The keywords for documents (paper or vellum), letters, newspapers, photos, slides, negatives, fabrics and a good deal more - are" COLD, DARK, and DRY. A relative humidity of around 40 to 60%. And never fold. These are the most important, easy to remember but often neglected even in museums. Framing encourages both ultra-violet light and damp damage, and nothing precious should ever be framed. I suppose the motive is display, plus protection from dust, touching, and fumes; but it is not an option even for displayed art such as oil paintings - the Mona Lisa etc. 'Stapling to cardboard' presumably means the silk has - apart from multiple holes - contact on one side with glass which harbours growth of micro-fungi, and on the other with sulphuric acid-rich acid-bleached wood-pulp. Fabrics are best stored in shallow draws, either flat or loosely rolled between buffered acid-free tissue. John Barton ----- Original Message ----- From: "Liz Parkinson" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Sunday, November 12, 2006 9:09 AM Subject: Re: [OEL] OT - Old silk military map > Thanks, I hadnt actually thought of that - it is only a couple of miles > down > the road from me. > > Liz >> >> >>Liz, talk to the folk at the Costume Museum at Platt Fields, I'm sure >>that one of their textile conservators will advise you. >> >>John >> >> >> > > _________________________________________________________________ > Be the first to hear what's new at MSN - sign up to our free newsletters! > http://www.msn.co.uk/newsletters > > > ------------------------------- > 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 > > __________ NOD32 1862 (20061110) Information __________ > > This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system. > http://www.eset.com > >

Hi again, My sincere thanks to Liz, Judith, Roy, & Audrey for taking the time to help me with my conundrum today -- it was a thrill to come online and read your posts. The OED definitions seem to address the issue directly; given the family business in the cloth industry generally, linen manufacture & nap-raising seems a perfect fit, even if there's no means of proving it definitively. Learning that I should keep an eye out for "rowe" & "rowen" as well as "rough" & "roughen" will prove invaluable as well. Again, thanks to everyone who responded to my query; I'm very grateful for your input. Best wishes, Kristina 1639 Jan. 3. John Bedford of Doncaster "Rough man". ... Proved April 1640.

At that time, spelling was immaterial. On the whole it was do as you please as long as it sounds OK. Spelling wasn't standardised until after Dr. Johnson's dictionary which was even later disseminated through the schools set up as a result of the 1870 Education Act. For the 17th century it is a good rule of thumb to look at all sound-alikes. Audrey ----- Original Message ----- From: <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]>; <[email protected]> Sent: Saturday, November 11, 2006 6:58 PM Subject: Re: [OEL] A "Rough Man" in Doncaster in 1639 > > Thanks for your reply -- I was wondering something of the sort myself. If > John Bedford was dictating his will, the clerk could have written down > what he > heard with the result that "ruff" became "rough". Best wishes & thanks > again > for your help, Kristina > > In a message dated 11/11/2006 18:48:03 GMT Standard Time, > [email protected] writes: > > Ruff Man? > > > At 17:24 11/11/2006, [email protected] wrote: > >> >>1639 Jan. 3. John Bedford of Doncaster "Rough man". ... Proved >>April >>1640. > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and > the body of the message > > > > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > > -- > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.1.409 / Virus Database: 268.14.2/528 - Release Date: 10/11/2006 > >

Hi Kristina, The OED has the following for the verb 'rough': rough [f. the adj.] I. 1. trans. a. To raise a nap on (cloth); = row v.7 Obs. 1483-­4 Act 1 Rich. III, c. 8 §13 Tayntours..for evenynge of cloth onely after it commeth from the Mille and before it be roughed [AF. text roughez].rougher And for 'row verb 7': row, v.7 Now dial. Also 6­7 rowe; pa. pple. 5 rowen. [f. row a.1] trans. To raise a nap on (cloth). Cf. nap v.2 2. In quot. 1604 confused with the shearing process. 1487 Rolls of Parlt. VI. 403/1 An Act that no Stranger or Denizen shall carry any Woollen Clothes out of this Realme, before they be Barbed, Rowed and Shorne. 1511-­2 Act 3 Hen. VIII, c. 6 §1 The Walker..shall not rowe nor werke any Clothe or Webbe with any Cardes. 1543 Act 1 Rich. III, c. 8 §13 (Publ. Gen. Acts), Teyntours whiche hereafter shalbe vsed..for due stretchyng of cloth onely, after that it commeth fro the myll, and before it be rowen. 1557 in Hakluyt Voy. (1599) I. 298 Whether our set clothes..be rowed and shorne; because ofttimes they goe vndrest. 1604 Maldon Borough Deeds (Bundle 126, No. 1), Ad eskurand. et tondend. (Anglicè, to thick and to rowe) apud molendinum suum. 1624 in Strype Stow’s Surv. (1720) I. 130 My twelve Cloth-workers, that usually row and sheere my Clothes. 1886 Elworthy W. Somerset Wd.-bk., Row, to roughen cloth, i.e. to comb or teaze out a nap on it, as on a blanket. So that would fit in with the weaving industry. Cheers, Liz in Melbourne > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of > [email protected] > Sent: Sunday, 12 November 2006 4:24 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: [OEL] A "Rough Man" in Doncaster in 1639 > > > Hi, > > I'm hoping someone could point me in the right direction on how to look up > an elusive archaic occupation -- I've had no luck with any of the online > dictionaries accessible through family history & genealogy websites, including > genuki, and don't know where else to look. > > My reference comes from a will extract transcribed by 2 apparently > scrupulous editors over 2 editions of a Yorkshire pedigree, so I'm wary of > automatically assuming both have just misspelled the word: > > > 1639 Jan. 3. John Bedford of Doncaster "Rough man". ... Proved April > 1640. > > The quotation marks are the editors', not mine. John Bedford leaves sums of > £10 [abt £1,130.30 in 2005] & £20 [abt £2,260.59] to various grandchildren, > as well as remembering the poor of Doncaster in his will, so he seems to be > fairly well off himself. The main occupation for Bedfords/Bedforths is > centred around the cloth industry, starting off as merchants in my earliest > references, & ending up as weavers by the early 19th c. I'd be very grateful for > any tips on how to find out what "rough man" could mean. > > Many thanks for your help, > Kristina Bedford (London)

A few words -- For years we got along fine with just two rules for this list: common sense and common courtesy. Common sense does not include posting queries that have nothing to do with the subject matter, which, moreover, is discourteous to other subscribers, who subscribed expecting queries to deal with the subject. I'm not singling anyone out. This started last summer with one off-topic query and is now epidemic, with more off- than on- in recent days. This is not okay. Putting 'off-topic' in the subject does not make it okay. There are lists on RootsWeb dealing with just about anything you could want, and you can expect to find people there with the relevant expertise. There is a "list of lists" at http://lists.rootsweb.com/ or you can try the new Mailing List Search utility -- something list admins have been asking for for years -- now being tested at: http://workshop.rootsweb.com/cgi-bin/listsearch (Notice there are keyword and advanced search options -- advanced will allow you to search list names only.) Also being tested is a new search engine for mailing list archives. You can search the entire archive of a list -- not just a year at a time -- or search across mailing lists. This has been in beta for a while but if you haven't tried it yet, give it a go at http://archiver.rootsweb.com/cgi-bin/search Getting back to the lecture, this list is for help deciphering and/or understanding old English documents. That's what queries should be about, although queries about types of documents (manorial records for example) are also fine. In the course of answering such queries it may be necessary to dip into all sorts of subjects -- history, very often, for example -- but that does not make this an 'anything goes' mailing list. If limiting queries to the list subject means it goes dead for weeks at a time, so be it; a dearth of queries does not make it open season although I would entertain something tangentially related if you were to consult me before posting. Any questions, comments, retorts, etc., regarding the above, please direct them to me at [email protected] Ditto if you don't know whether a query is on topic or not. No apologies necessary should you think I'm talking about you. It's become enough of a problem that people might think it okay because they see others doing it. It isn't. cheers, Judith Werner Salt Lake City, Utah, USA Administrator, OLD-ENGLISH http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~oel/

Thanks, I hadnt actually thought of that - it is only a couple of miles down the road from me. Liz > > >Liz, talk to the folk at the Costume Museum at Platt Fields, I'm sure >that one of their textile conservators will advise you. > >John > > > _________________________________________________________________ Be the first to hear what's new at MSN - sign up to our free newsletters! http://www.msn.co.uk/newsletters

Agreed Martyn - however from what I have since learnt, I think about 3 to 6 weeks would be a fair estimate, based on calling in at Queenstown and the fact that one reply stated 3 weeks - all though at the mercy of the weather of course. The exercise is to estimate when a family left Somerset to go to Liverpool to catch the New York boat. They arrived at NY in May 1870, so they would have probably left Liverpool around January to March time. This would mean them leaving Somerset during January or February/March at the latest? Thanks for the info from all concerned - you may carry on now!! The question about "Rough Man" is interesting and the thought about misheard words (always a hazard) - I suppose the side entry was deliberately put for an identification of some sort; "Ruff Man" certainly seems to fit the bill. I shall add it to my list - Thanks. (With a question mark) Kind Regards Roy LD Cox Family Historian Member of SA&NHS Member No. 1066 (And all That!) Web Site: www.coxresearcher.com/index.htm I also use www.archivecdbooks.com and www.localhistory.co.uk/ambra for my research -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of mjcl Sent: Thursday, November 09, 2006 10:59 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [OEL] Slightly off Topic! Roy Thanks for waking us up - too many variables (or variants) i think! Martyn ----- Original Message ---- From: Roy <[email protected]> To: "[email protected] com" <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, 9 November, 2006 9:15:23 PM Subject: [OEL] Slightly off Topic! Good Evening All - Hope you will forgive this but as the airways seem a little slack at present, perhaps some kind sole could approximate how long a vessel of 1497 tons in 1870, would have taken to sail to New York from Liverpool, with 187 immigrants on board plus the crew, and which may have called at an Irish port on the way? Not all at once I beg of you! Regards - Roy ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

John May I have permission, please, to forward your message to other genealogy-related lists? We often have discussions on conserving papers, photos, fabrics, and such, and your suggestions make very good sense. One question: if they are stored in "shallow draws" (which I *think* we on this side of the Pond call "drawers"[?], meaning the pull-out storage parts of chests and dressers), doesn't there need to be some sort of buffer between the wood on the bottom of the drawer and the material to be conserved? It would seem as though acid-free tissue might well be used there, too. What about storage in the newer drawers made of plastic materials? They aren't all made of archival materials, for certain. Do the "ultra-violet-safe" framing glasses help? Obviously, there still would be the humidity problem, but I wonder if we are lulled into thinking it is safe because of the modicum of protection from ultra-violet rays... My favorite genealogy instructor tells us to make copies of every piece of paper that we want to display, then archive the original. I think she's on to something there. Thank you. Nancy in cold, snowy Michigan, US of A ----- Original Message ----- From: "John Barton" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Saturday, November 11, 2006 5:35 PM Subject: Re: [OEL] OT - Old silk military map > The keywords for documents (paper or vellum), letters, newspapers, photos, > slides, negatives, fabrics and a good deal more - > are" COLD, DARK, and DRY. > A relative humidity of around 40 to 60%. And never fold. These are the > most > important, easy to remember but often neglected even in museums. > Framing encourages both ultra-violet light and damp damage, and nothing > precious should ever be framed. I suppose the motive is display, plus > protection from dust, touching, and fumes; but it is not an option even > for > displayed art such as oil paintings - the Mona Lisa etc. > 'Stapling to cardboard' presumably means the silk has - apart from > multiple > holes - contact on one side with glass which harbours growth of > micro-fungi, > and on the other with sulphuric acid-rich acid-bleached wood-pulp. Fabrics > are best stored in shallow draws, either flat or loosely rolled between > buffered acid-free tissue. > > John Barton >

Ruff Man? At 17:24 11/11/2006, [email protected] wrote: > >1639 Jan. 3. John Bedford of Doncaster "Rough man". ... Proved April >1640.

Liz, talk to the folk at the Costume Museum at Platt Fields, I'm sure that one of their textile conservators will advise you. John At 14:25 11/11/2006, Liz Parkinson wrote: >I have just acquired an old sillk map of WW2 Burma, bright orange >with black map on it. > >It has been framed badly, the person who framed it has stapled it to >a piece of cardboard. It has a lot of creases in and a couple of >tiny tears on the creases. > >Does anyone know anything about archival care of such things. It is >pretty faded as well, having been in direct sunlight and hung over a >radiator which is permanently switched on. > >If anyone know anything about this sort of thing, please could they >contact me offlist > >Liz in Stockport

Hello Audrey, There seemed to be periods when the same family name was continued, but then dropped out of favour, didn't there. At the time I'm looking at Roger went through two or three generations, but looking at the names of children in following generations it would have fitted if Roger was one ot Thomas's sons. However this now looks unlikely - pity. Regards, Don ----- Original Message ----- From: "Norman Lee" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, November 10, 2006 11:45 AM Subject: Re: [OEL] 16TH CENTURY SERVANTS ETC. > Another thought. My family used the same three names for the males all the > time, no matter which branch of the family there were. They would give them > a number of names and just rearrange them to distinguish between each one. > Is it possible that yours may have been similar? > > Audrey > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Donald Tomkinson" <[email protected]> > To: <[email protected]> > Sent: Thursday, November 09, 2006 3:07 PM > Subject: Re: [OEL] 16TH CENTURY SERVANTS ETC. > > > > Hello Audrey, > > > > There actually was a will in which Thomas left the residue of two > > thirds of his goods to be divided amongst his children. Rauff, his > > son, was to have a cow above his child's part and he named his son > > John, with others, as his overseer. This does not seem to exclude the > > possibility of other children, and Roger would fit in nicely for age > > and the naming of subsequent children. It seems to be a snag to the > > theory as a Roger Tokenson (sic) was an appraiser with others. Of > > course there could have been two Rogers ( I'm sure that Tokenson > > should have been Tomkinson) > > > > The information about a relative acting as an appraiser where there > > was no will is interesting, although I have cases of cousins acting > > even when there was a will. > > > > It does, however, sadly look as if my theory is unlikely. > > > > Best wishes, > > Don > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Norman Lee" <[email protected]> > > To: <[email protected]> > > Sent: Wednesday, November 08, 2006 6:12 PM > > Subject: Re: [OEL] 16TH CENTURY SERVANTS ETC. > > > > > >> Dear Don > >> > >> I've just had a thought about your question and am asking one of my > > own. You > >> have a probate inventory but is there a will to go with it or does > > it > >> accompany a bond of administration? If there was no will, different > > rules > >> seem to apply and you could get a relative as an appraiser as > > relatives > >> would be those called upon to sort out the effects of the decedent > > and act > >> in lieu of an executor. Generally speaking, the chief beneficiary of > > the > >> estate plus two or three others are those named on the bonds that > > accompany > >> these inventories. These are the administrators and are called upon > > to > >> produce an inventory of the decedent's goods and chattels. > >> > >> Audrey > >> ----- Original Message ----- > >> From: "Donald Tomkinson" <[email protected]> > >> To: <[email protected]> > >> Sent: Monday, November 06, 2006 3:04 PM > >> Subject: Re: [OEL] 16TH CENTURY SERVANTS ETC. > >> > >> > >> > Many thanks again Audrey. > >> > > >> > Don > >> > ----- Original Message ----- > >> > From: "Norman Lee" <[email protected]> > >> > To: <[email protected]> > >> > Sent: Sunday, November 05, 2006 5:55 PM > >> > Subject: Re: [OEL] 16TH CENTURY SERVANTS ETC. > >> > > >> > > >> >> Dear Don > >> >> > >> >> I think the main thing to guard against was that he could not > > appear > >> > as a > >> >> beneficiary in the will or be in the line of succession. > >> >> > >> >> Audrey > >> >> > >> >> ----- Original Message ----- > >> >> From: "Donald Tomkinson" <[email protected]> > >> >> To: <[email protected]> > >> >> Sent: Saturday, November 04, 2006 3:46 PM > >> >> Subject: Re: [OEL] 16TH CENTURY SERVANTS ETC. > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > Hello Audrey, > >> >> > Many thanks for your comments. > >> >> > > >> >> > Would you rule out completely the possibility that one of the > >> >> > appraisers was the son of the deceased? > >> >> > > >> >> > Regards, > >> >> > Don > >> >> > > >> >> > ----- Original Message ----- > >> >> > From: "Norman Lee" <[email protected]> > >> >> > To: <[email protected]> > >> >> > Sent: Friday, November 03, 2006 9:03 PM > >> >> > Subject: Re: [OEL] 16TH CENTURY SERVANTS ETC. > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> >> Dear Don > >> >> >> > >> >> >> The "plus others" is possibly because the appraisers may feel > > the > >> >> > need to > >> >> >> call in someone with special knowledge of the estate. It > > doesn't > >> >> > mean that > >> >> >> there would be large numbers of them. I've looked at a lot of > >> >> > inventories > >> >> >> and have found that there are virtually never more than four > >> >> > although I > >> >> >> don't believe there were such hard and fast rules as to > > disallow > >> > it. > >> >> >> Generally speaking, the chief executor as long as he doesn't > >> > benefit > >> >> > from > >> >> >> the will plus someone who is familiar with the > >> >> >> estate and/or occupation of the deceased and perhaps a > > neighbour > >> > or > >> >> > friend > >> >> >> of the deceased too seems to be the practice. One decedent > > whose > >> >> > inventory I > >> >> >> saw was a physican and another physican from London was called > > in > >> > to > >> >> > assess > >> >> >> the value of the man's stock of medicines and medical > > equipment. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> I hope this helps. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> Audrey > >> >> >> > >> >> >> ----- Original Message ----- > >> >> >> From: "Donald Tomkinson" <[email protected]> > >> >> >> To: <[email protected]> > >> >> >> Cc: "OLD ENGLISH MESSAGE" <[email protected]> > >> >> >> Sent: Tuesday, October 31, 2006 7:05 PM > >> >> >> Subject: Re: [OEL] 16TH CENTURY SERVANTS ETC. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> >I appreciate the comments regarding the servants and > > appraisers. > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > I was hoping that sometimes the rule that appraisers should > > not > >> >> >> > benefit from a will was broken, as it would have explained a > >> >> > missing > >> >> >> > relationship. There were actually two other appraisers to > > the > >> >> >> > inventory "Plus others", which seems to imply there were > > more > >> > than > >> >> >> > four. > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > Kind regards, > >> >> >> > Don > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > ----- Original Message ----- > >> >> >> > From: "Eve McLaughlin" <[email protected]> > >> >> >> > To: <[email protected]> > >> >> >> > Cc: "OLD ENGLISH MESSAGE" <[email protected]> > >> >> >> > Sent: Sunday, October 29, 2006 4:49 PM > >> >> >> > Subject: Re: [OEL] 16TH CENTURY SERVANTS > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >> In message <[email protected]>, Donald > >> >> > Tomkinson > >> >> >> >> <[email protected]> writes > >> >> >> >> >In his will of 1569 Henry Tomkinson bequeaths a coat to > > his > >> >> > servant > >> >> >> >> >Richard Tomkinson. I understand that in those times it was > >> >> > common > >> >> >> > to > >> >> >> >> >employ a young relative as a personal servant. Can anyone > >> >> > comment > >> >> >> > on > >> >> >> >> >this practice and know how young the boys could be? > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> It was common to farm out your teenagers into the > > households > >> > of > >> >> >> > (better > >> >> >> >> off) relatives - very convenient if your son was an orphan > > and > >> >> >> > needed > >> >> >> >> male input. They could start quite young, though on the > >> > whole, > >> >> > if > >> >> >> > they > >> >> >> >> were to be useful, 12 was about the lower limit. And if the > >> > lad > >> >> > was > >> >> >> >> inheriting (uncle)'s garments, he was probably somewhere > >> > close > >> >> > in > >> >> >> > size. > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> -- > >> >> >> >> Eve McLaughlin > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> Author of the McLaughlin Guides for family historians > >> >> >> >> Secretary Bucks Genealogical Society > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > ------------------------------- > >> >> >> > 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 > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > -- > >> >> >> > No virus found in this incoming message. > >> >> >> > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > >> >> >> > Version: 7.1.409 / Virus Database: 268.13.27/517 - Release > >> > Date: > >> >> >> > 03/11/2006 > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > ------------------------------- > >> >> > 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 > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > -- > >> >> > No virus found in this incoming message. > >> >> > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > >> >> > Version: 7.1.409 / Virus Database: 268.13.27/517 - Release > > Date: > >> >> > 03/11/2006 > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> > > >> > > >> > ------------------------------- > >> > 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 > >> > > >> > > >> > -- > >> > No virus found in this incoming message. > >> > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > >> > Version: 7.1.409 / Virus Database: 268.13.27/517 - Release Date: > >> > 03/11/2006 > >> > > >> > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > ------------------------------- > > 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 > > > > > > -- > > No virus found in this incoming message. > > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > > Version: 7.1.409 / Virus Database: 268.13.27/517 - Release Date: > > 03/11/2006 > > > > > > >

I'd be grateful if anyone could tell me the minimum age of man included on the Muster Roll of 1539. Don Tomkinson

I have just acquired an old sillk map of WW2 Burma, bright orange with black map on it. It has been framed badly, the person who framed it has stapled it to a piece of cardboard. It has a lot of creases in and a couple of tiny tears on the creases. Does anyone know anything about archival care of such things. It is pretty faded as well, having been in direct sunlight and hung over a radiator which is permanently switched on. If anyone know anything about this sort of thing, please could they contact me offlist Liz in Stockport _________________________________________________________________ Windows Live™ Messenger has arrived. Click here to download it for free! http://imagine-msn.com/messenger/launch80/?locale=en-gb

Thanks for your reply -- I was wondering something of the sort myself. If John Bedford was dictating his will, the clerk could have written down what he heard with the result that "ruff" became "rough". Best wishes & thanks again for your help, Kristina In a message dated 11/11/2006 18:48:03 GMT Standard Time, [email protected] writes: Ruff Man? At 17:24 11/11/2006, [email protected] wrote: > >1639 Jan. 3. John Bedford of Doncaster "Rough man". ... Proved April >1640. ------------------------------- 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

While Liz was looking at "rough" the verb, I was looking in Oxford English Dictionary at the noun. One definition is "a particular make of linen" with this citation: Flax and Linen ... Roughs and drills are going off steadily. The citation is from 1890, however, and the only one given -- rather far removed from 1639. If evidence of earlier use could be found this would fit well with the description of the Bedfords. The process of nap-raising fits well, too, but I wonder if this was a specialty on its own or just part of the cloth finishing process. I've seen the occupation of blanket-raiser in the census (around Dewsbury, the heavy woollen area) which sounds like it might be that. I've checked other sources on hand here but none contain rough. cheers, Judith Werner Salt Lake City, Utah, USA Administrator, OLD-ENGLISH http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~oel/ I'm hoping someone could point me in the right direction on how to look up an elusive archaic occupation -- I've had no luck with any of the online dictionaries accessible through family history & genealogy websites, including genuki, and don't know where else to look. My reference comes from a will extract transcribed by 2 apparently scrupulous editors over 2 editions of a Yorkshire pedigree, so I'm wary of automatically assuming both have just misspelled the word: 1639 Jan. 3. John Bedford of Doncaster "Rough man". ... Proved April 1640. The quotation marks are the editors', not mine. John Bedford leaves sums of £10 [abt £1,130.30 in 2005] & £20 [abt £2,260.59] to various grandchildren, as well as remembering the poor of Doncaster in his will, so he seems to be fairly well off himself. The main occupation for Bedfords/Bedforths is centred around the cloth industry, starting off as merchants in my earliest references, & ending up as weavers by the early 19th c. I'd be very grateful for any tips on how to find out what "rough man" could mean.

Hi, I'm hoping someone could point me in the right direction on how to look up an elusive archaic occupation -- I've had no luck with any of the online dictionaries accessible through family history & genealogy websites, including genuki, and don't know where else to look. My reference comes from a will extract transcribed by 2 apparently scrupulous editors over 2 editions of a Yorkshire pedigree, so I'm wary of automatically assuming both have just misspelled the word: 1639 Jan. 3. John Bedford of Doncaster "Rough man". ... Proved April 1640. The quotation marks are the editors', not mine. John Bedford leaves sums of £10 [abt £1,130.30 in 2005] & £20 [abt £2,260.59] to various grandchildren, as well as remembering the poor of Doncaster in his will, so he seems to be fairly well off himself. The main occupation for Bedfords/Bedforths is centred around the cloth industry, starting off as merchants in my earliest references, & ending up as weavers by the early 19th c. I'd be very grateful for any tips on how to find out what "rough man" could mean. Many thanks for your help, Kristina Bedford (London)

Hi Will The Herefordshire FHS pre-1837 Marriage Index (now available on CD see: http://www.rootsweb.com/~ukhfhs/pubs.html ) has these BIDDULPH marriages which may help to expand what you have written: Surname (Male) Forename (Male) Date [yyyymmdd] Surname (Female) Forename (Female) Place of Marriage B/L Parish of Origin [as given in the register, + groom, = bride] BIDDULPH ANTHONY 16800615 HALL CONSTANCE LEDBURY BIDDULPH FRANCIS 17230613 BAYLEY ANNE ST.OSWALD'S HOSP WOR + LEDBURY = ST.NICHOLAS HFD BIDDULPH FRANCIS 17330701 PYNDAR MARGARET MADRESFIELD WOR BOTH WIDOWED + LEDBURY BIDDULPH JOHN 17970909 ROBERTS AUGUSTA LEDBURY L BIDDULPH MICHAEL 17570914 DANDRIDGE PENELOPE GREAT MALVERN WOR L + LEDBURY HEF BIDDULPH ROBERT 17150526 JOLLIFFE ANNE COSTON HACKETT WOR L + LEDBURY HTH Polly Living in Ledbury! Polly Rubery List admin: [email protected] A genealogy and local history list covering the Counties of Brecon, Hereford, Monmouth, Shropshire, Stafford and Worcester. [email protected] A genealogy and local history list covering the County of Hereford [email protected] ROWBERRY/RUBERY ONS - GOONS #278 [email protected] http://www.rowberry.org Webmaster for the Herefordshire Family History Society http://www.rootsweb.com/~ukhfhs/index.html

http://www.thepeerage.com/p14189.htm has the descent of some of the Biddulph family, citing BP 107th edition, etc however they have some details wrong Today I was mousing around looking for something completely different, but happened to stumble upon a long descent that Leo has on genealogics.org and is repeated, in part at <a href = "http://www.stirnet.com/HTML/genie/british/ll/lyttleton02.htm#skinn">Entry</a> on stirnet.com This descent purports to how the famous suffragette Victoria Claflin (1838-1927) who has a biography on wikipedia.com, by her third marriage to "John Biddulph Martin", who is supposed to descend from these Biddulph's. Leo however has a long descent with no dates. Stirnet typically doesn't have many useful dates. And peerage has errors citing BP evidently, which wasn't very careful. At any rate http://www.thepeerage.com/p14188.htm#i141877 John Biddulph does have exact dates, from which we can extend back and forth He was born 17 Mar 1768 and died 25 Nov 1845 "aged 77" as it says. His parents are supposed to be Michael Biddulph by Penelope Dandridge Michael's parents Robert Biddulph by Anne Joliffe I happened to find Michael's baptism 24 Jan 1724/5 Ledbury, Hereford the family of Robert Biddulph by Anne baptised there consists of Anthony 25 Apr 1717 Robert 20 Feb 1718 Thomas 22 Sep 1720 Michael 24 Jan 1724/5 Benjamin 20 Oct 1727 Francis 3 Mar 1733 So we can now know that Robert Biddulph and Anne Joliffe were married before 1717 Robert Biddulph is supposed to be the son of Anthony Biddulph by his wife Constance Hall and I do find, again at Ledbury which is quite useful, his baptism Anthony Biddulph and Constance were the parents of these baptisms Anthony 30 Jun 1681 Robert 12 Oct 1682 Michael 20 Aug 1685 Anthony himself is supposed to be the son of Robert Biddulph by his wife Mary Cullen Anthony does not seem to appear in the register but two children of Robert and Mary were Robert 26 Jan 1663 Michael 9 Mar 1664 Since Anthony is situated at Ledbury for his own offspring's records, I assume he was the eldest or at least the eldest surviving son, so allowing him to be born 1650/62 would fit him being 20 to 35 when his three known children were born. Mary Cullen is said to be a daughter of "William Cullen, Bart" Hopefully this additional specificity can help someone who is researching this group of families. Will Johnson, Professional Genealogist

Another thought. My family used the same three names for the males all the time, no matter which branch of the family there were. They would give them a number of names and just rearrange them to distinguish between each one. Is it possible that yours may have been similar? Audrey ----- Original Message ----- From: "Donald Tomkinson" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, November 09, 2006 3:07 PM Subject: Re: [OEL] 16TH CENTURY SERVANTS ETC. > Hello Audrey, > > There actually was a will in which Thomas left the residue of two > thirds of his goods to be divided amongst his children. Rauff, his > son, was to have a cow above his child's part and he named his son > John, with others, as his overseer. This does not seem to exclude the > possibility of other children, and Roger would fit in nicely for age > and the naming of subsequent children. It seems to be a snag to the > theory as a Roger Tokenson (sic) was an appraiser with others. Of > course there could have been two Rogers ( I'm sure that Tokenson > should have been Tomkinson) > > The information about a relative acting as an appraiser where there > was no will is interesting, although I have cases of cousins acting > even when there was a will. > > It does, however, sadly look as if my theory is unlikely. > > Best wishes, > Don > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Norman Lee" <[email protected]> > To: <[email protected]> > Sent: Wednesday, November 08, 2006 6:12 PM > Subject: Re: [OEL] 16TH CENTURY SERVANTS ETC. > > >> Dear Don >> >> I've just had a thought about your question and am asking one of my > own. You >> have a probate inventory but is there a will to go with it or does > it >> accompany a bond of administration? If there was no will, different > rules >> seem to apply and you could get a relative as an appraiser as > relatives >> would be those called upon to sort out the effects of the decedent > and act >> in lieu of an executor. Generally speaking, the chief beneficiary of > the >> estate plus two or three others are those named on the bonds that > accompany >> these inventories. These are the administrators and are called upon > to >> produce an inventory of the decedent's goods and chattels. >> >> Audrey >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Donald Tomkinson" <[email protected]> >> To: <[email protected]> >> Sent: Monday, November 06, 2006 3:04 PM >> Subject: Re: [OEL] 16TH CENTURY SERVANTS ETC. >> >> >> > Many thanks again Audrey. >> > >> > Don >> > ----- Original Message ----- >> > From: "Norman Lee" <[email protected]> >> > To: <[email protected]> >> > Sent: Sunday, November 05, 2006 5:55 PM >> > Subject: Re: [OEL] 16TH CENTURY SERVANTS ETC. >> > >> > >> >> Dear Don >> >> >> >> I think the main thing to guard against was that he could not > appear >> > as a >> >> beneficiary in the will or be in the line of succession. >> >> >> >> Audrey >> >> >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> >> From: "Donald Tomkinson" <[email protected]> >> >> To: <[email protected]> >> >> Sent: Saturday, November 04, 2006 3:46 PM >> >> Subject: Re: [OEL] 16TH CENTURY SERVANTS ETC. >> >> >> >> >> >> > Hello Audrey, >> >> > Many thanks for your comments. >> >> > >> >> > Would you rule out completely the possibility that one of the >> >> > appraisers was the son of the deceased? >> >> > >> >> > Regards, >> >> > Don >> >> > >> >> > ----- Original Message ----- >> >> > From: "Norman Lee" <[email protected]> >> >> > To: <[email protected]> >> >> > Sent: Friday, November 03, 2006 9:03 PM >> >> > Subject: Re: [OEL] 16TH CENTURY SERVANTS ETC. >> >> > >> >> > >> >> >> Dear Don >> >> >> >> >> >> The "plus others" is possibly because the appraisers may feel > the >> >> > need to >> >> >> call in someone with special knowledge of the estate. It > doesn't >> >> > mean that >> >> >> there would be large numbers of them. I've looked at a lot of >> >> > inventories >> >> >> and have found that there are virtually never more than four >> >> > although I >> >> >> don't believe there were such hard and fast rules as to > disallow >> > it. >> >> >> Generally speaking, the chief executor as long as he doesn't >> > benefit >> >> > from >> >> >> the will plus someone who is familiar with the >> >> >> estate and/or occupation of the deceased and perhaps a > neighbour >> > or >> >> > friend >> >> >> of the deceased too seems to be the practice. One decedent > whose >> >> > inventory I >> >> >> saw was a physican and another physican from London was called > in >> > to >> >> > assess >> >> >> the value of the man's stock of medicines and medical > equipment. >> >> >> >> >> >> I hope this helps. >> >> >> >> >> >> Audrey >> >> >> >> >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> >> >> From: "Donald Tomkinson" <[email protected]> >> >> >> To: <[email protected]> >> >> >> Cc: "OLD ENGLISH MESSAGE" <[email protected]> >> >> >> Sent: Tuesday, October 31, 2006 7:05 PM >> >> >> Subject: Re: [OEL] 16TH CENTURY SERVANTS ETC. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >I appreciate the comments regarding the servants and > appraisers. >> >> >> > >> >> >> > I was hoping that sometimes the rule that appraisers should > not >> >> >> > benefit from a will was broken, as it would have explained a >> >> > missing >> >> >> > relationship. There were actually two other appraisers to > the >> >> >> > inventory "Plus others", which seems to imply there were > more >> > than >> >> >> > four. >> >> >> > >> >> >> > Kind regards, >> >> >> > Don >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > ----- Original Message ----- >> >> >> > From: "Eve McLaughlin" <[email protected]> >> >> >> > To: <[email protected]> >> >> >> > Cc: "OLD ENGLISH MESSAGE" <[email protected]> >> >> >> > Sent: Sunday, October 29, 2006 4:49 PM >> >> >> > Subject: Re: [OEL] 16TH CENTURY SERVANTS >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> In message <[email protected]>, Donald >> >> > Tomkinson >> >> >> >> <[email protected]> writes >> >> >> >> >In his will of 1569 Henry Tomkinson bequeaths a coat to > his >> >> > servant >> >> >> >> >Richard Tomkinson. I understand that in those times it was >> >> > common >> >> >> > to >> >> >> >> >employ a young relative as a personal servant. Can anyone >> >> > comment >> >> >> > on >> >> >> >> >this practice and know how young the boys could be? >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> It was common to farm out your teenagers into the > households >> > of >> >> >> > (better >> >> >> >> off) relatives - very convenient if your son was an orphan > and >> >> >> > needed >> >> >> >> male input. They could start quite young, though on the >> > whole, >> >> > if >> >> >> > they >> >> >> >> were to be useful, 12 was about the lower limit. And if the >> > lad >> >> > was >> >> >> >> inheriting (uncle)'s garments, he was probably somewhere >> > close >> >> > in >> >> >> > size. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> >> >> Eve McLaughlin >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Author of the McLaughlin Guides for family historians >> >> >> >> Secretary Bucks Genealogical Society >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > ------------------------------- >> >> >> > 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 >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > -- >> >> >> > No virus found in this incoming message. >> >> >> > Checked by AVG Free Edition. >> >> >> > Version: 7.1.409 / Virus Database: 268.13.27/517 - Release >> > Date: >> >> >> > 03/11/2006 >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > ------------------------------- >> >> > 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 >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > -- >> >> > No virus found in this incoming message. >> >> > Checked by AVG Free Edition. >> >> > Version: 7.1.409 / Virus Database: 268.13.27/517 - Release > Date: >> >> > 03/11/2006 >> >> > >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> > >> > ------------------------------- >> > 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 >> > >> > >> > -- >> > No virus found in this incoming message. >> > Checked by AVG Free Edition. >> > Version: 7.1.409 / Virus Database: 268.13.27/517 - Release Date: >> > 03/11/2006 >> > >> > >> >> >> > > > ------------------------------- > 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 > > > -- > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.1.409 / Virus Database: 268.13.27/517 - Release Date: > 03/11/2006 > >

Dear Roy Going from the transportation of my great aunt, aged 15, along with a number of Dr. Barnardo's children in 1898, to Canada from the port of Liverpool (so could just have stopped in Ireland but probably not), it took around three weeks. I think they landed in Quebec but can't quite call the port of entry to mind at the moment. I'd have to search through a lot of papers to see if I could find the details. When the Barnardo's children arrived, they took a group photograph of them and there were quite a lot of them. It was a bit like a school photograph. After this, they were collected into a "home", kept there until they had been found employment, usually as domestic servants in the case of the girls, and then distributed over that vast country. My great aunt went to Ottawa. Liverpool was a collecting port for these children. My great aunt had been at the Girls' Village in Barkingside from the age of 10 to 15, having been sent there from the East End of London. So, I would say that three weeks approximately is the answer to your question. I don't know the tonnage of the ship in which she sailed but it may have been similar to the one you were thinking of. Audrey ----- Original Message ----- From: "Roy" <[email protected]> To: "[email protected] com" <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, November 09, 2006 9:15 PM Subject: [OEL] Slightly off Topic! > Good Evening All - > > Hope you will forgive this but as the airways seem a little slack at > present, perhaps some kind sole could approximate how long a vessel of > 1497 > tons in 1870, would have taken to sail to New York from Liverpool, with > 187 > immigrants on board plus the crew, and which may have called at an Irish > port on the way? > > Not all at once I beg of you! > > Regards - Roy > > ------------------------------- > 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 > > > -- > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.1.409 / Virus Database: 268.13.27/517 - Release Date: > 03/11/2006 > >