Try Fenland Museum or Trues Yard they have parishes in the area . Although the Norfolk Family History Society has an ongoing program of Transcribing and putting on ours NORS database for members to search we do not have Emneth. Regards Jean On 26 July 2014 12:32, <[email protected]> wrote: > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Re: website Norfolk Transcription archive ([email protected]) > 2. Re: website Norfolk Transcription archive (Karen Hodges) > 3. Re Literacy of the population 1841 (Marie Ball) > 4. Re: Literacy of the population 1841 (Nivard Ovington) > 5. Re: website Norfolk Transcription archive (Bonnie Ostler) > 6. Re: NORFOLK Digest, Vol 9, Issue 191 (Bob Rust) > 7. Re: Literacy of the population 1841 (Bob Rust) > 8. Re: Literacy of the population 1841 (Bob Rust) > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: [email protected] > To: Karen Hodges <[email protected]>, [email protected] > Cc: > Date: Sat, 26 Jul 2014 08:23:34 +0100 > Subject: Re: [NFK] website Norfolk Transcription archive > I think other projects replaced it Karen. I am not sure but I think one of > the original contributors passed away a while ago .It was a big help to me > as one of the few online resources in the early days so a big belated thank > you to all the transcribers. > I think that there are some records on there-in the Marshland > district-which are still not easy to find on any other online sites. > Rosie > On 26/07/2014 05:42, Karen Hodges via wrote: > >> I am interested in finding out why the Norfolk Transcription Archive >> website is no longer updated. Did it move to a new website or did other >> projects replace it? >> >> Karen >> Australia >> ------------------------------- >> 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 >> > > > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Karen Hodges <[email protected]> > To: [email protected] > Cc: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> > Date: Sat, 26 Jul 2014 17:31:59 +1000 > Subject: Re: [NFK] website Norfolk Transcription archive > Thanks Rosie > > Yes is it a good site. I have been looking over some of the entries on > hearth tax. I did find a mention in the archives that it was going to a new > site but the link did not work. The transcribers did do a wonderful job. > > Karen > > > On Sat, Jul 26, 2014 at 5:23 PM, <[email protected]> wrote: > > > I think other projects replaced it Karen. I am not sure but I think one > > of the original contributors passed away a while ago .It was a big help > to > > me as one of the few online resources in the early days so a big belated > > thank you to all the transcribers. > > I think that there are some records on there-in the Marshland > > district-which are still not easy to find on any other online sites. > > Rosie > > On 26/07/2014 05:42, Karen Hodges via wrote: > > > > I am interested in finding out why the Norfolk Transcription Archive > > website is no longer updated. Did it move to a new website or did other > > projects replace it? > > > > Karen > > Australia > > > > ------------------------------- > > 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 > > > > > > > > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Marie Ball <[email protected]> > To: [email protected] > Cc: > Date: Sat, 26 Jul 2014 09:04:37 +0100 > Subject: [NFK] Re Literacy of the population 1841 > This has been a very interesting dialogue. I am reading a book by > Katherine O'Brien O'Keeffe about the crossover between oracy and literacy > in Anglo-Saxon times. Something she mentions is that predictive orthography > speeds up our modern reading times. Spelling in England was not > standardised until some time in the Victorian era, I'm not sure when > exactly. Readers in the early Middle Ages read out loud, even if alone. I > wonder when that ceased to be so? We are so used to silent reading. As > people have mentioned, although we consider reading and writing as two > halves of a whole, that was not the case in the past when they were > separate skills. Marie > > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Nivard Ovington <[email protected]> > To: Bonnie Ostler <[email protected]>, [email protected] > Cc: > Date: Sat, 26 Jul 2014 09:18:47 +0100 > Subject: Re: [NFK] Literacy of the population 1841 > Hi Bonnie > > Samplers were a demonstration of skills learned > > An exam piece if you will, to show that a child or someone, usually a > young lady had learned various needlework techniques > > Not only to her parents or teachers but to any prospective husband > > Clearly they were also a learning process in themselves > > Mike was just suggesting my great great grandmother merely copied another > piece, which I doubt given the personal nature of samplers, as hers is the > only one to have survived, and that by pure fluke, I can't compare it to > any others > > A couple of lines from her sampler gives a flavour of the times perhaps, > particularly the second line > > Favour is deceitful and beauty is vain but a woman who feareth the Lord > she shall be praised Prov xxxi.30. > > If a man would not work neither shall he eat > Thes iii.10. > > > Incidentally her mother born 1834 gave a Christmas present of a leather > cigar holder to her future husband in 1855, she wrote on it in a clear > flowing hand, where did she learn from? probably her parents, her father > was a painters labourer > > In 1830 when her parents married, both signed the register, when her > grandparents married in 1807 Lambeth they both made their mark > > > Nivard Ovington in Cornwall (UK) > > On 25/07/2014 23:33, Bonnie Ostler wrote: > >> The whole idea of samplers done by girls was to complete them under the >> tutelage of their mother or some other adult female. It was a learning >> exercise. If she was capable of doing it without instruction there would >> not have been much reason for having her do it. >> >> Bonnie >> > > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Bonnie Ostler <[email protected]> > To: Karen Hodges <[email protected]>, [email protected] > Cc: > Date: Sat, 26 Jul 2014 06:27:38 -0400 > Subject: Re: [NFK] website Norfolk Transcription archive > After the two owners of the NTA decided to stop work on this website, all > transcribers who could be contacted were asked to approve their > transcriptions being copied to FreeREG. Nearly everyone did that and > FreeREG was pleased to use those transcriptions to give them a good start > with their Norfolk transcriptions plus some transcribers from NTA > transferred to FreeREG. NTA gave the Norfolk FreeREG a leg up. > > Bonnie Ostler > > > > > On Sat, Jul 26, 2014 at 3:31 AM, Karen Hodges via <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > Thanks Rosie > > > > Yes is it a good site. I have been looking over some of the entries on > > hearth tax. I did find a mention in the archives that it was going to a > new > > site but the link did not work. The transcribers did do a wonderful job. > > > > Karen > > > > > > On Sat, Jul 26, 2014 at 5:23 PM, <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > I think other projects replaced it Karen. I am not sure but I think > one > > > of the original contributors passed away a while ago .It was a big help > > to > > > me as one of the few online resources in the early days so a big > belated > > > thank you to all the transcribers. > > > I think that there are some records on there-in the Marshland > > > district-which are still not easy to find on any other online sites. > > > Rosie > > > On 26/07/2014 05:42, Karen Hodges via wrote: > > > > > > I am interested in finding out why the Norfolk Transcription Archive > > > website is no longer updated. Did it move to a new website or did other > > > projects replace it? > > > > > > Karen > > > Australia > > > > > > ------------------------------- > > > 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------- > > 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 > > > > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: "Bob Rust" <[email protected]> > To: <[email protected]> > Cc: > Date: Sat, 26 Jul 2014 11:59:35 +0100 > Subject: Re: [NFK] NORFOLK Digest, Vol 9, Issue 191 > Oh dear a debate on illiteracy containng the wrong rote :-) > > More seriously, my Great Granddad born 1859 so was in the 1861 census. > A member of a master talor's family and skilled tailor himself he taught > all his children to read. > Thus my Nan (b1886) taught my Mum who taught my brother and me. > The same as Nivard, by the time I started school (1934) I could read > simple books and write block letters. > Although I had to change from Mum's pencil and paper to small blackboard > (with painted lines) and chalk > But this was in London and the children of skilled men. > Much of the area and people we are talking of are rural agricultural > labourers with children working. > Even the 1877 Act with one teacher simultanously teaching four classes had > six weeks summer holday to help with the harvest written in. > In prosperous Cambridge in 1891 in what seems a middle class area are > 'general servants' in different households aged 11 and 12. Out in the > country areas even in 1891 the > > > ----- Original Message ----- From: <[email protected]> > To: <[email protected]> > Sent: Friday, July 25, 2014 11:06 PM > Subject: NORFOLK Digest, Vol 9, Issue 191 > > > >> > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > -------------------- > > > Today's Topics: >> >> 1. Re: Literacy of the population 1841 (Rosemary Jones) >> 2. Re: NORFOLK Digest, Vol 9, Issue 190 (Glynn Burrows) >> 3. Re: Literacy of the population 1841 (Bonnie Ostler) >> 4. Re: Literacy of the population 1841 (Nivard Ovington) >> 5. Re: Literacy of the population 1841 (Bonnie Ostler) >> 6. Re: Literacy of the population 1841 (Nivard Ovington) >> 7. Re: Literacy of the population 1841 (Mike Fry) >> 8. Re: Literacy of the population 1841 (Nivard Ovington) >> >> > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > -------------------- > > > To contact the NORFOLK list administrator, send an email to >> [email protected] >> >> To post a message to the NORFOLK mailing list, send an email to >> [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 >> email with no additional text. >> >> > > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: "Bob Rust" <[email protected]> > To: "Bonnie Ostler" <[email protected]>, <[email protected]> > Cc: > Date: Sat, 26 Jul 2014 12:02:26 +0100 > Subject: Re: [NFK] Literacy of the population 1841 > I always thought the sampler was done by the daughters' of the upper > classes to prove their skill as needle women in readiness for marriage. > > Bob > > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Bonnie Ostler" <[email protected]> > To: "Nivard Ovington" <[email protected]>; <[email protected]> > Sent: Friday, July 25, 2014 11:33 PM > Subject: Re: [NFK] Literacy of the population 1841 > > > The whole idea of samplers done by girls was to complete them under the >> tutelage of their mother or some other adult female. It was a learning >> exercise. If she was capable of doing it without instruction there would >> not have been much reason for having her do it. >> >> Bonnie >> >> >> On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 6:05 PM, Nivard Ovington via < >> [email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> Hi Mike >>> >>> No I don't there is any misunderstanding in the context & period we are >>> talking about it >>> >>> In the period, literate would mean having the ability to read and write >>> to some very basic level, enough to read basic words and write a small >>> amount >>> >>> I am not suggesting they would be proficient enough to write a thesis or >>> dissertation but just the bare basics >>> >>> The schedules left with the household were not particularly difficult to >>> understand but many people (and enumerators) misunderstood them and >>> entered the wrong things in the wrong places or in some cases entered >>> people that were not there on the night or omitted others >>> >>> But they still do that today >>> >>> I shall not repeat what I have said on the subject of signing the >>> register as I have already said it in previous posts >>> >>> As to my great grandmother, no I credit her with more intelligence, she >>> completed a full sampler with alphabet included when aged ten, I suspect >>> that not many ten year olds today could do the same, and back then a >>> fair portion would have been by candle light to boot >>> >>> Nivard Ovington in Cornwall (UK) >>> >>> >>> >>> On 25/07/2014 20:15, Mike Fry via wrote: >>> > Overall, an interesting discussion. What's getting lost here, or > >>> glossed >>> over to >>> > a large extent, is the varying definitions of what constituted literacy >>> at >>> > various times through the ages. >>> > >>> > Nowadays, we have a modern definition, largely based on the good-old > >>> 3Rs >>> that I >>> > fondly remember from my childhood. Those were the days before >>> sociologists were >>> > invented and started mucking around with society! [Personal Opinion] >>> >>> ------------------------------- >>> 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 >>> >>> >> >> > > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: "Bob Rust" <[email protected]> > To: "Mike Fry" <[email protected]>, <[email protected]> > Cc: > Date: Sat, 26 Jul 2014 12:31:40 +0100 > Subject: Re: [NFK] Literacy of the population 1841 > Sorry about that, clicked the wrong button. > I was going to say:- > Out in the country areas even in 1891 young boys were classified as > general, farm or agricultural labourers. > > Bob > > > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Mike Fry" <[email protected]> > To: <[email protected]> > Sent: Friday, July 25, 2014 8:15 PM > Subject: Re: [NFK] Literacy of the population 1841 > > > Overall, an interesting discussion. What's getting lost here, or glossed >> over to a large extent, is the varying definitions of what constituted >> literacy at various times through the ages. >> >> Nowadays, we have a modern definition, largely based on the good-old 3Rs >> that I fondly remember from my childhood. Those were the days before >> sociologists were invented and started mucking around with society! >> [Personal Opinion] >> >> Before schooling became mandatory, people relied on ad hoc learning, >> probably by wrote, from well meaning ministers. This is when people learnt >> to write their names by copying someone else. The fact that a person could >> write their name doesn't, to my mind, mean that they were literate. >> >> Schooling then became mandatory up until the age of 12 (I think) and it >> is from then that we start defining literacy in more rigorous terms. But >> again, can you really say that kids were literate as we understand it today? >> >> On 25 Jul 2014 19:00, Nivard Ovington via wrote: >> >> My great grandmother could clearly write in rural Buckinghamshire in >>> 1870 when she produced a sampler at age ten >>> >> >> Not to decry her achievements, but this could have been copied from >> something else. >> >> -- >> Regards, >> Mike Fry >> Johannesburg >> >> >> > > > To contact the NORFOLK list administrator, send an email to > [email protected] > > To post a message to the NORFOLK mailing list, send an email to > [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 > email with no additional text. > >