Well said, Mark the magnificent. Subject lines yes. Otherwise they are junked. Gail B in St. C. On 10/09/2011 8:36 AM, Mark Howells wrote: > Greetings Listerines - > > I take this opportunity to compliment you all on a very > well-mannered and helpful mailing list. Our list behavior has been > excellent and our report card reads "Plays well with others". To > those of you sharing information freely and with kindness, I thank you. > > Now that I have sweetened you up, here's a suggestion. > > When reply to the Digests of this mailing list, it would be helpful > if you changed the subject line to something relevant to your > reply. Without such modification, the subject line resembles this > when the rest of us see it: > > Subject: Re: [NFK] NORFOLK Digest, Vol n, Issue nnn > > Not very helpful in identifying which of the multiple messages in > the Digest you are replying to. > > When replying to the Digests, hit reply then click on the reply's > subject line. Type in something relevant such as "Sandringham Door > Knob Polishers" or "William APNEATIC of Great Snoring 1823". > > You should be able to easily type over or otherwise edit the > subject line which originally read "Re: NORFOLK Digest, Vol n, > Issue nnn". > > Since some listers only skim the subject lines for postings they > may be interested in, better defining your reply subject line > actually improves your chances of connecting with a lister of > similar interests. > > Thanks - Mark the Munificent > > > ------------ > "A genealogist's dead relatives > are typically more expensive > than his living ones." > - Mark Howells > markhow@oz.net > > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to NORFOLK-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message > >

Geoff, Have you looked at www.GenUKI.org.uk . It has a parish church database. Rosemary On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 6:21 PM, Geoff Roosen <gnroosen@ozemail.com.au>wrote: > Hello All, > > This is my first post to this list. I am Geoff Roosen from Melbourne, > Australia. > > On my mother's side - my gr-grandmother was Matilda Maud Crask, baptised in > Overstrand and I am trying to get more definition into this side of the > family. > > I believe that the family was always Church of England. > > 1. From the IGI I have John Crask m. Susannah Neve in Jan 1807 in > Northrepps. Between 1807 & 1826, they had (at least) 11 children, 3 of > whom > emigrated to Australia and I have found a lot of info about them. > > My questions are..... > > - What would have been the name of the church that John & Susannah married > in and these 11 were baptised in ? > - does the building from this period still exist ? > > > 2. One of John and Susannah's children, James William Crask m. Ann > Susannah > Emery. They had (at least) 8 children all baptised in Overstrand. > > Again..... > > - What would have been the name of the church that these 8 were baptised in > ? > - does the building from this period still exist ? > > > My Crasks, at least back to John bap 1769 have no "e" but I can see that > Craske is also common in the area. There are probably cross-links that I > don't yet understand. > > I would be very pleased to hear from any Lister who has an interest in the > Crask(e) familes. > > Thanks > Geoff > > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > NORFOLK-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message >

A note in the parish registers of Kirstead 1663-1812 [PD300/2]: Elizabeth BLAND taken up at Kirstead with seven children was whipped by order of Robert SUCKLING Esqr one of his Ma[jes]ties Justices of the peace, on Saturday the 7th of Feb 1684, & sent home by pas... to Stepney by London, wch she affirmed to be the place of her birth

Trish, Thank you for those. I'm not at all sure about the destitute Consul to Mauritius - four years later his son was describing him as 'Consul USA', and in 1891 his wife states that she is a widow - though I've no way of knowing whether she was sure of that. However, I'll keep your newspaper reports on file in case a link does crop up. All the best, Patrick On 10/09/2011 01:45, symonds3 wrote: > Hi Patrick, > > I don't know if any of this helps, the third item may have a clue for you - > > 1880 U.S. CENSUS - No obvious listing for George William Taylor, born about > 1825, on the LDS website. > > Hampshire Telegraph and Sussex Chronicle, Saturday, 3 May 1884 - > TAYLOR - On the 26th ult, at Little Charlotte-street, Landport, Mr George > William Taylor, aged 54 years. > > Cheshire Observer, Saturday, 2 August 1884 - > Latest News - This Day's Telegrams - A Destitute Consul - George Taylor, > formerly British Consul at Mauritius, was admitted into Bromley Workhouse > today. He had become destitute through impaired eyesight. > > The London Gazette may be worth searching through, but I didn't find > anything obvious in The Times Archives or Who's Who - > http://www.london-gazette.co.uk/ > > Cheers > Trish > Nowra NSW

Roger, Yes, I've checked the American censuses - looking for George Taylor is about as rewarding as looking for George Smith, especially as all you get in the way of a birthplace is 'England' :-) Thanks for the thought, though. All the best, Patrick On 10/09/2011 13:05, Roger Partridge wrote: > Hi Patrick & Listers ! > > Have you tried looking for him in the U.S. Census at the various 10 year > intervals - which I believe are always in the years ending in "0" (Zero) ?? > > Best Wishes ! Roger. > -------------------- > On 9 Sep 2011, at 22:16, Patrick Black wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> In my wife's tree, there is a George William TAYLOR, b.c.1825 in Great >> Yarmouth, according to the 1851 census. Throughout the 1850s he is >> described variously as a Printer, Bookseller & Stationer, Merchant's >> Clerk & Office Clerk.

Hi Jim - It is entirely up to you. My rusty thinking is that replies to the mailing list can be helpful to all of us. We may learn something about research techniques, it may stimulate others who did not have interests in the original post but recognize something in your reply. So I would reply to the mailing list both to the mailing list's benefit and to extend the possibility of the success of your reply. Mark the Monomaniacal http://www.wherryalbion.com/ At 11:17 AM 9/11/2011, Jim wrote: >Hi Munificent Mark:: I seldom reply to the list when I see a >message that >is interesting; I reply directly to the person sending the >message. Should >I be replying to the list as well as a direct message to the >originator of >the message?? Cheers> Listerine Jim +~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+ Genealogy is breaking bread with the dead. markhow@oz.net

Hi Munificent Mark:: I seldom reply to the list when I see a message that is interesting; I reply directly to the person sending the message. Should I be replying to the list as well as a direct message to the originator of the message?? Cheers> Listerine Jim -----Original Message----- From: Mark Howells [mailto:markhow@oz.net] Sent: Saturday, September 10, 2011 5:36 AM To: NORFOLK@rootsweb.com Subject: [NFK] Subject Lines Greetings Listerines - I take this opportunity to compliment you all on a very well-mannered and helpful mailing list. Our list behavior has been excellent and our report card reads "Plays well with others". To those of you sharing information freely and with kindness, I thank you. Now that I have sweetened you up, here's a suggestion. When reply to the Digests of this mailing list, it would be helpful if you changed the subject line to something relevant to your reply. Without such modification, the subject line resembles this when the rest of us see it: Subject: Re: [NFK] NORFOLK Digest, Vol n, Issue nnn Not very helpful in identifying which of the multiple messages in the Digest you are replying to. When replying to the Digests, hit reply then click on the reply's subject line. Type in something relevant such as "Sandringham Door Knob Polishers" or "William APNEATIC of Great Snoring 1823". You should be able to easily type over or otherwise edit the subject line which originally read "Re: NORFOLK Digest, Vol n, Issue nnn". Since some listers only skim the subject lines for postings they may be interested in, better defining your reply subject line actually improves your chances of connecting with a lister of similar interests. Thanks - Mark the Munificent ------------ "A genealogist's dead relatives are typically more expensive than his living ones." - Mark Howells markhow@oz.net

Hi Patrick & Listers ! Have you tried looking for him in the U.S. Census at the various 10 year intervals - which I believe are always in the years ending in "0" (Zero) ?? Best Wishes ! Roger. -------------------- On 9 Sep 2011, at 22:16, Patrick Black wrote: > Hi, > > In my wife's tree, there is a George William TAYLOR, b.c.1825 in Great > Yarmouth, according to the 1851 census. Throughout the 1850s he is > described variously as a Printer, Bookseller & Stationer, Merchant's > Clerk & Office Clerk. > > He married Clarissa Say in Norwich in 1851, and had 5 children: > Mary Clara, b.1852 in Bromley Kent, d.1862 in Norwich; > George Edmund, b.1854 in Bromley; > Sarah Ellen, b.1855 in Bromley; > William Arthur b.1857 in Norwich, and > Clare (a boy), b.1859 in Norwich. > > He disappeared after Clare's birth in 1859 - e.g. he doesn't seem > to be > recorded in any other censuses. His wife Clarissa describes > herself as > married in 1861, 1871 and 1881, and only in 1891 does say that she > is a > widow. > > There is a family legend that George fought in the American Civil War, > and a clue to this might be that when the youngest son, Clare, married > in 1888, he gave his father's occupation as 'Consul U.S.A.'. > > Does anyone know any more about George after he disappeared before the > 1861 census? > > > Patrick > York UK >

Hi Patrick, I don't know if any of this helps, the third item may have a clue for you - 1880 U.S. CENSUS - No obvious listing for George William Taylor, born about 1825, on the LDS website. Hampshire Telegraph and Sussex Chronicle, Saturday, 3 May 1884 - TAYLOR - On the 26th ult, at Little Charlotte-street, Landport, Mr George William Taylor, aged 54 years. Cheshire Observer, Saturday, 2 August 1884 - Latest News - This Day's Telegrams - A Destitute Consul - George Taylor, formerly British Consul at Mauritius, was admitted into Bromley Workhouse today. He had become destitute through impaired eyesight. The London Gazette may be worth searching through, but I didn't find anything obvious in The Times Archives or Who's Who - http://www.london-gazette.co.uk/ Cheers Trish Nowra NSW > In my wife's tree, there is a George William TAYLOR, b.c.1825 in Great > Yarmouth, according to the 1851 census. Throughout the 1850s he is > described variously as a Printer, Bookseller & Stationer, Merchant's > Clerk & Office Clerk. > He married Clarissa Say in Norwich in 1851, and had 5 children: > Mary Clara, b.1852 in Bromley Kent, d.1862 in Norwich; > George Edmund, b.1854 in Bromley; > Sarah Ellen, b.1855 in Bromley; > William Arthur b.1857 in Norwich, and > Clare (a boy), b.1859 in Norwich. > Does anyone know any more about George after he disappeared before the > 1861 census? > Patrick > York UK

From: wendy and vic Sent: Friday, September 09, 2011 9:19 AM To: Norfolk-request@rootsweb.com Subject: PARKER of Attleborough I am interested in any information on the family of Arthur Thomas PARKER (1870-c 1950) of Attleborough, c 1900 – present day. Arthur was with his wife Hannah Eliza, & children, Alice Maude, Jessie Kate Jubilee, Kate Elizabeth, & Margery Annie, in the 1911 census. I am particularly interested in any news of Alice Maude, Kate Elizabeth, & Margery Annie. I have most of the information on my aunt Jessie K.J., & Arthur Thomas, my grandfather. I visited them c 1937, in Attleborough. Any information would be much appreciated. Regards, Vic

Greetings Listerines - I take this opportunity to compliment you all on a very well-mannered and helpful mailing list. Our list behavior has been excellent and our report card reads "Plays well with others". To those of you sharing information freely and with kindness, I thank you. Now that I have sweetened you up, here's a suggestion. When reply to the Digests of this mailing list, it would be helpful if you changed the subject line to something relevant to your reply. Without such modification, the subject line resembles this when the rest of us see it: Subject: Re: [NFK] NORFOLK Digest, Vol n, Issue nnn Not very helpful in identifying which of the multiple messages in the Digest you are replying to. When replying to the Digests, hit reply then click on the reply's subject line. Type in something relevant such as "Sandringham Door Knob Polishers" or "William APNEATIC of Great Snoring 1823". You should be able to easily type over or otherwise edit the subject line which originally read "Re: NORFOLK Digest, Vol n, Issue nnn". Since some listers only skim the subject lines for postings they may be interested in, better defining your reply subject line actually improves your chances of connecting with a lister of similar interests. Thanks - Mark the Munificent ------------ "A genealogist's dead relatives are typically more expensive than his living ones." - Mark Howells markhow@oz.net

Hi, In my wife's tree, there is a George William TAYLOR, b.c.1825 in Great Yarmouth, according to the 1851 census. Throughout the 1850s he is described variously as a Printer, Bookseller & Stationer, Merchant's Clerk & Office Clerk. He married Clarissa Say in Norwich in 1851, and had 5 children: Mary Clara, b.1852 in Bromley Kent, d.1862 in Norwich; George Edmund, b.1854 in Bromley; Sarah Ellen, b.1855 in Bromley; William Arthur b.1857 in Norwich, and Clare (a boy), b.1859 in Norwich. He disappeared after Clare's birth in 1859 - e.g. he doesn't seem to be recorded in any other censuses. His wife Clarissa describes herself as married in 1861, 1871 and 1881, and only in 1891 does say that she is a widow. There is a family legend that George fought in the American Civil War, and a clue to this might be that when the youngest son, Clare, married in 1888, he gave his father's occupation as 'Consul U.S.A.'. Does anyone know any more about George after he disappeared before the 1861 census? Patrick York UK

Thank you everybody for your replies. All of my later ancestors have been Ag Labs, so I don't believe they were self-supporting. However, I hadn't thought about the baptism taking place later than the birth, so this may well be what happened. I believe it is the right Daniell, Elizabeth, as there appears to be only the one Daniell family in the village at that time. Thanks again. Meg > From: megrose61 <megrose61@googlemail.com> > Date: 7 September 2011 09:07:20 GMT+01:00 > To: NORFOLK@rootsweb.com > Subject: [NFK] Marriage at 16? > Reply-To: norfolk@rootsweb.com > > > On trawling through the Matlaske Parish Registers on Family Search, I have come across the birth of a person I believe is an ancestor, John Daniell, born 1666. In 1682, John Daniell and his wife, Aliz, had their first son, Jonathan, baptised. This would only make John Daniell 16 years old. Do you think there is some error in the register, or has anybody come across very early marriages before? > > From: "David Booty" <davidbooty@btinternet.com> > Date: 7 September 2011 09:39:07 GMT+01:00 > To: <norfolk@rootsweb.com> > Subject: Re: [NFK] Marriage at 16? > Reply-To: norfolk@rootsweb.com > > > Rare, but not abnormal is the answer, I think. Most people married in their > early or mid twenties, and anyone under 21 was classed as a "minor" > requiring the consent of their parents, but teenage marriages did happen, > either because of there being a child on the way or perhaps if the groom was > fortunate enough to be self-supporting at that age (most people would not > be). > > David > > From: Mike Fry <fredbonzo@iafrica.com> > Date: 7 September 2011 12:25:15 GMT+01:00 > To: norfolk@rootsweb.com > Subject: Re: [NFK] Marriage at 16? > Reply-To: norfolk@rootsweb.com > > Don't make the common mistake of assuming that the date of baptism is close to the date of birth. Baptism could have been several years after birth. > > -- Regards, > Mike Fry > Johannesburg > > From: Brad Rogers <brad@fineby.me.uk> > Date: 7 September 2011 13:34:45 GMT+01:00 > To: Norfolk ML <norfolk@rootsweb.com> > Subject: Re: [NFK] Marriage at 16? > Reply-To: norfolk@rootsweb.com > > On Wed, 7 Sep 2011 09:07:20 +0100 > megrose61 <megrose61@googlemail.com> wrote: > > Hello megrose61, > >> John Daniell 16 years old. Do you think there is some error in the >> register, or has anybody come across very early marriages before? > > Remember that, at the time, girls cold marry at 12, and boys at 14. It > wasn't all that common, and usually occurred as a result of some > dealings between the two families involved. Therefore, less common > amongst the proletariat than the gentry. > > Also, as pointed out by Mike, there are no guarantees that baptism was > close to birth. > > -- > Regards _ > / ) "The blindingly obvious is > / _)rad never immediately apparent" > People stare like they've seen a ghost > Titanic (My Over) Reaction - 999 > > From: "elizabeth howard" <elizgh@btinternet.com> > Date: 7 September 2011 16:49:22 GMT+01:00 > To: <norfolk@rootsweb.com> > Subject: [NFK] Marriage at 16? > Reply-To: norfolk@rootsweb.com > > > It could also be an entirely different John Daniell . > >> >> -------------------------------

Hi, As the transcriber I can report that the register images for both entries (1666 and 1682) a reasonably clear. Worth remembering that the entries are for baptisms and not births, it is possible that the baptism in 1666 is for someone born during the earlier Commonwealth period, the registers do not make specific mention of adult baptisms over this period. The registers for Matlaske record around 4 baptisms per year in the decade before Commonwealth and only 1 every two years (on average) during the late Commonwealth. There are 13 baptisms in the years 1666 to 1668; bit of a population explosion or a catch up? It is common in many of the Erpingham Hundred parishes for the registers to have gaps or very sparse entries over the Commonwealth period; just a sign of the times. hope this helps. Regards, Rowland -----Original Message----- From: megrose61 Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 9:07 AM To: NORFOLK@rootsweb.com Subject: [NFK] Marriage at 16? On trawling through the Matlaske Parish Registers on Family Search, I have come across the birth of a person I believe is an ancestor, John Daniell, born 1666. In 1682, John Daniell and his wife, Aliz, had their first son, Jonathan, baptised. This would only make John Daniell 16 years old. Do you think there is some error in the register, or has anybody come across very early marriages before? ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to NORFOLK-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

At that stage early marriage was very rare and pretty much restricted to the gentry I think. Most people could not marry until they had finished their apprenticeship, or were otherwise capable of supporting themselves. Apparently living with parents when married was very rare. I would be skeptical - either the baptism is late (as age about 5-10) or it is not your man. Julie On 07/09/2011 16:49, elizabeth howard wrote: > It could also be an entirely different John Daniell . > > > > life is hard . soften it with a cat \\\=^..^=/// > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Mike Fry"<fredbonzo@iafrica.com> > To:<norfolk@rootsweb.com> > Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 12:25 PM > Subject: Re: [NFK] Marriage at 16? > > >> On 2011/09/07 10:07, megrose61 wrote: >>> On trawling through the Matlaske Parish Registers on Family Search, I >>> have >>> come across the birth of a person I believe is an ancestor, John Daniell, >>> born 1666. In 1682, John Daniell and his wife, Aliz, had their first >>> son, >>> Jonathan, baptised. This would only make John Daniell 16 years old. Do >>> you >>> think there is some error in the register, or has anybody come across >>> very >>> early marriages before? >> Don't make the common mistake of assuming that the date of baptism is >> close to >> the date of birth. Baptism could have been several years after birth. >> >> -- >> Regards, >> Mike Fry >> Johannesburg >> >> ------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to >> NORFOLK-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the >> quotes in the subject and the body of the message >> > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to NORFOLK-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message > -- Julie Harold FreeREG Norfolk Coordinator http://www.freereg.org.uk

It could also be an entirely different John Daniell . life is hard . soften it with a cat \\\=^..^=/// ----- Original Message ----- From: "Mike Fry" <fredbonzo@iafrica.com> To: <norfolk@rootsweb.com> Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 12:25 PM Subject: Re: [NFK] Marriage at 16? > On 2011/09/07 10:07, megrose61 wrote: >> On trawling through the Matlaske Parish Registers on Family Search, I >> have >> come across the birth of a person I believe is an ancestor, John Daniell, >> born 1666. In 1682, John Daniell and his wife, Aliz, had their first >> son, >> Jonathan, baptised. This would only make John Daniell 16 years old. Do >> you >> think there is some error in the register, or has anybody come across >> very >> early marriages before? > > Don't make the common mistake of assuming that the date of baptism is > close to > the date of birth. Baptism could have been several years after birth. > > -- > Regards, > Mike Fry > Johannesburg > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > NORFOLK-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message >

On Wed, 7 Sep 2011 09:07:20 +0100 megrose61 <megrose61@googlemail.com> wrote: Hello megrose61, > John Daniell 16 years old. Do you think there is some error in the > register, or has anybody come across very early marriages before? Remember that, at the time, girls cold marry at 12, and boys at 14. It wasn't all that common, and usually occurred as a result of some dealings between the two families involved. Therefore, less common amongst the proletariat than the gentry. Also, as pointed out by Mike, there are no guarantees that baptism was close to birth. -- Regards _ / ) "The blindingly obvious is / _)rad never immediately apparent" People stare like they've seen a ghost Titanic (My Over) Reaction - 999

On 2011/09/07 10:07, megrose61 wrote: > On trawling through the Matlaske Parish Registers on Family Search, I have > come across the birth of a person I believe is an ancestor, John Daniell, > born 1666. In 1682, John Daniell and his wife, Aliz, had their first son, > Jonathan, baptised. This would only make John Daniell 16 years old. Do you > think there is some error in the register, or has anybody come across very > early marriages before? Don't make the common mistake of assuming that the date of baptism is close to the date of birth. Baptism could have been several years after birth. -- Regards, Mike Fry Johannesburg

The Norfolk Surnames List is a free listing of surnames being researched in the County of Norfolk. These listings are associated with researchers' email addresses to assist in making connections between those who share common interests. There are currently 8,326 listings from 3,706 contributors. The list can be found at http://www.rootsweb.com/~engnfksl/Index.html Additions and alterations to the list must be made via the web site, not on this mailing list, please. Recently added surname entries include: AMIS ATMORE BAYES BOAST BOOTY BROOKS CLARK COLEMAN CUSHING CUTTER DACK GOLDSMITH GRAPE HUBBARD LORD MARKS NELSON OTTERWAY OTTWAY PYMER RANDALL READ SCOTT SMALL TAYT TIDMOND TILLOTT TOWNSHEND WILLGRESS WYTHE

Rare, but not abnormal is the answer, I think. Most people married in their early or mid twenties, and anyone under 21 was classed as a "minor" requiring the consent of their parents, but teenage marriages did happen, either because of there being a child on the way or perhaps if the groom was fortunate enough to be self-supporting at that age (most people would not be). David -----Original Message----- From: norfolk-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:norfolk-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of megrose61 Sent: 07 September 2011 09:07 To: NORFOLK@rootsweb.com Subject: [NFK] Marriage at 16? On trawling through the Matlaske Parish Registers on Family Search, I have come across the birth of a person I believe is an ancestor, John Daniell, born 1666. In 1682, John Daniell and his wife, Aliz, had their first son, Jonathan, baptised. This would only make John Daniell 16 years old. Do you think there is some error in the register, or has anybody come across very early marriages before? ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to NORFOLK-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message