[email protected] wrote: > > Given that so many of my own ancestors -- all known to be of the RATCLIFFE > surname -- 1835 Noah Ratcliffe, married to ELLEN FARRAR (Farnley by Leeds, > Wortley Dist., Yorkshire) of Loughborogh. > > Noah was son of John Ratcliffe married to ANN AINSWORTH both of Leeds, > Loughborogh, Yorkshire and or Loughborough, Leicestershire, U.K. > > On this side of the Atlantic - we seem to treat Radcliff, Radcliffe and > Ratcliffe as have common roots. > > Any thoughts? Thanks Edwin! Which side of the Atlantic are you on? I know where Loughborough, Leics., is but where is Leeds, LOUGHBOROUGH? As to thoughts: I pretend that I am not interested in seeking to connect my branch of RADCLIFFES with the place called Radcliffe or apparently Red Cliff in the time of William the Conqueror. The truth of the matter is that I am not capable of doing that sort of thing. It does seem that there was probably a root to a name that has become spelled in various ways as Radcliffe, Ratcliffe, Ratliff and so on. I have many relatives in UK, USA and Australia, many of these are friends and generally tend to be ancient as am I at age almost 77. Some would be offended to hear that Radcliffe is not the correct spelling for a pure line. If I ever was - and I perhaps was - humility has been forced upon me because I have records of known ancestors whose name have been spelled RaTcliffe. Another spelling that LDS has copied is RadIcliffe. These for persons definitely of my family. In some cases I assume that the person writing the name on a Baptismal (or marriage) record was either misinformed or not overly scholarly or careless. Another factor which I think is becoming a greater problem as time goes on is the tendency of persons and institutions to _abbreviate_ and in the process lose essentially important information. A variation of this type of thing involves what appears to be a process of copying good records. An example which I don't use to criticize but only to illustrate is the marriage record of my gt gt grandfather, Amos Radcliffe who married Olive Jepson at Almondbury Parish Church in 1813. That record on which the persons are named and each sign and witnesses are named and the Priest signs is very standard in English use. A good copy is often extremely informative and therefore valuable. For many years I have had a copy which I obained At Huddersfield, Yorkshire on which it seems perfectly clear that the persons marrying signed their own names and with other evidence that the document is original. A copy obtained from LDS is obviously all in the handwriting of one person, is not actually signed by Amos Radcliffe and omits the name of one witness. What difference does all of this make or imply? I think none to the "statistician" type researcher; To me who only on that original document learned with certainty that Amos Radcliffe in 1813 was literate and signed his own name is it perhaps significant. He produced a passel of educated achievers and it appears that his mother did too. Enough of this. I dont have time to be negative and critical. One of the Children Of Amos Radcliffe/Olive Jepson, John, was recorded as RaDcliffe at Baptism but somehow on his marriage record was referred to as RaTcliffe. For the rest of his life his records, which are voluminous in Netherton and South Crosland, Huddersfield, Yorks., involve both spellings.We KNOW that the RaTcliffe spelling was an accident for reasons that we can't explain. Until very recently we dismissed the importance of the error because we did not realize that his only daughter, who married William Boys in 1877, had been known as Clara Ann RATLIFF on BOYS family records. BOYS family folks have appreciated learning that Clara Anna Radcliffe was the correct name of their family member. When more efficient, family genealogist folks hear that I don't use the Gedcom systems they sometimes give up on me. After spending years adding data to group sheets in the complete original form used by the person who Baptized or Married or Buried folks I just don't have time to copy the "sterile" data to the standard systems. Everyone is welcome to use my record and copy to the gedcom system at any time. Almost every entry is prima facia supported since the entries are copies of original documents. For example: The Baptismal record of Amos Radcliffe on my group sheetis a complete transcription: "AMOS, SON OF CHARLES RADCLIFFE AND ELIZA HIS WIFE OF NETHERTHONG IN THE COUNTY OF YORK & PARISH OF ALMONDBURY, BORN ON THE 16th DAY OF DEC 1788, WAS BAPTIZED BY ME, ROBERT GALLAND, (PROTESTANT DISSENTING MINISTER)25 JAN 1789. This record is that of Lane Chapel at Holmfirth. That place has often been recorded as Holmfirth Lane Chapel which description has led some of us to look for the chapel on Holmfirth lane which is a street near Honley. By the way until I found that original document i believed that Amos was born in 1785 because a reputable family member had said so. That family member was Sir Frederick Morton Radcliffe who was a man of great accomplishment and note and whose word in every matter was considered to be beyond question. Sir Fred was a prime mover and worker in the building of the Liverpool Anglican Cathedral among other things. It may be obvious to you that some of my English relatives have good reason to accept me as a "true Radcliffe" because I, like the rest of them "ramble on and on". Cheers and thanks and tell me more of your heritage and other parts as well Jim Radcliffe 108 Monica's Ct, Ruidoso, New Mexico 88355 Tel 505 257 4987; Fax 505 257 1400 - if you like attachments tell me your software system or something.