Samuel Coupland m. Margaret Lock 04 Oct 1794 St. Peter's Monkwearmouth. Please can you help with this family John

Hi Audrey, Georgina aged 6, was living at 9, Clavering Street, Gateshead in the 1861 census. She was listed as being neice to the head of the household - Hannah Barter, widow, aged 66, Lodging house keeper, who was born at Gateshead. They had a boarder living with them caled Peter J Patterson, aged 27, unmarried, Iron Plate worker, and born in Scotland. Jan ----- Original Message ----- From: "Audrey Render" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, March 15, 2013 2:59 PM Subject: [NMB] 1861 census lookup > Hi list I wonder If some can help with a lookup of the 1861 census > Gateshead I am looking for Georgina Lindsey born Gateshead 1855 to > Margaret Lindsey pos.Iligt. she married Edward Chambers 1879 listing her > father as George Lindsey she may be living with a family as a niece in > Gateshead I can not find her mother in 1861 she may have married if she > was single at the time of Georginas birth thank you Audrey > ..

Hi Chris When I find the link I'll get back to you. No Hutton links in my tree so far! Best regards David ----- No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2013.0.2904 / Virus Database: 2641/6172 - Release Date: 03/13/13

My great-grandfather was Thomas Webster Hutton, born 21.9.1846 in Gateshead, died in exile in Leeds 15.3.1912. Exile may have been an indirect consequence of bankruptcy, alcoholism - and blowing the roof off his house in a gas explosion! I have no clues as to where the Webster name came from, it doesn't feature in any linked families going back, forward - or sideways! I'd love to know. Chris Morgan -----Original Message----- From: David A. Webster Sent: Friday, March 15, 2013 3:24 PM To: [email protected] Subject: [NMB] WEBSTER research Hi I'd be interested to hear from anyone with the Webster surname in their research. Could you please contact me directly? Best regards David

"David A. Webster" <[email protected]> wrote: >I'd be interested to hear from anyone with the Webster surname in >their research. Could you please contact me directly? This is directly contrary to list policy - as we state in our list rules: viz "... under no circumstances, should anyone ask for off-list responses." Please see http://www.bpears.org.uk/NorthumbriaFAQ/index.html#anchor6 "We encourage subscribers to respond to queries on the list rather than by private e-mail. This ensures that responses are archived and are available to aid researchers now and in the future. However, subscribers are free to decide whether to respond publicly or privately - but please, under no circumstances, should anyone ask for off-list responses. Leave it up to the responder to decide how he or she wants to respond." Brian -- Brian Pears (Joint List Admin - NORTHUMBRIA Mailing List)

Hi I'd be interested to hear from anyone with the Webster surname in their research. Could you please contact me directly? Best regards David ----- No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2013.0.2904 / Virus Database: 2641/6172 - Release Date: 03/13/13

Hi list I wonder If some can help with a lookup of the 1861 census Gateshead I am looking for Georgina Lindsey born Gateshead 1855 to Margaret Lindsey pos.Iligt. she married Edward Chambers 1879 listing her father as George Lindsey she may be living with a family as a niece in Gateshead I can not find her mother in 1861 she may have married if she was single at the time of Georginas birth thank you Audrey

John Graham m. Anne Reed 17 Sep 1766 All Saints Church, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Northumberland. Any help with parents and family please John

William Hall m. Margaret Legg 13 Jan 1712 Bishopwearmouth, Durham, England Any help with this family Please John

John Stoker b Abt 1680 Whickham Durham Married Isabell Hutchinson 28 Jun 1702 Whickham, Durham, England I think they had at least 2 children Ann & John Any help with this family Please John

Geoff, Thank you for that, I learn something about England every day.  Your help is appreciated. Regards, Susan ________________________________ From: Geoff Nicholson <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2013 12:39 PM Subject: Re: [NMB] Lost at sea 1896-1901 Brian:     I am more than a little puzzled at how Susan's message came through to you - and you have answered it - although it hasn't yet reached me.  Cyberspace must be a lot thinner over Gateshead than it is over Washington!  Perhaps the message got lost in a hailstorm.     As far as the question itself is concerned, I am reminded of the 13th or 14th century letter from Newcastle Corporation to the King, which I always love quoting, especially to people from South Shields.  The Corporation were complaining that their monopoly of trade on the Tyne was being infringed  by land-owners further down the river luring ships in to quays they had built on their own land.  The Corporation said "The Prior of Tynemouth has established a town at North Shields - and the Prior of Durham has established a town at South Shields, where no town ought to be".     Apart from anything else this is a good example of how much the church in its various guises controlled the land at that time.  The Benedictine monastery at Durham had been re-organised by the Normans and had obtained a merger with the more or less derelict monastery of Jarrow, which gave it all of both Jarrow and and South Shields, as well as the remains of the Venerable (now Saint) Bede, which they removed to Durham Cathedral.  They were even more aggressive than that, however, and had set their sights on taking over the very solvent monastery of Tynemouth, leading Tynemouth to seek a "friendly take-over" from the southern monastery of St Albans in order to protect themselves from Durham.     There would therefore not be much love lost betwen the landlords of the two Shields, although both were no doubt similar fishing communities, doing their best to make the move up to becoming general cargo ports.  The "Shields" were presumably rows of fishermen's houses, elsewhere called "fisher biggins", a derivation used elsewhere on the Northumberland coast - at Newbiggin, for instance - and which could possibly even be behind the name of the Bryggen area of Bergen, across the North Sea in Norway.     It may be adviseable to mention to those unfamiliar with the NE of England that North Shields has historically been part of Northumberland and South Shields has historically been part of Co Durham, the boundary being the River Tyne.                                             Geoff Nicholson -----Original Message----- From: Brian Pears <[email protected]> To: northumbria <[email protected]> Sent: Thu, 14 Mar 2013 17:26 Subject: Re: [NMB] Lost at sea 1896-1901 Susan C <[email protected]> wrote: >An ancestor drowned in the river in Shields, can someone tell me when >Shields was divided - North Shields and South Shields?  I do not have >the year of the drowning, knowing when the development took place I >could probably find an obituary, before or after the change in >Shields, if there was one.  Hi Susan Shields was never "divided". The river which separates North and South Shields was in its current position long before the two settlements existed - indeed millions of years before there were any humans on the planet. South Shields, often just called "Shields" had its origins in prehistoric times - North Shields developed in the 13th century. Brian -- Brian Pears (Joint List Admin - NORTHUMBRIA Mailing List) .. Please remember to snip most of the earlier message before you post any reply...... Thank you! The NORTHUMBRIA FAQ page is located at http://www.bpears.org.uk/NorthumbriaFAQ/ ------------------------------- 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 .. Please remember to snip most of the earlier message before you post any reply...... Thank you! The NORTHUMBRIA FAQ page is located at http://www.bpears.org.uk/NorthumbriaFAQ/ ------------------------------- 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

Geoff Nicholson <[email protected]> wrote: > I am more than a little puzzled at how Susan's message came > through to you - and you have answered it - although it hasn't yet > reached me. Cyberspace must be a lot thinner over Gateshead than it > is over Washington! Perhaps the message got lost in a hailstorm. I wasn't even the first to reply - Karen Lynn replied 8 minutes before I did. -- Brian Pears (Joint List Admin - NORTHUMBRIA Mailing List)

Geoff Nicholson wrote: > I am more than a little puzzled at how Susan's message came > through to you - and you have answered it - although it hasn't yet > reached me. Cyberspace must be a lot thinner over Gateshead than > it is over Washington! Perhaps the message got lost in a > hailstorm. Geoff Just the vagaries of e-mail transmission and/or delays at Rootsweb. I often see posts arriving out of sequence - we all do from time to time - so it isn't unusual for replies to arrive before the query. On one list a query of mine took 23 hours to appear in my inbox, and in the meantime I'd seen numerous responses and even received my own thank you note back in my inbox. Brian -- Brian Pears (Joint List Admin - NORTHUMBRIA Mailing List)

Susan C <[email protected]> wrote: >An ancestor drowned in the river in Shields, can someone tell me when >Shields was divided - North Shields and South Shields?  I do not have >the year of the drowning, knowing when the development took place I >could probably find an obituary, before or after the change in >Shields, if there was one.  Hi Susan Shields was never "divided". The river which separates North and South Shields was in its current position long before the two settlements existed - indeed millions of years before there were any humans on the planet. South Shields, often just called "Shields" had its origins in prehistoric times - North Shields developed in the 13th century. Brian -- Brian Pears (Joint List Admin - NORTHUMBRIA Mailing List)

I would have thought that they were always separate, as one is on the north bank of the Tyne and the other on the south. Karen On 14 March 2013 15:23, Susan C <[email protected]> wrote: > Hello listers, > > An ancestor drowned in the river in Shields, can someone tell me when > Shields was divided - North Shields and South Shields? I do not have the > year of the drowning, knowing when the development took place I could > probably find an obituary, before or after the change in Shields, if there > was one. > > >

Brian: I am more than a little puzzled at how Susan's message came through to you - and you have answered it - although it hasn't yet reached me. Cyberspace must be a lot thinner over Gateshead than it is over Washington! Perhaps the message got lost in a hailstorm. As far as the question itself is concerned, I am reminded of the 13th or 14th century letter from Newcastle Corporation to the King, which I always love quoting, especially to people from South Shields. The Corporation were complaining that their monopoly of trade on the Tyne was being infringed by land-owners further down the river luring ships in to quays they had built on their own land. The Corporation said "The Prior of Tynemouth has established a town at North Shields - and the Prior of Durham has established a town at South Shields, where no town ought to be". Apart from anything else this is a good example of how much the church in its various guises controlled the land at that time. The Benedictine monastery at Durham had been re-organised by the Normans and had obtained a merger with the more or less derelict monastery of Jarrow, which gave it all of both Jarrow and and South Shields, as well as the remains of the Venerable (now Saint) Bede, which they removed to Durham Cathedral. They were even more aggressive than that, however, and had set their sights on taking over the very solvent monastery of Tynemouth, leading Tynemouth to seek a "friendly take-over" from the southern monastery of St Albans in order to protect themselves from Durham. There would therefore not be much love lost betwen the landlords of the two Shields, although both were no doubt similar fishing communities, doing their best to make the move up to becoming general cargo ports. The "Shields" were presumably rows of fishermen's houses, elsewhere called "fisher biggins", a derivation used elsewhere on the Northumberland coast - at Newbiggin, for instance - and which could possibly even be behind the name of the Bryggen area of Bergen, across the North Sea in Norway. It may be adviseable to mention to those unfamiliar with the NE of England that North Shields has historically been part of Northumberland and South Shields has historically been part of Co Durham, the boundary being the River Tyne. Geoff Nicholson -----Original Message----- From: Brian Pears <[email protected]> To: northumbria <[email protected]> Sent: Thu, 14 Mar 2013 17:26 Subject: Re: [NMB] Lost at sea 1896-1901 Susan C <[email protected]> wrote: >An ancestor drowned in the river in Shields, can someone tell me when >Shields was divided - North Shields and South Shields? I do not have >the year of the drowning, knowing when the development took place I >could probably find an obituary, before or after the change in >Shields, if there was one. Hi Susan Shields was never "divided". The river which separates North and South Shields was in its current position long before the two settlements existed - indeed millions of years before there were any humans on the planet. South Shields, often just called "Shields" had its origins in prehistoric times - North Shields developed in the 13th century. Brian -- Brian Pears (Joint List Admin - NORTHUMBRIA Mailing List) .. Please remember to snip most of the earlier message before you post any reply...... Thank you! The NORTHUMBRIA FAQ page is located at http://www.bpears.org.uk/NorthumbriaFAQ/ ------------------------------- 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

Hello Nivard I have two - for father and son who died at sea 18 years apart. For one there was a body and for the other the body was never found. Both Certs. were "Certified Copy of an Entry in the Marine Register" Pursuant to the provisions of the Merchant Shipping Acts etc. The first one which was for Dec 1877 just gives Name of Ship, Official Number (of ship) and under Date of Death & Place of Death it just has Ship Missing Since 28.12.77. It then gives name of the Deceased, Ralph Forster, Male, and under Cause of Death it has Supposed Drowned and under Passenger or Member of Crew it has Crew. The second one where the body was on the ship as a result of an accident is on the same form but the detailed headings on the form have been expanded by 1895. It gives Name and Surname of the Deceased, Age, Rank or Profession, Last Place of Abode, Cause of Death (and there are five lines of detail given in this case), Time, Place, Name of Ship, Official Number, Port of Registry and Trade (of Ship). I also have a normal Death Certificate for him which was filled out by the Coroner after the Inquest so he got two! After searching for years on the GRO Registers (before computers) I found them both in the Marine Register of Deaths. Cheers Jill >Hi Jill > >But is it the same form as a normal death certificate? > >Or is it a certificate of death > >Nivard Ovington in Cornwall (UK) > >On 13/03/2013 20:39, Jill Forster wrote: >>Hello Listers >> >>There may be some circumstances where Certificates of Death were >>issued even though >>there is no body found. My husband's ancestor Ralph Forster was a >>Master Mariner >>acting as Mate on the maiden voyage of the Stamfordham a Steamer >>built on the Tyne. >>The ship, among many, was lost of the coast of America in a huge >>storm. No bodies >>were recovered but we found a Death Registration in the Deaths at Sea >>Registers and >>have a certificate. >> >>Jill in Sydney

It might be that your contact, the Ex Registrar, is thinking about Deaths at sea not being registered with the usual District Registrar. Whereas the deaths I am talking about were registered with the Registrar or Shipping & Seamen, not the District Registrar, my ancestors death was registered with the Registrar of Shipping & Seamen in Hartlepool & not with the District Registrar there. I imagine that the Registrar of Shipping & Seamen would send copies to the GRO direct, by-passing the District Registrar altogether, i.e not informing the Dist. Reg. that an event at sea had been recorded by the Reg., of Shipping & Seamen. If this is the case then the District Registrar would be ignorant of such a death having been registered. Perhaps your contact doesn't realise this was another side of the Registration system. My understanding is that so long as there was a witness left to register a death at sea it had to be registered once the ship reached land where there was a Registrar of Shipping & Seamen or a British Consul or else once the ship returned to her home port. Though such events were not always recorded by the masters of vessels. If a ship was lost with all hands then of course there were no witnesses left to register the deaths of those lost. I suppose the only way of finding out who was on board a ship that was lost at sea would be to look for a crew list for that vessel for that particular voyage, not an easy thing to find, you need the ship's official registration number to find crew lists as a general rule. As I understand it, all BMDs at sea were/are meant to be registered with the "registrar of shipping & Seamen" and not with the district registrar. This is why there is a separate GRO index for Overseas events. regards Jenny DeAngelis Nivard Wrote:- <<Its a subject that interests me and raises its head every now and then But just when I think I have it taped something else pops up All the Acts I have read speak of deaths at sea, not where a person goes overboard or is otherwise lost Other references to deaths in absentia speak specifically that if there was no body recovered there would not be a death certificate which is what my ex registrar contact states as does the GRO themselves as I asked them some time ago I suspect its a matter of terminology>>

I joined your list as my wife (Janice) has a connection to Elswick. Her GGF William John BELL b. 27 Nov.1840 Sydney N.S,W. His baptism certificate (no birth cert.) 27 Dec. 1840 shows his father William John BELL,mother Mary BELL (nee EVANS). Abode "Elswick". Prof. Servant. Baptism performed by Thomas Steele, Church of England. Baby William Moved to Brisbane Qld. when he was a young man and when he married he also called his house "Elswick". We cannot find any marriage or arrival record in Australia for a William John BELL and Mary BELL (EVANS). We feel they have came from or were married in or near Elswick. Any help or suggestions to locate William and Mary will be greatly appreciated. Peter Stevens ,Brisbane, Aus. p.s. We have sent a similar email to a Lancashire List in case their Elswick may be involved.

Hello listers, An ancestor drowned in the river in Shields, can someone tell me when Shields was divided - North Shields and South Shields?  I do not have the year of the drowning, knowing when the development took place I could probably find an obituary, before or after the change in Shields, if there was one.  Thanks in advance, Susan   ________________________________ From: Julia Say <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2013 11:17 AM Subject: Re: [NMB] Lost at sea 1896-1901 From: Nivard Ovington - Subject: Re: [NMB] Lost at sea 1896-1901 >In the case of John LAKE even though there is evidence he was drowned in >1899 there is no death registered in that year for a John LAKE death >at sea (or anywhere else for that matter) which is as I would expect. Thank you to everyone for all the information, very helpful. >heaven knows where a body a mile of Northshields would be taken by the tide! apparently, according to local lifeboat personnel, they go northwards. It can take some time, but remains have been found as far as Shetland. "the lifeboatmen don't talk about it much" said John Lake's gt-grandson of his friends who are in the lifeboats - in a tone of voice which implied its not a pleasant job, finding and retrieving such. JUlia .. Please remember to snip most of the earlier message before you post any reply...... Thank you! The NORTHUMBRIA FAQ page is located at http://www.bpears.org.uk/NorthumbriaFAQ/ ------------------------------- 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