Hello Nivard and Mavis I apologise for the silly errors in my first email Mavis ..yes I mean 1772 The dates that I have are 1814 Marriage in Tuxford to Catharine ELVIDGE Nee DIX at Tuxford 1841 Census for Tuxford Nottinghamshire. He is shown as 69 years born Tuxford and as you say Mavis he is with William and Ann KIRK. [I have never seen a print of the original 1841 Census just a typed copy from Nott's Family History Soc] I have the 1851 census in Banbury , as you point out Nivard, I assumed that as most were shown as Umar that whoever completed the census form was not aware that he was a Widower as his wife died in 1838 in Tuxford and I have his death Cert Dec 1852 Narrow Marsh, Nottingham He has the following children baptised in Tuxford parish church Mary Ann 1814 William 1816 Eleanor 1819 James 1826 [My line] Emma 1829 I have always considered the possibility that his earliest memories were in Tuxford and that he assumed that was where he was born. Mavis, I have never considered the Apprentice records but I will look into them as soon as possible Is the Guildhall in Nottingham City. I have visited the Record Office some years ago Regards John -----Original Message----- From: Nivard Ovington Sent: Wednesday, February 08, 2012 11:00 AM To: Gensearcher ; [email protected] Subject: Re: [NTT] ROSSITER Family Hi John He is actually enumerated as *ROSSETER* and born *Tuxford* Notts (it always helps to give the census ref when you post) 1851 England Census about James Rosseter Name: James Rosseter Age: 70 Estimated Birth Year: abt 1781 Relation: Lodger Gender: M (Male) Where born: Tuxford, Nottinghamshire, England Civil parish: Banbury Ecclesiastical parish: South Banbury Town: Banbury County/Island: Oxfordshire Country: England Registration district: Banbury Sub-registration district: Cropredy ED, institution, or vessel: 9d Neighbors: View others on page Household schedule number: 80 Piece: 1734 Folio: 388 Page Number: 22 Household Members: Name Age <snip> James Rosseter 70 <snip> HO107; Piece: 1734; Folio: 388; Page: 22; GSU roll: 193644. The man above is U(nmarried) and aged 70 and the birth place seems a little specific if he was actually born in Somerset although as we know things may not be recorded correctly Have you checked Tuxford to rule out a baptism there for a ROSSITER or any other James of the same period In the 1841 there is a James ROSSITER of the right age not so far from Witham Friary who may be the same man in 1851 less than ten miles from Witham Friary Have you found him in 1841? (your post is a little mixed up with dates etc) Nivard Ovington in Cornwall (UK) PS its always best to create a new mail for a first post, you will see why if you check the archives to find yours part of another unrelated thread > Good morning all > I am trying to find the birth place of James ROSSITER born 1872 [ cal from > 141 census] in Nottinghamshire. He is described as a Sadler > I have him on the 1851 Census in Banbury Oxfordshire in a lodging house > occupation Sadler, Born Nottinghamshire > He died in 1852 in Narrow Marsh Nottingham > > I believe that he may not have been born in Nottinghamshire > The nearest match I can get is > James Rossiter born abt 1782 in Witham Friary Somerset Parents James > Rossiter and Ann Hoddinot > > I would really appreciate any suggestions > > Regards > John > Manchester > England

Previous....... But did anyone bother to explain to Bill how FreeBMD works, where the censuses are to be found and how to find out which places were in a particular registration district, also that Mansfield RD crossed the county border between Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire? I happen to think that these things should be explained to beginners in family history, otherwise how will they learn how to research for themselves? *************** I have used FreeBMD & GRO (to order certificates), mostly on the Green name. I only get the name & the quarter on FreeBMD. Confusing when the first name is also common, like Elizabeth. Is there more to it? I have not found it to be so. You say about "how it works"....what does that mean? I am in the US & don't understand the registration district reference. I do Censuses on Ancestry & do have a local FHC/LDS center close by. Thank you Debbie

Hi John He is actually enumerated as *ROSSETER* and born *Tuxford* Notts (it always helps to give the census ref when you post) 1851 England Census about James Rosseter Name: James Rosseter Age: 70 Estimated Birth Year: abt 1781 Relation: Lodger Gender: M (Male) Where born: Tuxford, Nottinghamshire, England Civil parish: Banbury Ecclesiastical parish: South Banbury Town: Banbury County/Island: Oxfordshire Country: England Registration district: Banbury Sub-registration district: Cropredy ED, institution, or vessel: 9d Neighbors: View others on page Household schedule number: 80 Piece: 1734 Folio: 388 Page Number: 22 Household Members: Name Age <snip> James Rosseter 70 <snip> HO107; Piece: 1734; Folio: 388; Page: 22; GSU roll: 193644. The man above is U(nmarried) and aged 70 and the birth place seems a little specific if he was actually born in Somerset although as we know things may not be recorded correctly Have you checked Tuxford to rule out a baptism there for a ROSSITER or any other James of the same period In the 1841 there is a James ROSSITER of the right age not so far from Witham Friary who may be the same man in 1851 less than ten miles from Witham Friary Have you found him in 1841? (your post is a little mixed up with dates etc) Nivard Ovington in Cornwall (UK) PS its always best to create a new mail for a first post, you will see why if you check the archives to find yours part of another unrelated thread > Good morning all > I am trying to find the birth place of James ROSSITER born 1872 [ cal from > 141 census] in Nottinghamshire. He is described as a Sadler > I have him on the 1851 Census in Banbury Oxfordshire in a lodging house > occupation Sadler, Born Nottinghamshire > He died in 1852 in Narrow Marsh Nottingham > > I believe that he may not have been born in Nottinghamshire > The nearest match I can get is > James Rossiter born abt 1782 in Witham Friary Somerset Parents James > Rossiter and Ann Hoddinot > > I would really appreciate any suggestions > > Regards > John > Manchester > England

Good morning all I am trying to find the birth place of James ROSSITER born 1872 [ cal from 141 census] in Nottinghamshire. He is described as a Sadler I have him on the 1851 Census in Banbury Oxfordshire in a lodging house occupation Sadler, Born Nottinghamshire He died in 1852 in Narrow Marsh Nottingham I believe that he may not have been born in Nottinghamshire The nearest match I can get is James Rossiter born abt 1782 in Witham Friary Somerset Parents James Rossiter and Ann Hoddinot I would really appreciate any suggestions Regards John Manchester England -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] Sent: Monday, February 06, 2012 3:03 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [NTT] Wild/Wilde Family From: "Nivard Ovington" <[email protected]> > Argument? > > Is that what it was > > I thought it was a broadcast :-)> Very comical. You should be on the stage! > Perhaps you were to busy to read my post which said I had already > sent information on the WILD family to Bill and as its for another I > suspect it will take time to > digest and come back for more SNIP

I'm trying to find the marriage of Robert COCKING and Dorothy unknown. This couple had children as follows: John, baptized at Weston, Notts, 9 Apr 1725 (born 14 Mar); Robert, baptized 15 Jul 1727 at Weston; George, baptized at Tuxford, 7 Jul 1731; William, baptized at Tuxford, 16 Feb 1733; Thomas, baptized at Tuxford, 23 Feb 1737; and Joseph, baptized at Tuxford, 11 Sep 1743. This would suggest a marriage about 1723-4, however I have found nothing on IGI and hope someone has access to registers who might look them up. Robert was a Wheelwright. Also, I obviously do not have either of their parents identified. Thanks in advance, Jim Ward Cobble Hill, BC, Canada

Glad to hear you enjoyed reading this letter Judy, it is amazing to think that all those years ago our ancestors talked and your Daniel Smeaton helped my William Hunt with his belongings, and now, 185 years later we are reading the letter! The 14 years could be an error, maybe when the letter was being transcribed it was mistaken for 14. Kate, Melbourne. Thank you for posting this Kate and Dai for finding it. It is some time since I have read the NOTTs posts as they get filtered into a folder I was particularly interested in the snippet about Daniel Smeeton I have done a little research on him over the years. My direct ancestor William ROGERS b.c 1815 Nottingham who went to Calais as a lacemaker came to Australia arriving Sydney December 30 1848. On the shipping index, it states that he has a cousin living in the colony- Daniel SMEATON. I think William's wife (Mary HASLAM's mother was a SMEATON) hence the link. Sadly, Daniel died 5 July 1848, a couple of months before William actually left England. I am pretty sure he didn't marry, I have found a baptism of a Daniel Smeeton in 1800. He was convicted in 1819 and sailed in 1820 so the 14 wasn't quite correct though he was a free man in 1827 and then worked as a stone mason. Seeing early Sydney was built from sandstone, there would have been plenty of work Judy Gifford (nee Rogers), living just north of Sydney Researching ROGERS HASLAM HAZLEDINE SHACKLOCK SMEATON from Nottingham.. and yes I am a member of the ASLC- the Society of the descendants of the Lacemakers of Calais ----- Original Message ----- From: "Kate Winks" <[email protected]> To: "NOTTSGEN" <[email protected]> Sent: Sunday, January 08, 2012 10:54 AM Subject: [NTT] The Nottingham Review, 1827. Letter from William Hunt. Hi again List, Just want to thank everyone who replied to my post about a letter from Royal Veteran William Hunt which was published in The Nottingham Review in 1827. Special thanks go to Dai Bevan who was visiting a library and actually obtained the article from the above newspaper and sent to me off list. I am delighted to have the full copy as I previously only had snippets of the letter transcribed. Dai suggested I post the letters published here for anyone who may be interested, the letters give a good account of what it was like on the journey over to Sydney and food, housing conditions, wages etc. Then William travelled to Hobart Town in Tasmania where he was stationed as an overseer of a convict gang, he seemed quite proud of the fact that his gang completed the first street in Hobart Town. Williams story is very interesting, he was at the Battle of Waterloo in the 59th Regiment, although his Reg did not partake in the fighting, more covering the right flank of Wellington, also William survived the wreck of the English warship ‘Seahorse’ just off Tramore, Ireland, in 1816, and the loss of 363 lives. Sadly William died in 1828 at Birch’s Bay, Tasmania in 1828. Kind Regards to everyone, Kate Winks, Melbourne, Australia. The Nottingham Review, August 24, 1827. Extract from a letter written by William Hunt of this town who went out at the latter end of last year, as a private in the Royal Veteran Company, for New South Wales. The letter is addressed to Mr Samuel Preston of Nottingham who has obligingly favoured us with it:- Hobart Town, Van Dieman's Land 20 March 1827 Dear Friends, We had a very fine passage from Spithead to New South Wales. We had a very fresh breeze of wind through the English Channel, which made my daughter very sea-sick for the first fortnight, but she never was sick afterwards; my wife never was sick at all, and it is needless to say I never was sick. I wrote to you before we arrived at Portsmouth and stated the particulars of our situation on board which was very comfortable, as we had a large birth to ourselves; we had room enough in it to put one of our boxes which we slept in, in the birth, all the passage, and the other box we kept in the sick-bay, so that we had all our stores under our eyes. There were ten women brought to bed on the passage. We had the small pox and measles on board and we buried twelve children and one women during the passage; we had very few men sick. We anchored in Sidney Cove the 8th of July which was four months to the day from the time we left Spithead. We had no particular accident occurred worthy of notice during the passage. When we arrived at Sidney there was no place provided for our reception but they soon set to work, and cleaned out a part of soldiery barracks, and an orphan school that had been unoccupied for some time, so that in two days all was ready and we went on shore, and soon made ourselves very comfortable. As we sung out for the grog, and got our rations, which was fresh beef, so we struck up a tune on the frying pan and were all jovial together. Mrs Plowright died at Sidney four months before we arrived there; she died very suddenly. The first man that spoke to me was a Nottingham man, to ask me if we had any from Nottingham belonging to our corps; his heart leapt for joy when I told him I was from Nottingham and while we were talking, John Sinter's son came up, so they helped me with my boxes and luggage; the man's name was Daniel Smeeton; he was 14 when he left Nottingham and was for seven years; he is a free man this month; he was the same trade as me, but he has learned stone-cutting since he has been in Sidney, and was getting 2 pound a week, set wages, when I saw him.

Thank you for posting this Kate and Dai for finding it. It is some time since I have read the NOTTs posts as they get filtered into a folder I was particularly interested in the snippet about Daniel Smeeton I have done a little research on him over the years. My direct ancestor William ROGERS b.c 1815 Nottingham who went to Calais as a lacemaker came to Australia arriving Sydney December 30 1848. On the shipping index, it states that he has a cousin living in the colony- Daniel SMEATON. I think William's wife (Mary HASLAM's mother was a SMEATON) hence the link. Sadly, Daniel died 5 July 1848, a couple of months before William actually left England. I am pretty sure he didn't marry, I have found a baptism of a Daniel Smeeton in 1800. He was convicted in 1819 and sailed in 1820 so the 14 wasn't quite correct though he was a free man in 1827 and then worked as a stone mason. Seeing early Sydney was built from sandstone, there would have been plenty of work Judy Gifford (nee Rogers), living just north of Sydney Researching ROGERS HASLAM HAZLEDINE SHACKLOCK SMEATON from Nottingham.. and yes I am a member of the ASLC- the Society of the descendants of the Lacemakers of Calais ----- Original Message ----- From: "Kate Winks" <[email protected]> To: "NOTTSGEN" <[email protected]> Sent: Sunday, January 08, 2012 10:54 AM Subject: [NTT] The Nottingham Review, 1827. Letter from William Hunt. > Hi again List, > > Just want to thank everyone who replied to my post about a letter from > Royal Veteran William Hunt which was published in The Nottingham Review in > 1827. > > Special thanks go to Dai Bevan who was visiting a library and actually > obtained the article from the above newspaper and sent to me off list. > I am delighted to have the full copy as I previously only had snippets of > the letter transcribed. > > Dai suggested I post the letters published here for anyone who may be > interested, the letters give a good account of what it was like on the > journey over to Sydney and food, housing conditions, wages etc. > > Then William travelled to Hobart Town in Tasmania where he was stationed > as an overseer of a convict gang, he seemed quite proud of the fact that > his gang completed the first street in Hobart Town. > > Williams story is very interesting, he was at the Battle of Waterloo in > the 59th Regiment, although his Reg did not partake in the fighting, more > covering the right flank of Wellington, also William survived the wreck of > the English warship ‘Seahorse’ just off Tramore, Ireland, in 1816, and the > loss of 363 lives. > Sadly William died in 1828 at Birch’s Bay, Tasmania in 1828. > > Kind Regards to everyone, > Kate Winks, Melbourne, Australia. > > > The Nottingham Review, August 24, 1827. > > Extract from a letter written by William Hunt of this town who went out at > the latter end of last year, as a private in the Royal Veteran Company, > for New South Wales. The letter is addressed to Mr Samuel Preston of > Nottingham who has obligingly favoured us with it:- > > Hobart Town, Van Dieman's Land 20 March 1827 > > Dear Friends, We had a very fine passage from Spithead to New South Wales. > We had a very fresh breeze of wind through the English Channel, which made > my daughter very sea-sick for the first fortnight, but she never was sick > afterwards; my wife never was sick at all, and it is needless to say I > never was sick. I wrote to you before we arrived at Portsmouth and stated > the particulars of our situation on board which was very comfortable, as > we had a large birth to ourselves; we had room enough in it to put one of > our boxes which we slept in, in the birth, all the passage, and the other > box we kept in the sick-bay, so that we had all our stores under our eyes. > There were ten women brought to bed on the passage. > We had the small pox and measles on board and we buried twelve children > and one women during the passage; we had very few men sick. We anchored in > Sidney Cove the 8th of July which was four months to the day from the time > we left Spithead. We had no particular accident occurred worthy of notice > during the passage. When we arrived at Sidney there was no place provided > for our reception but they soon set to work, and cleaned out a part of > soldiery barracks, and an orphan school that had been unoccupied for some > time, so that in two days all was ready and we went on shore, and soon > made ourselves very comfortable. As we sung out for the grog, and got our > rations, which was fresh beef, so we struck up a tune on the frying pan > and were all jovial together. > Mrs Plowright died at Sidney four months before we arrived there; she died > very suddenly. The first man that spoke to me was a Nottingham man, to ask > me if we had any from Nottingham belonging to our corps; his heart leapt > for joy when I told him I was from Nottingham and while we were talking, > John Sinter's son came up, so they helped me with my boxes and luggage; > the man's name was Daniel Smeeton; he was 14 when he left Nottingham and > was for seven years; he is a free man this month; he was the same trade as > me, but he has learned stone-cutting since he has been in Sidney, and was > getting 2 pound a week, set wages, when I saw him. We went to old Jack > Slater's the next day, and had a jovial carouse. > Slater is a prisoner for life but he has got a ticket of leave, so that he > does no Government work as long as he gets into no trouble; they are doing > very well. His wife has had a son since she arrived in Sidney so that they > have two sons and two daughters; the eldest son is as tall as his father. > Sarah the eldest is at home with the others; the other daughter is in > service, in the same place as she went to when she first came into the > colony. I can assure you, by being eye-witness, a prisoner in these > colonies is no joke, for they work twelve hours a day for Government, five > days in the week and they have only Saturday for themselves, so that it is > not now as it used to be. We were at Sidney three weeks when our company > were ordered for this place where we arrived in seventeen days. It is 700 > miles from Sidney and that nearer to England. > We have very good rations, all fresh meat, beef and mutton. My allowance > is seven pounds of meat and seven pounds of bread per week, and one quart > of rum every six days (1.2 litres) and my wife's three pounds and a half > of each, and my daughters' one-third, that is, one pound of each every > third day. Women and children are allowed no liquor - the worse for me. We > draw our liquor every Saturday, which makes a good Saturday night, then > good-bye for a week. Our pay we receive twice a month. For further > particulars, I must refer you to Wm Shaw, in his letter. Our kind love to > your wife and Susan and her husband. > Your respectfully, Wm Hunt" > From the letter to Mr Shaw, referred to above, we extract the following:- > "This Island is divided into two counties, Cornwall and Buckinghamshire; > the assizes are held every quarter, at Launceston, and at this place > (Hobart Town). The first assizes held here after we arrived, there were > twenty-seven cast for death, four of which were reprieved and sent to a > penal settlement for life, twenty three were executed - on Wednesday > seven, Friday seven, and on Monday nine, which made twenty-three. There is > a drop here that they can execute twelve at a time. We went to see the > nine suffer, and such a sight we neither of us saw before; all of them > appeared to die very penitent. They are very severe with them here, as > most of their offences were for sheep-stealing. > At the last assizes twelve were executed and I saw all of them. There is > eleven of us here overseers over different gangs, and the rest are all > over the country; the gang that I have charge of, are in chains, and are > obliged to work with their irons on, according to the term of their > sentence, and that is commonly from one to six months each, according to > the offence, which is like crimes in the army, for being drunk or absent. > My duty with them is to keep them close to work during the appointed time, > and can assure you that they must work hard, for if the overseer reports > any of them for neglect, they are sure of twenty-five or fifty lashes. > Their allowance of provisions is one pound of bread and the same of meat > (?) but no vegetables to their meat, so that they have none too much. > They have coffee morning and night, but they say it is very bad. The work > my gang does is making the town streets and levelling and gravelling them > and I have the honour to say that I have completed the first street in > Hobart Town, and I believe there are nineteen more want completing, so > that if, please God, I live and have my health, I have three years' work > cut out for me. My superintendent told me that we were to serve three > years as overseer, and then have a grant of land given to us, equal to > former settlers, and receive our pensions here, so that these three years > will just bring me in one shilling a day, if England can afford to pay it > me! I saw and drank with John Slater at Sidney; his wife and family are > with him, doing very well; they keep a shop, and sell almost every thing, > not forgetting a "drop of the creature", but I think the old man drinks > most of the profits. > "We have found many Nottingham men here, and Alfred Gelding is at this > place, and in good health, doing very well, as he is a tailor, which is > one of the best trades in the colony; and Mr Lamb's son is here, he is > doing very well; and Geo. Lackenby is here, and is very well. We heartily > wish you were all as well off as we are, for, thank God, and my lucky > stars, that we don't want for the common necessaries of life; for we have > plenty to eat and drink, and a good bed to lay upon at night." > We have also seen two other letters from William Hunt, from which we glean > the following particulars:- > "Sydney is very pleasant town, and there is a good and well supplied > market every Thursday, and public houses are almost as thick together as > in Nottingham; rum is 1s the half-pint and plenty of good wine at 1s 3d > per quart. Vegetables are very dear; we had to pay 6d for one cabbage, and > potatoes are three halfpence a pound, bread 2d, meat 6d; tea, very good, > 3s and sugar 4 1/2 per pound; soap and candles 1s per pound; very > indifferent ale 9d per quart. Wearing apparel is very dear indeed, but the > working people are paid very well for their labour; tailors, shoemakers, > bricklayers and stonemasons, can earn from 10s to 15s per day. When we had > been at Hobart-town about a fortnight we got a place of service for our > daughter, at one of the first merchants in the colony, to nurse a child > five weeks old; her wages are 13 Pound a year, and we draw her rations, > the same as if she was with us. > "My station is over a gang of convicts, consisting of from forty to > eighty, all in chains, with heavy irons round each leg; the cause of the > different number of them is, they are put in irons for a certain time, > some for one, two, and three months, and others for six months, or during > the Lieutenant-Governor's pleasure; I have one that has been for pleasure > one year and five months; their sentences are according to the nature and > degree of the offence they may have committed and they never take their > irons off until they have served their sentence, day or night. > I fetch them from the prison barracks at half-past five in the morning, > and they work till nine o'clock, and out again at ten till one, for > dinner; then again from half-past two till six at night; in winter time > was work from seven in the morning till five in the evening, when I take > them into the barracks, where they remain till I fetch them out in the > morning. As there is no place provided for me in the barracks, I am > obliged to find my own quarters, though I have petitioned to the > Lieutenant-Governor, and wrote to the chief Engineer of my department, but > all to no effect. The other overseers in town are similarly situated. > We have two rooms upon a floor, for which I pay three shillings per week > currency, but they are very pleasantly situated, about half a mile from > town. The business I have with my gang, is to overlook them with a stick > in my hand, and to see them work, and I am obliged to be very severe with > them, to keep them properly under; and yet they say I am the best overseer > they ever had, for were I to make the least report against them for being > idle, they would get five-and-twenty or fifty lashes, so that I abstain > reporting them as much as possible, for whatever the overseer says is > law." > > > Notts Surname List > > http://homepages.ihug.co.nz/~hughw/notts.html > > ------------------------------- > 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

On 2012/02/07 18:40, [email protected] wrote: > What does really infuriate me is the vociferous and strident propaganda put > out by the politically correct loonies of today's gay brigade, whether male > or female, who are always trying to "out" Florence Nightingale as a lesbian > purely because she never married and had close friendships with women. > Whatever Florence did is none of anybody's damned business today! It is also > the perversion of history that upsets me. The word 'vocation' seems to have gone out of fashion! -- Regards, Mike Fry Johannesburg

Replied off list. Brian Binns From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 07 February 2012 16:40 To: [email protected]; [email protected]; Elizabeth Lee Pugh Subject: Re: [NTT] "partners" From: "Elizabeth Lee Pugh" < [email protected] > > Hello Brian > I would definitely say they were business partners - but who is to > say whether there was a lesbian relationship as well - I am sure > they existed. > I have seen two women dressmakers described as head of household and > partner in various censuses. > Also two teachers running a girls´ school were sometimes > enumerated as head and partner.> I do not believe that anyone is entitled to leap to such conclusions, given the length of time that has passed. Yes, of course, there were undoubtedly lesbian relationships in Victorian and earlier times but who are we to judge or say what might have been? Maybe they were entirely innocent relationships of two people who simply chose to share their lives for friendship in a more innocent age. What does really infuriate me is the vociferous and strident propaganda put out by the politically correct loonies of today's gay brigade, whether male or female, who are always trying to "out" Florence Nightingale as a lesbian purely because she never married and had close friendships with women. Whatever Florence did is none of anybody's damned business today! It is also the perversion of history that upsets me. -- Roy Stockdill Genealogical researcher, writer & lecturer Newbies' Guide to Genealogy & Family History: www.genuki.org.uk/gs/Newbie.html "There is only one thing in the world worse than being talked about, and that is not being talked about." OSCAR WILDE _____ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2012.0.1913 / Virus Database: 2112/4793 - Release Date: 02/06/12 _____ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2012.0.1913 / Virus Database: 2112/4794 - Release Date: 02/07/12

From: "Elizabeth Lee Pugh" <[email protected]> > Hello Brian > I would definitely say they were business partners - but who is to > say whether there was a lesbian relationship as well - I am sure > they existed. > I have seen two women dressmakers described as head of household and > partner in various censuses. > Also two teachers running a girls´ school were sometimes > enumerated as head and partner.> I do not believe that anyone is entitled to leap to such conclusions, given the length of time that has passed. Yes, of course, there were undoubtedly lesbian relationships in Victorian and earlier times but who are we to judge or say what might have been? Maybe they were entirely innocent relationships of two people who simply chose to share their lives for friendship in a more innocent age. What does really infuriate me is the vociferous and strident propaganda put out by the politically correct loonies of today's gay brigade, whether male or female, who are always trying to "out" Florence Nightingale as a lesbian purely because she never married and had close friendships with women. Whatever Florence did is none of anybody's damned business today! It is also the perversion of history that upsets me. -- Roy Stockdill Genealogical researcher, writer & lecturer Newbies' Guide to Genealogy & Family History: www.genuki.org.uk/gs/Newbie.html "There is only one thing in the world worse than being talked about, and that is not being talked about." OSCAR WILDE

Elizabeth, I’ve re-checked the censuses and the lady I have researched, Elizabeth Thompson Eaglesfield was described as a partner to Ellen Rowe on the 1891 census. They are at the same address on the 1901 census but the enumerator failed to write in anything in the “Relation to head of house” column. Elizabeth died in 1904 so I cannot check a later census. However I did look at the 1881 census, and both Elizabeth and Ellen were working as servants in the same household, so they obviously knew each other for well over 20 years. They were both single and were certainly good friends if nothing else. Brian Binns From: Elizabeth Lee Pugh [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 07 February 2012 15:37 To: [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: "partners" Hello Brian I would definitely say they were business partners – but who is to say whether there was a lesbian relationship as well – I am sure they existed. I have seen two women dressmakers described as head of household and partner in various censuses. Also two teachers running a girls’ school were sometimes enumerated as head and partner. Best regards Elizabeth Pugh Whitehorse Yukon Canada _____ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2012.0.1913 / Virus Database: 2112/4793 - Release Date: 02/06/12 _____ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2012.0.1913 / Virus Database: 2112/4793 - Release Date: 02/06/12

Hi Brian, I too found one like this in my family but further research explained they were partners in running a school. My ancestor was a school mistress but the 'partner' was the finance behind it. Best wishes Shirley -------Original Message------- From: Brian Binns Date: 07/02/2012 12:38:51 To: [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: [NTT] FW: Partner Further to this question, I should have added that both are listed as Dressmaker - so they could be partners in a business - but surely that Wouldn't be recorded in the "Relation to Head of Family" column? Brian Binns From: Brian Binns [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 07 February 2012 12:36 To: '[email protected]'; '[email protected]' Subject: Partner A question. I have found a female on the 1891 census living with another female of a Similar age. One is listed as "head" the other as "partner." I cannot get Away from treating the word partner in its 21st century meaning, but am I Wrong in applying that to a 19th century relationship. Did this word have a Standard meaning in Victorian times, or am I reading into this something That just isn't there. Brian Binns _____ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2012.0.1913 / Virus Database: 2112/4793 - Release Date: 02/06/12 _____ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2012.0.1913 / Virus Database: 2112/4793 - Release Date: 02/06/12 Notts Surname List http://homepages.ihug.co.nz/~hughw/notts.html ------------------------------- 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

Further to this question, I should have added that both are listed as Dressmaker - so they could be partners in a business - but surely that wouldn't be recorded in the "Relation to Head of Family" column? Brian Binns From: Brian Binns [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 07 February 2012 12:36 To: '[email protected]'; '[email protected]' Subject: Partner A question. I have found a female on the 1891 census living with another female of a similar age. One is listed as "head" the other as "partner." I cannot get away from treating the word partner in its 21st century meaning, but am I wrong in applying that to a 19th century relationship. Did this word have a standard meaning in Victorian times, or am I reading into this something that just isn't there. Brian Binns _____ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2012.0.1913 / Virus Database: 2112/4793 - Release Date: 02/06/12 _____ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2012.0.1913 / Virus Database: 2112/4793 - Release Date: 02/06/12

A question. I have found a female on the 1891 census living with another female of a similar age. One is listed as "head" the other as "partner." I cannot get away from treating the word partner in its 21st century meaning, but am I wrong in applying that to a 19th century relationship. Did this word have a standard meaning in Victorian times, or am I reading into this something that just isn't there. Brian Binns _____ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2012.0.1913 / Virus Database: 2112/4793 - Release Date: 02/06/12

Hi, just been looking for ancestors on the 1911 Census and found my Great Grandfather Robert Randall living at Sandhole Farm, Mansfield. Occupation - Farmer. Married to Harriett. I wonder if anyone knows if Sandhole Farm, Mansfield is still there..........or probably a giant housing estate now? Thanks. Lin

Roy's comments on Census errors also bring to mind other reasons why the facts may differ from what you find in an index: The process involved somebody filling in the form, somebody else copying that onto another sheet, and then that sheet being transcibed for the index. Lots of room for errors there. Going back to what was first written, the target may be a border, pupil, servant or in an institution and what was written more what the form filler thought. More errors. Even within a family, the forename may be the name the target was usually called, not the baptismal name. Place of birth may have been more the answer to "where are you from?" or even correct, but different from usual residence and baptismal place (born back at granny's place). Age was frequently falsified - even by the target, out of vanity, modesty or pure fun. Even allowing for all that, some of my lot found a place to hide where nobody counted them - or those sheets have not survived. Brian Taylor

I'm trying to find the marriage of Thomas DOUGLAS and Elizabeth FREEMAN. Elizabeth was born in 1760 in Rampton,Notts along with her siblings. Elizabeth married Thomas Douglas sometime around 1790 as her first child Elizabeth Douglas was born 14 Feb. 1790 in Grove,Notts. According to the baptism entry, Thomas was a servant to Mr. Eyre. I wonder if anyone who has access to the Rampton and Grove parish registers could see if there is a marriage around 1790. There's nothing on the IGI and I don't know where else to look! Thanks for any help. Ruth Ontario,Canada

Hello Brian I would definitely say they were business partners – but who is to say whether there was a lesbian relationship as well – I am sure they existed. I have seen two women dressmakers described as head of household and partner in various censuses. Also two teachers running a girls’ school were sometimes enumerated as head and partner. Best regards Elizabeth Pugh Whitehorse Yukon Canada

I wrote..... > But did anyone bother to explain to Bill how FreeBMD works, where the > censuses are to be found and how to find out which places were in a particular registration > district, also that Mansfield RD crossed the county border between Nottinghamshire and > Derbyshire? I happen to think that these things should be explained to beginners in family > history, otherwise how will they learn how to research for themselves?< There's an old Eskimo saying (or maybe it's Chinese, I'm not sure) that goes something like this: "Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach him HOW to fish and you feed him for the rest of his life." Applied to genealogy and family history, this makes a good deal of sense to me. It isn't sufficient just to send people information from FreeBMD, the census returns and other sources etc. It's the duty of we advanced genealogists, in my book, to teach newcomers how these sources and programs work. With FreeBMD, for instance, I happen to think it is vital always to look at the additional pages telling you what places are found in a particular registration district, when they were taken into that RD and also when they were moved to a different district, as so many changes have taken place in registration districts since civil registration came in in 1837. You need to know also where places are and if I am not familiar with a particular area I happen to be researching in, the very first thing I do is look it up with Google, find the appropriate maps, etc. because if you can't find an event in one parish very often it can be located in a contiguous (adjacent) parish. Likewise with the census returns, I know lots of little tricks to find people who don't want to be found! Quite often I can find difficult subjects by omitting the surname from the search, entering only a forename, approximate birth year and a place, then trawling through what is often a lengthy list of possibles that comes up. Usually the subject is "hiding" in a garbled version of the name which has been badly transcribed - Ancestry is especially prone to this, though Nivard won't agree with me! I have even on the odd occasion found someone masquerading under a different name but the forename(s), age and birthplace fit the facts. It's worth remembering that people often told fibs to the census enumerator, especially if they thought somebody was looking for them and they didn't want to be found! There are lots of techniques that we experienced researchers employ and I am always happy to pass these on to beginners and newcomers to family history. As the saying goes, it's like teaching a man how to fish instead of just giving him food which in the long run doesn't benefit him at all. -- Roy Stockdill Genealogical researcher, writer & lecturer Newbies' Guide to Genealogy & Family History: www.genuki.org.uk/gs/Newbie.html "There is only one thing in the world worse than being talked about, and that is not being talked about." OSCAR WILDE

Thanks Roy you proved my point (so often our colonial cousins who get hissy & prissy ) a rude statement in itself. Perhaps its just that us colonials are better manered Cheers Gordon from Oz       Thanks, Mike! I must confess that it does so often seem to be our colonial cousins who get prissy and hissy about my opinions (not that you're a "colonial" of course!). ***************************************