I'm looking for a researcher who uses the National Archives at Kew. I would like to order a section of one particular piece of 17th century archive material. Can anyone recommend a researcher they may have used who is comfortable with mid-17th paleography? I have a list of contractors from the National Archives, and I know I could use one of theirs. Am I right in assuming that they would assign the appropriate person to my particular request? Many thanks, Suella Postles On 9 January 2014 08:00, <nottsgen-request@rootsweb.com> wrote: > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Re: NOTTSGEN Digest, Vol 7, Issue 5 (Louis Mills) > 2. seekimng James Gill - VICKERS research (Balloon Expedition Co.) > 3. Re: Eliza Tindall (Lesley O'Connell) > 4. Re: RANDALL at Sand Hole Farm, Mansfield (Ann Bassford) > 5. Harriett SAXTON b.1848 (Doreen) > 6. Re: Harriett SAXTON b.1848 (Mike Fry) > 7. Re: Harriett SAXTON b.1848 (Dai & Angela Bevan) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Wed, 8 Jan 2014 09:58:08 -0800 (PST) > From: Louis Mills <louis_mills@att.net> > Subject: Re: [NTT] NOTTSGEN Digest, Vol 7, Issue 5 > To: "nottsgen@rootsweb.com" <nottsgen@rootsweb.com> > Message-ID: > <1389203888.69034.YahooMailNeo@web184301.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 > > The NBI has many of the same problems as the IGI.? In fact, some of the > data was brought over from the IGI. > > 1.? Parish names are sometimes incorrect. > 2.? Church dedications are incorrect. > 3.? Individual names/dates are incorrect. > 4.? Some entries were omitted. > > It has been estimated that the IGI's error rate is about 10%.? I haven't > seen statistics for the NBI.? But ANY entry you find should be checked > against the parish register or the Bishop's Transcript. > > But both of these indexes are still a good starting point.? Just don't > don't trust them completely. > > I have also found errors in the dedications noted in White's and Kelley's > Directories.? You best bet is to go to the church and lay eyes upon the > signs.? A handful of churches were rededicated after a major rebuild or > restoration.? Normally, the old dedication was renewed, but it was an > opportunity to recast the dedication to one that everyone felt was more > appropriate. > > ??????? Lou > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Thu, 9 Jan 2014 11:47:44 +1300 > From: "Balloon Expedition Co." <balexped@ihug.co.nz> > Subject: [NTT] seekimng James Gill - VICKERS research > To: <NOTTSGEN@rootsweb.com> > Message-ID: <AC774ABA589B4EC882895D0A2ACFA361@diane49b4da1eb> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" > > please email back if still on this board > > thanks > Di McKee > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 3 > Date: Thu, 9 Jan 2014 02:56:05 +0100 > From: "Lesley O'Connell" <lesleyo@tesco.net> > Subject: Re: [NTT] Eliza Tindall > To: <nottsgen@rootsweb.com> > Message-ID: <D3C515C098EE45909620B2D31A64FCC9@nolo> > Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; > reply-type=original > > > > > Hi Carolyn > > As you say, St Wilfrid's churchyard was closed for burials in 1883. The > local council now maintain it, although I suspect that the Church of > England > still theoretically have 'jurisdiction'. See > > http://southwellchurches.history.nottingham.ac.uk/kirkby-st-wilfrid/hchyard.php > . > The parish records have been deposited at Nottingham Archives. > > It seems very likely that Eliza was indeed buried at St Wilfrid, all the > other churches, St Thomas, St Andrew and St John, having been built in the > 20th century and the local cemeteries all postdate > Eliza's death. > > Regards > Lesley > Aveyron, France > > > > ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > At present, the NBI seems to indicate that Eliza Tindall, who was born 24 > Feb 1840 and died 11 Mar 1840, was buried 13 Mar 1840 in Kirkby in Ashfield > in a cemetery dedicated to St. Thomas. The denomination of St. Thomas is > Anglican. The coverage for this NBI entry spans the years 1813 to 1963. > > > > Eliza Tindall was christened 01 Mar 1840 in the Parish Church of Kirkby in > Ashfield . I have been under the impression from my research that the only > Anglican church in that area at the time was St. Wilfrid's, a very ancient > church. In 1866, the tower portion of the church was rebuilt due to decay, > and in 1907, the church was destroyed by fire except for the rebuilt Tower > and a couple of lower walls. Parish records were rescued and survived the > fire. The church was rebuilt using many of the original features, and it > was ready for worship by November 1908. I understand that St. Wilfrid's > remains an active church today according to information on the Internet. > However, St. Wilfrid's Churchyard was closed to burials in November 1883. > > > > I also understand that due to the expansion of mining in the area, and a > large influx of people, another Anglican Parish was established on 23 May > 1903. This church was dedicated to St. Thomas. A second source indicated > that the church of St. Thomas was built in 1910. > > > > Regardless when St. Thomas was built, it seems to me that all of this > building, fire, rebuilding, closure of the cemetery, and establishing the > Parish of St. Thomas all post-date the death and burial of Eliza Tindall in > March 1840. > > > > Shouldn't Eliza Tindall be buried somewhere in St. Wilfrid's Churchyard? > > > > This is my dilemma--I need to understand what has happened between what I > know and what the NBI reports. Who has jurisdiction over the graves in > St. > Wilfrid's Churchyard? And, I need to do all of this from the USA! > > > > Thanks in advance to anyone who can shed light on this situation, > > > > Carolyn > > in sub-zero Minnesota, USA > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 4 > Date: Thu, 09 Jan 2014 15:07:38 +1300 > From: Ann Bassford <forest.ann@xtra.co.nz> > Subject: Re: [NTT] RANDALL at Sand Hole Farm, Mansfield > To: nottsgen@rootsweb.com > Message-ID: <52CE046A.8050609@xtra.co.nz> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed > > Hi Lin, > > On the Find My Past 1911 census the address for Sand Hole Farm is given > as Berry Hill Road, Mansfield. > If you contact Frank Innes or Bairstow Eves Estate Agents or others in > Mansfield who will know Berry Hill Road, they may be able to help you. > I just Googled - estate agents, Mansfield, England > Good luck, > Ann in warm NZ > > On 7/01/2014 9:11 a.m., Lcsearch3528@aol.com wrote: > > Hello, > > > > On the 1911 Census my Gr Grandfather Robert Randall & his wife Harriett > > (nee Linney) were living at Sandhole Farm, Mansfield and despite doing a > > 'Google Search' I can find no mention of this farm. I wonder if anyone > knows > > where it was, whether it is still there (unlikely) or maybe its under a > > housing estate now, but it would be interesting to have a bit of > information > > about. > > > > The census also shows that they had 11 children, 4 of whom died and 7 > were > > alive at the time of the census. > > > > If anyone knows even a little bit of information that would be lovely. > > > > Best wishes, > > > > Lin > > > > > > Notts Surname List > > > > http://homepages.ihug.co.nz/~hughw/notts.html > > > > ------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > NOTTSGEN-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 5 > Date: Thu, 9 Jan 2014 17:46:03 +1030 (Cen. Australia Daylight Time) > From: "Doreen" <reen2@optusnet.com.au> > Subject: [NTT] Harriett SAXTON b.1848 > To: "Nottsgen" <nottsgen-l@rootsweb.com> > Message-ID: <52CE4CB2.000003.05232@DOREEN-PC> > Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > > Happy New Year to All > > I am in a bit muddle about an entry on Ancestry. > To make it clear, I have included the Census' 1851, 1861, 1871 and the > marriage entry of Harriet SAXTON to whom I am referring too. > I was just checking the 1881 on Ancestry before I got any certificates and > someone has put a correction in (well I think it is a correction?) There > is > no other marriages or deaths for my Harriet SAXTON between 1861 and 1881. > > Would some kind person be able to look at the original and see if they can > work it out please? > Will be subscribing to Ancestry in the next few weeks when I have got > together what I want to check on the site. > Thank you Doreen > Name:Harriett Ball > [Harriett Broomhead] > Age:33 > Estimated Birth Year:abt 1848 > Relationship to Head:Head > Father:Henry Broomhead > Gender:Female > Where born:Nottinghamshire, England > > Civil Parish:Nottingham St Mary > County/Island:Nottinghamshire > Country:England > > Street Address:11 Nelson St > Marital Status:Windower (Widower) > Household Members:NameAge > Harriett Ball 33 > George Ball 14 > Henry Ball 11 > Harriett Ball 8 > Louisa Ball 6 > Henry Broomhead 45 > > > > Marriages Jun 1867 > Saxton Harriett, nott'm, 7b,335 > George Frederick BALL > > 1851 census Saulsbury Sq. > Charles SAXTON, head, m, 21, occ Cabinetmaker/journeyman, born Nott'm > Sarah SAXTON, wife, 20, born Nott'm > Harriet SAXTON, dau, 3, born Nott'm (Anet)? > Elizabeth SAXTON, dau, 1, born Nott'm > > 1861 census of RADFORD NOTT'm film no 0542973 RG2451. > Eyre St, Snienton, > Charles SAXTON,head,marr,31? Cabinet maker,born Nott'm, > Sarah,wife,29,born Nott'm, > Anet, dau,13, born, Nott'm, > Elizabeth ,dau, 11, born, Nott'm, > Eliza, dau, 8, born,Nott'm, > Joseph, son, 6, born Sneinton, > > 1871 Census, Nottingham, St Mary > 10 Nelson St > George BALL, head, mar, 25, Coach Smith, born Nott'm > Harriett BALL, wife, 23, Lace Hand, born Nott'm > George BALL, son, 4, Scholar, born Nott'm > Harry BALL, son, 11 months, born Nott'm > Charles MELLOR, lodger, mar, 20, Shoe maker, born Nott'm > Elizabeth MELLOR, lodger, mar, 19, Cotton Doubler, born Spalding Linc's > > > ----- > No virus found in this message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 2014.0.4259 / Virus Database: 3658/6987 - Release Date: 01/08/14 > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 6 > Date: Thu, 09 Jan 2014 09:30:59 +0200 > From: Mike Fry <fredbonzo@iafrica.com> > Subject: Re: [NTT] Harriett SAXTON b.1848 > To: nottsgen@rootsweb.com > Message-ID: <52CE5033.6000603@iafrica.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed > > On 2014/01/09 09:16, Doreen wrote: > > > I am in a bit muddle about an entry on Ancestry. > > I'm not surprised! > > > To make it clear, I have included the Census' 1851, 1861, 1871 and the > > marriage entry of Harriet SAXTON to whom I am referring too. > > I was just checking the 1881 on Ancestry before I got any certificates > and > > someone has put a correction in (well I think it is a correction?) > There is > > no other marriages or deaths for my Harriet SAXTON between 1861 and 1881. > > To me, these are two different Harriet BALLs. Your Harriet's father was > Charles. > Not Henry. > > I do wish that people wouldn't try and be helpful by entering women's > maiden > names as alternative or corrections. They may know what they're doing, but > it > doesn't help other people. It just confuses the issue and makes it easier > to go > off down the wrong track. > > -- > Regards, > Mike Fry > Johannesburg > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 7 > Date: Thu, 09 Jan 2014 07:55:21 +0000 > From: Dai & Angela Bevan <daibevan@clara.co.uk> > Subject: Re: [NTT] Harriett SAXTON b.1848 > To: nottsgen@rootsweb.com > Message-ID: <52CE55E9.3090404@clara.co.uk> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" > > > Hello Doreen, > The 1881 census clearly describes Henry Broomhead, 45, Lacemaker. born > Chesterfield, as the father of the head of household - 33 year old > Harriet > Ball. > This clearly seem most unlikely, but is why someone has written > 'Broomhead' > as an alternative name. > In 1871 36 year ld Henry Broomhead is in Bunker's Hill, Macclesfield > Cheshire with an 18 year old wife, Ann. > I would suggest that you are quite right in thinking this is your > Harriet in > 1881, and that the enumeratior has the wrong relationship for Henry > Broomhead. > Dai > > On 09/01/2014 07:16, Doreen wrote: > > Happy New Year to All > > I am in a bit muddle about an entry on Ancestry. > To make it clear, I have included the Census' 1851, 1861, 1871 and the > marriage entry of Harriet SAXTON to whom I am referring too. > I was just checking the 1881 on Ancestry before I got any certificates and > someone has put a correction in (well I think it is a correction?) There > is > no other marriages or deaths for my Harriet SAXTON between 1861 and 1881. > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of NOTTSGEN Digest, Vol 7, Issue 6 > ************************************** >