrive at an "about" birth date and then found from consulting the : original parish registers that both parties were widowed and it was a : second marriage when they were in their 50s! : : I thought this practice of deducting 25 or 21 years from a marriage date to : arrive at a supposed birth date had ceased yonks ago and I was amazed to : find it still recommended on the LDS site. It can only lead newcomers into : bad research practices and I urge everyone to ignore it. : : Roy Stockdill : Editor, The Journal of One-Name Studies : The Stockdill Family History Society : Web page:- http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/roystock : Web page of the Guild of One-Name Studies:- http://www.one-name.org : "Never ask a man if he comes from Yorkshire. If he does he will tell you. : If he does not, why humiliate him?" - Canon Sydney Smith (scholar and : humorist 1771-1845) : : : ==== NEWGEN Mailing List ==== : NO BIT OF INFORMATION OR TIP IS MINOR WHEN IT CAN LEAD TO A MAJOR FIND.

Roy you are making us think!!! Yeah, what about the list I found in Wisconsin yesterday where the average age of marriage was 30 for the men and 15 for the women! That was interesting. Even one man over 30 and married a 14 year old, with the parents blessings . There was a long list of this age difference. Then there are women like me, who married and no children until age 40 and 42 when my two darlings came along. It threw myself & husband of 18 years for a loop! I can see someone in a hundred years from now hunting our situation across ten states wondering where all the other children are? GRIN! But I think the reason for the estimate is to use it as a TOOL for hunting the normal family at the time. It does help in lots of cases. As you stated it can be very misleading if one assumes this is the rule for their families and puts it in writing or print as the time and place for their lines. I do see this in print quite often here. It is the same as the old thinking; "If you are hunting the wife and her family look in a 25 mile radius of his home, as people didn't travel back then" That one bothers me as much as the age guessing game. This was a country of very mobile people! Look there first, but remember many traveled miles by water ways and old Indian trails to new territories too. It is not unusual to find the new wife hundreds of miles from "home". I was entering data in my computer files on some of the early Quakers in my lines. They start out in Bucks county PA, and end up all over the eastern half of the nation in the early 1700's. Goodness they were not afraid to travel all over this new nation. Usually in like religions, but not always. Usually with other family and close friends, but not always. Just remember where the lines of the nation ended at the time and where "West " and "South" were. Good maps and history can help there. SEA "Life is what happens while you are making other plans"

WHILST browsing around the Research Guidance section in FamilySearch.org today, purely out of idle interest, I came by chance upon some advice on "estimating dates". I was startled - and not a little horrified - to discover that the LDS are still giving the following advice..... >>Use standard genealogical approximations. From a marriage date estimate that a man was married at age twenty-five and a woman at age twenty-one. You can also estimate that a first child was born one year after the parents' marriage and that subsequent children were born every two years after that.<< >>For example, if a couple married in 1825, you would estimate that the husband was born "abt 1800," the wife was born "abt 1804," their first child was born "abt 1826," their second child was born "abt 1828," and so on.<< The LDS do a lot of outstanding work for us, but this is ludicrous in my opinion. I have been in family history for 25 years and I have never heard of these "standard genealogical approximations" in any book on family history I have ever read or heard any expert lecturer recommend them.These may be "standard genealogical approximations" among American genealogists, but certainly not amongst British ones. I consider it not only bad advice but dangerous! The device of deducting 25 years for a man and 21 years for a woman from a marriage date to arrive at an "About....." birth date is responsible for more erroneous and inaccurate entries on the IGI than virtually any other single feature (apart perhaps from the dreaded "Relative" entries). Time and time again you see private patron submissions in the IGI where someone is shown as having been born in a particular parish "about...." such and such a date when this is not substantiated by any christening entry from the parish registers or BTs under the controlled extraction program. In effect, fictitious people have been invented simply because the submitter has failed to find the person in that parish and just assumed they were born there either 25 years of 21 years before their marriage. You simply cannot assume that everyone - or even a majority - of men married at 25 and women at 21, had their first child a year after the marriage and then produced others at 2-year intervals. This is much too simplistic and misleading an assumption. There are so many different patterns of marriages and child-producing relationships that it is impossible to define one general standard. Many people married in their 30s and 40s etc, and produced children late. Some couples had one child and then not another for 10 years and then produced five more very quickly after that. I have come across entries for my own ancestors on the IGI where clearly the "take off 25 years from a marriage" principle has been used to arrive at an "about" birth date and then found from consulting the original parish registers that both parties were widowed and it was a second marriage when they were in their 50s! I thought this practice of deducting 25 or 21 years from a marriage date to arrive at a supposed birth date had ceased yonks ago and I was amazed to find it still recommended on the LDS site. It can only lead newcomers into bad research practices and I urge everyone to ignore it. Roy Stockdill Editor, The Journal of One-Name Studies The Stockdill Family History Society Web page:- http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/roystock Web page of the Guild of One-Name Studies:- http://www.one-name.org ”Never ask a man if he comes from Yorkshire. If he does he will tell you. If he does not, why humiliate him?" - Canon Sydney Smith (scholar and humorist 1771-1845)

My most wanted is my wife's mother, Myra FERNANDEZ b.24nov1927in El Paso, Tx. married Louis B. URIAS, 13feb1947 in Las Cruces, New Mexico.Divorced about 1951. Myra was believed to be living in the El Paso area as late as 1996. My wife and her sister and brother were seperated from Myra at the time of the divorce. she has not been seen or heard from by her children since. there is a person named tony nieto who has told family members that he has seen myra as late as 1996 in the El Paso area. I have not had any luck finding a recent trace of him.

Well , hello Everyone Right now i want to get intouch withanyone who is or may know Chambliss At one time they were in Abiline, Teaxs Thank you for this rootsweb, Mr. Bill Thanks Lina _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at http://profiles.msn.com.

MY "Most Wanted" is somewhat unusual. I long to be able to discover precisely where Oliver Cromwell was on July 25th 1655! Why? Because it is my earnest hope that instead of being in London attending to the affairs of Britain in his role as Lord Protector of the Commonwealth, he was in the village of Kirkby Malham in the Yorkshire Dales officiating at a wedding in his capacity as a Justice of the Peace. Allow me to explain. The following entry is to be found in a 1938 printed copy of the Kirkby Malham original parish registers for 1597-1690..... ”The I.M. [intended marriage] between John Ellin of Malham and Ann Tayler of Hellifield, pishe of Long Preston, was published three severall Markett dayes in the Market place at Settle, 12th, 19th, 26th June 1655. And the said J:E & A:T was married 25th July 1655 in the presence of John Lawson of Malham and John Shackleton of the same, and others, before me, Olyver Cromwell R." My interest lies in the fact that one of the witnesses, John Shackleton, was my probable 8-times gt-grandfather. The parish register entry is one of two supposed examples of Cromwell's signature in the Kirkby Malham registers. During the Commonwealth period many marriages did not take place in parish churches, but banns were read in the nearest market place and weddings could be conducted in private homes and other places by a Justice of the Peace. Oliver Cromwell was a JP and sometimes stayed near Kirkby Malham with his great friend Colonel "Honest John" Lambert, who had been one of his principal commanders in Yorkshire during the English Civil War. Experts have long argued over whether the signatures were genuine or whether they were forgeries. Cromwell apparently signed his name with an R after it. This surely cannot stand for "Rex", meaning "King", since while many of his supporters certainly wanted him to be king, Cromwell always resisted it. Having got rid of Charles I and abolished the monarchy, it would have been the height of hypocrisy for him to assume the throne. Perhaps the R stood for "Register", the formal title of the official who conducted marriages in the Commonwealth period. However, the mystery is compounded by the fact that a second entry occurs in the registers a few months later in January 1655/56, again at a wedding at which Cromwell supposedly officiated, in which there appears the signature "Oliver Cromwell Rex". Were the signatures forgeries, as many historians think? But if so, what was the purpose and what did anyone stand to gain through it? It hardly seems likely that anyone would have dared forge the Lord Protector's signature in the parish registers during his lifetime, knowing full well that General Lambert was bound to hear about it. The consequences of such a foolish act scarcely bear thinking about! And if the signatures were genuine, did Cromwell actually conduct the weddings personally or did he merely add his signature later as a JP staying in the district? Sadly, we shall never know - for here is the worst bit of all ! The original registers were stolen from the church safe in the 1970s. Why, no-one knows. It may have been just an ordinary robber who was after the church silver and chucked the registers away. Or they may have been stolen to order by a rogue historian or collector BECAUSE they were thought to contain Cromwell's signatures. Whatever the truth, they have never been found and all we have is the printed copy from 1938. Thus, the signature cannot be subjected to modern forensic examination. I have tried hard to find out where Cromwell was on July 25th 1655 but the nearest I have been able to get is placing him in London a week later. It will probably remain a mystery for all time. But I WOULD like to think that an ancestor of mine met Cromwell, who is my historical hero! Roy Stockdill Editor, The Journal of One-Name Studies The Stockdill Family History Society (Guild of One-Name Studies, FedFHS) STOCKDILL PREST YELLOW BOLTON WORSNOP GIBSON MIDGLEY BRACEWELL SHACKLETON BRADLEY MOODY in Yorkshire North & West Ridings MEAD YOUNG in Somerset, Wiltshire & Gloucestershire Web page of the Stockdill Family History Society:- http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/roystock Web page of the Guild of One-Name Studies:- http://www.one-name.org ”Never ask a man if he comes from Yorkshire. If he does he will tell you. If he does not, why humiliate him?" - Canon Sydney Smith (scholar and humorist 1771-1845)

At 05:15 AM 11/8/00 -0700, you wrote: >I am looking for pre-1906 naturalization records, >in Bridgeport, CT. (at least that's the first likely >town I'm starting with). > >When writing to the closest local court, is there usually a fee for the >clerk's time to search? I found the costs >for vital records but not for a search for a >naturalization record. Any advice? > >thanks, >Deborah Sterling >dls18@earthlink.net Deborah and all - I found this link on my "Cyndi's List - Immigration & Naturalization" page at: http://www.CyndisList.com/immigrat.htm Finding Aid to Naturalization Records at the Connecticut State Library http://www.cslnet.ctstateu.edu/natural.htm That web site states: "Prior to September 26, 1906, naturalization proceedings took place in local, state, or federal courts." Followed by: "In the late 1950s and early 1960s, naturalization records from some of Connecticut's municipal courts were transferred to the US District Courts for Connecticut. Those records were subsequently transferred to the National Archives along with naturalization records from the federal courts for Connecticut (United States District and Circuit Courts) for the 131 years from 1842 to 1973. All of these records -- municipal and federal court -- are cataloged as National Archives Record Group 21 at the National Archives -- New England Region, 380 Trapelo Road, Waltham, MA 02154 (tel. 781-647-8104)." You need to be sure and read all the details on this web page. It mentions the fact that there are several different record groups at the archives that have naturalization records in them. It also indicates that some of the records have been photocopied by the State Archives and some have been microfilmed by the LDS church. This means you have several different repositories and several different record groups to search through. Did anyone ever tell you that genealogy would be quick and easy? <g> Good luck, Cyndi