well said. Jan -----Original Message----- From: Robert Wall Sent: Monday, February 06, 2012 4:11 PM To: [email protected] Subject: [NTT] Continuing bickering How about stopping this continued thread of animosity as requested by the moderator? The web was designed for help to fellow researchers not slagging each other off...it detracts and puts people off using the site for fear of redicule! Roy, please, you may be very good at what you do, but then again so was Hitler and Stalin and I would hate to see you type cast as the "Pol Pot" of Yorkshire. Maybe it would be pertinent to take a bit of a back seat and mellow down and get the threads back on track. "There is only one thing in the world worse than being talked about, and that is not being talked about."....................Indeed PLEASE....... NO MORE......... 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

How about stopping this continued thread of animosity as requested by the moderator? The web was designed for help to fellow researchers not slagging each other off...it detracts and puts people off using the site for fear of redicule! Roy, please, you may be very good at what you do, but then again so was Hitler and Stalin and I would hate to see you type cast as the "Pol Pot" of Yorkshire. Maybe it would be pertinent to take a bit of a back seat and mellow down and get the threads back on track. "There is only one thing in the world worse than being talked about, and that is not being talked about."....................Indeed PLEASE....... NO MORE.........

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 > > But that is of course up to Bill > > Nivard Ovington in Cornwall (UK)> 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? -- 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

Argument? Is that what it was I thought it was a broadcast :-) 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 But that is of course up to Bill Nivard Ovington in Cornwall (UK) > > In the argument over privacy, we all seem to have forgotten the original query! We are still > waiting for Bill to tell us what it is he wants to know about the Wilde/Wilde family. > > I have already posted that Ellen wasn't born at Mansfield but at Tibshelf, Derbyshire, > according to the 1911 census. Tibshelf lies on the Derbyshire side of the Derbyshire-Notts > border but was in Mansfield registration district which straddled the two counties. Given this > fact, it seems quite likely to me that Sylvanus and Emma married at Tibshelf as well and not > in Mansfield because Ellen's birthplace is also given as Tibshelf, Derbyshire. > > Here's how to check, Bill.....

From: "Bill James" <[email protected]> > Goodmorning everyone, > I live in Queensland, Australia and I'm trying to track the > Wild/Wilde family. Ellen Wild was born 1907 at Mansfield, Nottingham > and died in Rotherham, Yorkshire in 1995. Her parents were Sylvanus > Wild and Emma Elliott who married in Mansfield in 1905. > My apologies if I have posted this wrongly but I am new to this type > of request and if some kind person should find time to advise me one > way or the other I would appreciate it. > Thank you in anticipation, > Bill James. > In the argument over privacy, we all seem to have forgotten the original query! We are still waiting for Bill to tell us what it is he wants to know about the Wilde/Wilde family. I have already posted that Ellen wasn't born at Mansfield but at Tibshelf, Derbyshire, according to the 1911 census. Tibshelf lies on the Derbyshire side of the Derbyshire-Notts border but was in Mansfield registration district which straddled the two counties. Given this fact, it seems quite likely to me that Sylvanus and Emma married at Tibshelf as well and not in Mansfield because Ellen's birthplace is also given as Tibshelf, Derbyshire. Here's how to check, Bill..... At FreeBMD (freebmd.rootsweb.com) look up the marriage. Then click on the underlined blue link, Mansfield. This brings up another page which tells you that Mansfield spanned the boundaries of Derbyshire and Nottinghamshire and more information can be found "here". Click on this link and you will get another page that lists all the places that were in the Mansfield registration district, You will see Tibshelf is among them and if you follow the instructions and scroll down to the bottom you will see a note that tells you it was transferred to Chesterfield RD in 1937. However, the only way to discover where they married is to buy the marriage certificate. FreeBMD also has the birth of Sylvanus Wild in Chesterfield RD in the March quarter of 1884 (vol 7b page 673) and looking at the page for Chesterfield will tell you that it included Clay Cross, which is what is given as Sylvanus's birthplace in the censuses of 1891-1911 (though the birth year differs slightly, which was quite common in the Victorian censuses). Sylvanus was a coal miner hewer in 1911 and his parents were Thomas Wild (also a coal miner) and Matilda. They were at Tibshelf in 1901 also. Now what else is it you want to know? Feel free to ask because this is what I am extremely good at (despite what my detractors may think) being a professional researcher. Normally I make a charge for my services but I am always happy to help people, especially beginners, in these mailing lists. -- 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

From: Mike Fry <[email protected]> > On 2012/02/06 06:27, [email protected] wrote: > > > I couldn't agree more with John Poxon. I have watched Roy's > comments on lists for many years and they have never changed they are always rude& > arrogent .It appears everyone is entitled to there opinion as long as it > agrees with his. >> As a proud Australian I agree with their privacy laws 100%,if > I choose to pass on my private information that is my choice but nobody else > should have that right without my permission.Now everyone including myself > cool down. > > Must be a cultural thing. It only ever seems to be the non-English > (by residence) that seem to complain about Roy. > > -- > Regards, > Mike Fry > Johannesburg> 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!). Some people seem not to understand that a bit of robust debate now and then is a very healthy thing for democracy. As I have repeatedly tried to point out, talk of privacy is sheer nonsense when we all appear on umpteen databases kept by government, local councils, the NHS, police, big companies etc. And do I really have to spell it out yet again - your birthdate is NOT YOUR EXCLUSIVE PROPERTY OR A STATE SECRET!!! It is a matter of public record - FACT. -- 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

From: Elizabeth Lindsay <[email protected]> > Unpleasant or uncomfortable as some things may be, the truth needs > to be told. Different people react differently so the important thing is > to know the facts. The more one hides the truth, the more possible it > is to spread fiction. > The idea of a "right to privacy" is a trait of the 20th century - > before then, no matter who you were, everyone in the village or the > neighbourhood knew all about you - good or bad. That was how the > social fabric operated. If you did the wrong thing, everyone would know and > you would have to face the consequences of their disapproval as well as > the statutory punishment. > > In the case of identity fraud, which is what many people are > concerned about nowdays, it is not really the BMD facts that are the problem, > but the everyday bills and letters that are used. > In Australia, we have a 100 point identity process - most points for > a passport, but one can also use household utility accounts to > establish an identity and these can be stolen from letter boxes any day of the > year. This happened to a distant relative of mine in the 1990's and > she explained that it was her daily routine and the everyday artifacts > from that routine that were watched, then stolen. > So added to Roy's warning about using your mother's maiden name, if > you are really concerned, don't follow the same routine every day and > put a lock on your letter box. > > As for the information in a tree that is made public, as long as > your tree is accurate and well-sourced, it really doesn't matter what > someone else does with it. Someone has taken large chunks of my ancestry > tree and attached them to another one with absolutely no connection > except that the name of one person is the same, even though their history > is not the same. Yes, it is annoying, but it just illustrates that one > always needs to check facts for oneself, not rely on others. For > example, when someone shows up in a Census in a different part of > the country - is it really likely that a 15 yo girl will leave her > family in Lancashire where there is plenty of work and her family are clothing > merchants, and go to Scotland where there is no work and she has no > relatives? > In the main, my public ancestry tree has enabled many people > throughout the world to know their family history and that is a great joy to me > because until my tree was made available, there was no well-researched > and well-sourced tree available. > > Cheers, > Elizabeth > Thank you, Elizabeth, for those common sense observations, which reinforced what I have been saying. What some prissy people cannot seem to get their head around is the plain and simple fact that a birthdate - mine, yours, anybody's - is NOT a state secret or the exclusive property of the person concerned. It's a matter of public record, accessible to all, quite rightly. Think of virtually any famous person you care to name and you will find their birthdate on the internet, often at Wikipedia, and having found that it is usually a relatively simple matter to trace their family history. I know the birth-date of Queen Elizabeth II, so why shouldn't she or anyone else know mine? It never ceases to amaze me that family historians, of all people, can complain about infringement of privacy! Family historians should be the very last people to advocate censorship. Sharing our family histories with others is what it's all about and anyone who doesn't believe that shouldn't be in the business at all. They'd be better off taking up some other hobby, like photography or Japanese flower arranging! -- 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

*Ive already given a warning. Please stop this thread on Nottsgen! You are welcome* *to take it to genbrit, but not here!!! * * * * *hugh Moderator On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 5:06 AM, <[email protected]> wrote: > John > > I do not propose to answer all your points except to say that I have often > wondered how > Australian family historians ever manage to do their research at all when > access to records is > denied to them! > >

Unpleasant or uncomfortable as some things may be, the truth needs to be told. Different people react differently so the important thing is to know the facts. The more one hides the truth, the more possible it is to spread fiction. The idea of a "right to privacy" is a trait of the 20th century - before then, no matter who you were, everyone in the village or the neighbourhood knew all about you - good or bad. That was how the social fabric operated. If you did the wrong thing, everyone would know and you would have to face the consequences of their disapproval as well as the statutory punishment. In the case of identity fraud, which is what many people are concerned about nowdays, it is not really the BMD facts that are the problem, but the everyday bills and letters that are used. In Australia, we have a 100 point identity process - most points for a passport, but one can also use household utility accounts to establish an identity and these can be stolen from letter boxes any day of the year. This happened to a distant relative of mine in the 1990's and she explained that it was her daily routine and the everyday artifacts from that routine that were watched, then stolen. So added to Roy's warning about using your mother's maiden name, if you are really concerned, don't follow the same routine every day and put a lock on your letter box. As for the information in a tree that is made public, as long as your tree is accurate and well-sourced, it really doesn't matter what someone else does with it. Someone has taken large chunks of my ancestry tree and attached them to another one with absolutely no connection except that the name of one person is the same, even though their history is not the same. Yes, it is annoying, but it just illustrates that one always needs to check facts for oneself, not rely on others. For example, when someone shows up in a Census in a different part of the country - is it really likely that a 15 yo girl will leave her family in Lancashire where there is plenty of work and her family are clothing merchants, and go to Scotland where there is no work and she has no relatives? In the main, my public ancestry tree has enabled many people throughout the world to know their family history and that is a great joy to me because until my tree was made available, there was no well-researched and well-sourced tree available. Cheers, Elizabeth

On 2012/02/06 06:27, [email protected] wrote: > I couldn't agree more with John Poxon. I have watched Roy's comments on lists > for many years and they have never changed they are always rude& arrogent > .It appears everyone is entitled to there opinion as long as it agrees with > his.As a proud Australian I agree with their privacy laws 100%,if I choose to > pass on my private information that is my choice but nobody else should have > that right without my permission.Now everyone including myself cool down. Must be a cultural thing. It only ever seems to be the non-English (by residence) that seem to complain about Roy. -- Regards, Mike Fry Johannesburg

Hi L isters and ROY As to Roy's query re- WILD/WHILD I have sent Bill all the available census and BMD I have found . Margaret NOTTS UK

Hi Lin   I entirely agree with your comments on Ray having helped many people and it is appropriate to acknowledge that like many others he contributes to making this a very useful resource to those of us with Notts roots.   Hello Ray   The reason I elected to read your post in response to John is that I know of and respect your professional background and experience. I now know much of your personal story too and it is a good read. The point is it was your choice to post it and include all the details. Young children do not make that choice and I don't think it should be made for them.   I have two illegitimate siblings, both have the same mother as me and neither has the same father! While that was a surprise I would not have been at all surprised to find half a dozen half-siblings sired by my dad in as many countries - who knows one may turn up one day! I discovered my mother's grandmother was charged with the wilful and felonius murder of her first born - not the child of her husband of three months. That was a shock and something I would never have told my mother who had a very romantic view of the grandmother she barely knew - many lies passed down. I did tell a younger aunt and let her tell her older siblings none of whom knew their grandmother. I feel it would have been very wrong to destroy an elderly person's happy memories of a loving grandma by revealing an ugly family secret. Most of my own generation now know the story, which when related to time and place and other factors isn't quite as bad as it sounds. Great grandma was acquitted on the murder charge and found guilty of concealing a birth for which she served two months hard labour. Her first (of seven) child to her husband was born almost nine months to the day of her release date.   You do make some very good points and I am starting to wonder how many people I know, who have no interest in FH, use their mother's maiden-names with banks etc. By the way I am a fiery red-head and also have strong opinions which I too will defend. I will attack someone's contrary opinion if I feel it is worth it but not the person themself. My intent was to decry the method and presentation of an opinion rather than deride the person giving it, did I fail in that?    I would write more and I have plenty of good stories to tell too but I am due at the home of a genuinely sweet old Yorkshire man who wants to get the hang of his new computer! Deaf as a post so communication via email as opposed to telephone calls are a great idea, I do hope it goes well!   Happy hunting to all Kara     From: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Monday, 6 February 2012 8:47 AM Subject: Re: [NTT] Privacy and nonsense etc Thanks for sharing this Roy, its very interesting.  I've read today's  messages with interest, but just want to say you have helped many people over  the years, myself included for which I thank you, and hope that you  continue to do so. Lin

Debbie, My view is that you can never really be 100%certain. How many Bill Smith possibilities in London with parents John & Mary? But we then try to qualify that using known data like ages, occupations, parents, siblings, residences etc. If the record passes all those tests we can be reasonably sure we have the right person. As others have said, it gets a little easier after 1910 when you have mother's maiden name, but prior to that you have to use a combination of FreeBMD and census records to isolate your family. It's not easy. How many people do you see with wrong certificates? And prior to 1841, you don't have census records and mother's name were often not mentioned on church baptisms. If you are having trouble with a specific case, post some details. Peter

Hello List   Some of you may, like me, have been quite shocked at the tone of a reply sent to another list member in the last 24 hours. Actually, whichever of the two opinions you agree with, I hope a lot of you were shocked.   We all have differing opinions but I feel the reply overstepped a mark in that it was extreme, expressed rudely, was derogatory towards and personally insulting to the original poster and also, on some levels, incorrect. I was disappointed to read it on a forum aimed at being helpful towards fellow family historians at all levels regardless of their experience.   Personally I agreed with the poster and I can't help feeling that most people would lean that way. The reply seemed to miss the point entirely that this was a specific and personal  situation. I would certainly hope that if I found myself in a similar situation my point of view would be respected. I perhaps naively believe that only a tiny few, of those actively researching their family trees, would deliberately ignore a request for privacy especially concerning young children.   I hope posting my response in this way has not been too confusing, I didn't think it necessary to draw attention to individuals, we all need reminding at times to use a little tact in expressing ourselves.   Regards   Kara Drury, NZ

Ray, You are entitled to your views, but you are not entitled to express them in an abusive manner such as you used to express them to me. For what it's worth, you sound like (and based on my years of experience reading your emails on this and other lists, are) a conceited arrogant person with few if any people skills. Read what your write. Time and time again it is laced with insults and condemnatory comments. It would take little to persuade me that you are really just a testy, nasty old man. You smugly talk about expressing your strongly held views in a forthright manner, but what you are really doing is giving yourself permission to be offensive. Nothing puts you above others on this list. If anything, your alleged expertise, which you brag about and spruik at every opportunity, should encourage you to deal with others in a polite and helpful manner. It does not licence you to go for the throat of every person whose views differ from yours. I should mention some facts that relate to the your opinions. The dodgy lawyer you refer to is a good friend of mine and incidentally an excellent senior litigation lawyer, who has expressed that if I choose to proceed he will do the work essentially pro bono, although I would be up for costs. My children were not born in England and so your comments about English registration information are irrelevant. There is a great difference between information about people being provided in ordinary commerce or discoverable by delving into people's lives, and personal information being published on a web-site. Privacy laws - in Australia at least, do not permit the unauthorised publication of personal information about private citizens, and they do not permit anyone to obtain birth, marriage and death certificates without appropriate identification and good reason for doing so. No doubt, you being what you are, you will rear up and attack me again. Your response will be laced with insults and denigrating remarks, because you need for whatever reason, to defeat everyone you come up against, and although you can appeal to reason and fact, you will stoop to the insults that you dish out so readily, because you find that much more satisfying than dealing with people in a civilised and polite manner. Even your response below was so predictable. Your usual tactic is to use your poison pen to cause offence, then submit a supplicating follow-up where you defend and justify yourself on exactly the grounds you used in your follow-up below. Try spending your last few years being nice to people. In return, people will like you more. Presently, there are lots of people who don't like you. In the end, it's not what you know, nor is it that your opinions differ from others, it is what sort of person you are that counts. Be nice. Regards John Poxon -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of [email protected] Sent: Monday, 6 February 2012 12:53 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [NTT] Respect for others opinions Clearly, I seem to have upset one or two people with my forthright and strongly-held opinions. I am a born-and-bred, died-in-the-wool Yorkshireman and happen to believe in calling a spade a spade and not pussyfooting and tippy-toeing around subjects that seem to worry others. If that offends some folks, then I can only apologise, but it won't change my views! As a retired journalist (over 40 years in the media in local and national newspapers) and the former editor for 10 years of the Journal of One-Name Studies for the Guild of One-Name Studies (twice an award-winning publication), yes, I hold strong opinions and I am not afraid to express them. It seems to me that in these politically correct times far too many people are terrified of saying what they think in case it upsets some timid, precious little soul. I happen to believe, as a family historian, that we should tell it like it is - warts and all - and not be shy about admitting to scandals, illegitimacies, etc, in our family history. We all have them and don't let's pretend we haven't! Now, regarding the issue of privacy, may I be permitted to make a few salient points? 1) It is perfectly open to anyone, wherever they may reside in the world, to obtain the birth, marriage or death certificate of anyone else who was born in England and Wales since 1st July 1837 when civil registration was first introduced. The system has always been a completely open one and rightly so. The reason it is open is to guard against the very thing that some people seem to worry about, i.e. fraud. There are documented cases in the 1840s when fictitious births and deaths were inserted into the registers in order that the registrar or his cohorts, who were paid by the number of entries they produced, actually invented people who never existed in order to boost their pay! One registrar in Liverpool went to jail over the scandal and there may well have been others who were never uncovered. Some of those entries are still in the GRO records today. A reason for marriage records being open and available to all is to guard against bigamous marriages (of which I have personally uncovered a number in Victorian times AND written about them in magazine articles). 2) Anyone who was born in England and Wales from the third quarter of 1911 onwards, to this day, will have their mother's maiden name recorded in the indexes, which are accessible online to everyone, as we all know, at Ancestry, Findmypast and other websites. These records are very clearly IN THE PUBLIC DOMAIN and accessible to all and it is foolish nonsense to pretend otherwise. I have pointed out earlier in this thread that anyone who gives their mother's maiden name as a codeword to their bank, building society, etc, is foolish to do so. It's not the fault of the registration system, it's the fault of the idiots who run the financial world and don't seem to have caught up with the realities. 3) If you choose to take part in mailing lists AND put your personal details and family history online, then you are laying yourself open to it being abused. You are inviting less-than-honest people to either steal or alter it!!! If you don't want your family history stolen or altered, then take my advice and keep it to yourself. There are some very unscrupulous people around, but talking of taking legal action against them is so much nonsense because you will simply be chucking away good money to parasitic lawyers who will be delighted to take it. 4) There is far too much paranoia about so-called privacy. As I pointed out also, earlier, every time I telephone a company to buy something the very first thing they ask is for my postcode. They then tell me who I am and where I live! Whether you like it or not, we all of us ARE on databases held by government, local councils, the NHS, police, big companies and lord-knows-who else. We appear in telephone books and electoral registers, our details of our birth and marriage etc, are held by somebody somewhere; thus, to claim privacy on a mailing list that can be read online all over the world is simply spurious and paranoid nonsense. Lecture over! -- 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 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

Hi list, further records added to Yesterdays site, link below. With several references to Notts connections under Barlow Settlement Examinations and Derby Board of Guardians. If link fails Google Yesterdays Journey mike -- http://homepages.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~spire/Yesterday/index.htm

I have kept out of this so far, but I agree with Roy that there is a lot of info around. indeed, I am just a couple of years younger and have been tracing downwards from Huguenot ancestors c 1685 to 2005 all the descendants I could find. Amongst others in 1938 I discovered a complicated cover up which I have meticulously untangled, in which, almost certainly a 16 year old gave birth and that child was named as the child of her parents ( unusual surnames and there IS only one marriage) BUT the putative mother was already 50, divorced and remarried, in 1927, the father (grandparents of the 1938 baby) remarried in 1942 with a son born in 1943. Fictitious Christian names were given to the young couple - a clever cover up. I DO have the certificates. Now there were at least 3 voyages, Madeira and Brisbane, and my guess is that the young Mum was brought back to England to have the child adopted in 1939 a year after her birth in Liverpool... A convenient big city in which to "lose" and mask identity not too far from where there were existing roots - Manchester and Midlands. She married with a "clean sheet" in 1945 in London. Now many of those people are probably still alive. I do know the 1943 son is. and he did not reply to my letter although I did not mention this "scandal" That is why some people do not want it all blabbed around the world. It does not bother me - but it does bother many. Jean Wood > From: [email protected] > To: [email protected] > Date: Sun, 5 Feb 2012 19:37:09 +0000 > Subject: [NTT] Privacy and nonsense etc > > Since my forthright views seem to upset some people on this list and also because I am a > believer in total honesty and integrity in family history and genealogical research and "telling it > like it is", I thought perhaps I would post my life events details, if only to show that I am no > hypocrite when I oppose the ridiculous (in my view) Rootsweb policy of not permitting > mention of living people. > > I was born on 4 July 1940 at St Luke's Hospital, Bradford, Yorkshire. This building was the > former Bradford Union workhouse which became a general hospital in the late 1920s. I > discovered, to my considerable amusement, that being born there was still regarded as a > stigma by silly little people and officials until well into the 1960s to the extent that the Bradford > Register Office only identified it with its official address, 217 Horton Lane, which is what > appears on my birth certificate with no mention of it being a hospital or former workhouse. > Paranoia reigned, even back then! > > Anyone looking for my birth in the GRO indexes will not find it until the 1st quarter of 1941 > when I was registered in Bradford, not once but twice, as Roy Stockdill and also as Roy > Midgley, the reason being that Midgley was my mother's maiden name and at the time she > wasn't married to my father, Leonard Stockdill. He was at that time still legally married to his > first wife, as I subsequently discovered when I started researching my family history about 40 > years ago. My dad was a businessman and my mum was then his secretary. My father had > also had an illegitimate daughter, my half sister whom I discovered some 30 years ago and > with whom I get on extremely well, though she lives in Australia - my dad put himself around > a bit! He married my mother in the summer of 1942 after his divorce came through. > Technically, they were well outside the requiste period of 42 days when they registered me, > but it was wartime and I expect they had other things on their mind. > > My marriage in Coventry to my wife in 1963 is also easily found in the GRO indexes and so > are the births of my two sons in Watford, Hertfordshire. Given my expertise, I can find just > about anyone who was born in Britain after 1911. > > Why am I telling all this to the list? Because, as I have explained, I happen to think that > so-called privacy and secrecy in family history is paranoid nonsense when all the records are > easily accessible and in the public domain and anyone who thinks privacy is necessary on a > mailing list really shouldn't be here 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 > > > > > > > > > > > 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

Hi Hugh, Please email me privately. There is something I need to discuss with you. Thanks John Poxon

Hi All I couldn't agree more with John Poxon. I have watched Roy's comments on lists for many years and they have never changed they are always rude & arrogent .It appears everyone is entitled to there opinion as long as it agrees with his.As a proud Australian I agree with their privacy laws 100%,if I choose to pass on my private  information that is my choice but nobody else should have that right without my permission.Now everyone including myself cool down. gordon from oz

From: [email protected] > Thanks for sharing this Roy, its very interesting. I've read > today's messages with interest, but just want to say you have helped many > people over the years, myself included for which I thank you, and hope that you > continue to do so. > > Lin > Thank you very much, Lin. I appreciate your comments. I too wish only to help people with their researches. -- 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