I have tried to ignore said records, but not succeded - can you explain how? Karen nee Styles ________________________________ From: Neal Ward <[email protected]> To: Mary Connaughton <[email protected]>; 'ROBIN COATES' <[email protected]>; "[email protected]" <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, 14 December 2012, 14:06 Subject: Re: [SFHG] What's happened to the IGI Another plus point for the new Family Search - you can chose to ignore all the fanciful records "submitted by a member of the LDS church" and search only the "real" records, ie those from PR transcripts etc.   Neal ________________________________ From: Mary Connaughton <[email protected]> To: 'ROBIN COATES' <[email protected]>; [email protected] Sent: Friday, 14 December 2012, 13:17 Subject: Re: [SFHG] What's happened to the IGI Hello Robin, Well, it just takes a little time to get used to it.  You can still access the IGI by opening Family search, click on "Historical collections" and then in the search box, type IGI, which will pop up on the screen and then you can add it to your favourites. https://www.familysearch.org/search/collection/igi The same for Hugh Wallis's batch numbers - they still work too. http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~hughwallis/IGIBatchNumbers /CountryEngland.htm#PageTitle   However, you'll find that the updated Family search is on the whole quite good, as they have transcribed a lot of parish records from BTs , by their own "professionals" and the records are much more accurate.  When doing a search, try putting in more than just "England", but, for example, "Sompting, Sussex, England", then you'll get first of all records for Sompting, if there are any, followed by other places in Sussex, and then just "Sussex" - more vague and probably a few from Kent and/or Surrey - which isn't bad, as people moved around a lot more than we are inclined to think. Another interesting aspect is that if you find some info on Sompting, for example, and you'd like to know more, then click on the little arrow on the right of the page next to someone's name, where they give more details, and also the batch number.  If you copy and paste the batch number, you'll get all the records for Sompting during that period. So... don't despair, we've no choice anyway except to follow the trend! I've just changed from XP to Windows 7!  Ggrr! Good hunting! Mary Connaughton  ------------------------------- 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

Sue and Alan Many thanks for replies. Alan, I purchased FTM 2012 about 9 months ago for I think about £25, part of the deal was an extra free 6 months subscription to Ancestory (worth about £30). Now I guess that was a good deal as I was previously using FTM 7.5 (dated 2000). Sue, I will almost certainly order from Father Xmas a subscription to Findmypast, Regards Terry Lawson

Sorry, not sure if I sent the message in the right way, so here's another try... -----Message d'origine----- De : [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] De la part de Mary Connaughton Envoyé : vendredi 14 décembre 2012 14:18 À : 'ROBIN COATES'; [email protected] Objet : Re: [SFHG] What's happened to the IGI Hello Robin, Well, it just takes a little time to get used to it. You can still access the IGI by opening Family search, click on "Historical collections" and then in the search box, type IGI, which will pop up on the screen and then you can add it to your favourites. https://www.familysearch.org/search/collection/igi The same for Hugh Wallis's batch numbers - they still work too. http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~hughwallis/IGIBatchNumbers /CountryEngland.htm#PageTitle However, you'll find that the updated Family search is on the whole quite good, as they have transcribed a lot of parish records from BTs , by their own "professionals" and the records are much more accurate. When doing a search, try putting in more than just "England", but, for example, "Sompting, Sussex, England", then you'll get first of all records for Sompting, if there are any, followed by other places in Sussex, and then just "Sussex" - more vague and probably a few from Kent and/or Surrey - which isn't bad, as people moved around a lot more than we are inclined to think. Another interesting aspect is that if you find some info on Sompting, for example, and you'd like to know more, then click on the little arrow on the right of the page next to someone's name, where they give more details, and also the batch number. If you copy and paste the batch number, you'll get all the records for Sompting during that period. So... don't despair, we've no choice anyway except to follow the trend! I've just changed from XP to Windows 7! Ggrr! Good hunting! Mary Connaughton ------------------------------- 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

Hello Robin, Well, it just takes a little time to get used to it. You can still access the IGI by opening Family search, click on "Historical collections" and then in the search box, type IGI, which will pop up on the screen and then you can add it to your favourites. https://www.familysearch.org/search/collection/igi The same for Hugh Wallis's batch numbers - they still work too. http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~hughwallis/IGIBatchNumbers /CountryEngland.htm#PageTitle However, you'll find that the updated Family search is on the whole quite good, as they have transcribed a lot of parish records from BTs , by their own "professionals" and the records are much more accurate. When doing a search, try putting in more than just "England", but, for example, "Sompting, Sussex, England", then you'll get first of all records for Sompting, if there are any, followed by other places in Sussex, and then just "Sussex" - more vague and probably a few from Kent and/or Surrey - which isn't bad, as people moved around a lot more than we are inclined to think. Another interesting aspect is that if you find some info on Sompting, for example, and you'd like to know more, then click on the little arrow on the right of the page next to someone's name, where they give more details, and also the batch number. If you copy and paste the batch number, you'll get all the records for Sompting during that period. So... don't despair, we've no choice anyway except to follow the trend! I've just changed from XP to Windows 7! Ggrr! Good hunting! Mary Connaughton

Another plus point for the new Family Search - you can chose to ignore all the fanciful records "submitted by a member of the LDS church" and search only the "real" records, ie those from PR transcripts etc.   Neal ________________________________ From: Mary Connaughton <[email protected]> To: 'ROBIN COATES' <[email protected]>; [email protected] Sent: Friday, 14 December 2012, 13:17 Subject: Re: [SFHG] What's happened to the IGI Hello Robin, Well, it just takes a little time to get used to it.  You can still access the IGI by opening Family search, click on "Historical collections" and then in the search box, type IGI, which will pop up on the screen and then you can add it to your favourites. https://www.familysearch.org/search/collection/igi The same for Hugh Wallis's batch numbers - they still work too. http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~hughwallis/IGIBatchNumbers /CountryEngland.htm#PageTitle   However, you'll find that the updated Family search is on the whole quite good, as they have transcribed a lot of parish records from BTs , by their own "professionals" and the records are much more accurate.  When doing a search, try putting in more than just "England", but, for example, "Sompting, Sussex, England", then you'll get first of all records for Sompting, if there are any, followed by other places in Sussex, and then just "Sussex" - more vague and probably a few from Kent and/or Surrey - which isn't bad, as people moved around a lot more than we are inclined to think. Another interesting aspect is that if you find some info on Sompting, for example, and you'd like to know more, then click on the little arrow on the right of the page next to someone's name, where they give more details, and also the batch number.  If you copy and paste the batch number, you'll get all the records for Sompting during that period. So... don't despair, we've no choice anyway except to follow the trend! I've just changed from XP to Windows 7!  Ggrr! Good hunting! Mary Connaughton  ------------------------------- 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

Good Morning.   I have done very little family history research over the last three or four years and am now starting again.   I used to use the IGI, which I found very user friendly, as a starting point for many of my searches and would then check further if I found anything possibly of interest. I have just tried to use the IGI again and it seem to have changed so much that I cannot make head or tail of it. I to get a heap of information that I don't want and very little that I do want. For instance: I specify England as my area of interest but get loads of American results.   Is the IGI no longer user friendly or is it just me being 'elderly'.   Thanks for any suggestions or comments,   Robin Coates. (mainly researching the MOON family)

I have written on more than several occasions over the past several months to Origins.net at this email address and on your Help & Resource Contact page.  I am not rec'g any replies. I am having a problem, and have a question about your Apprentice Database. I have been to the Guildhall in London and found 2 of my ancestors listed in the original books.  However, when I do a search on Origins.net (I have used all variants+) I never see them appear, which brings to my concern that there are more ancestors that I may not be seeing.  What may I be doing wrong?  Why don't I see the men I know appear in the original books.  I do find a list of 13 men but believe there to be at least 5-8 more that should appear within the time period of your database. Can anyone please help me understand this dilemma? Donna TILLINGHAST Casey Michigan, USA   The pessimist complains about the wind; the optimist expects it will change; the realist adjusts the sails.

Hi Jill, You may need to consider variations on the name of Wheler, Wheeler and Waller. These variations do appear in the Lindfield and Ardingly parishes which are next door to Cuckfield. I have a John Waller married to Alice Batchelor on 8th Feb 1676 at Lindfield and they have a son bapt 1st feb 1681 in Lindfield who might be your John. I do not have a marriage for him at present. Good hunting, Alan ________________________________ From: jill weller <[email protected]> To: SFHG SFHG <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, 12 December 2012, 10:44 Subject: [SFHG] Weller marriage I have a William Weller born 20.9.1711 in Cuckfield, son of John Weller and Mary ? Would somebody with access to the Sussex Marriage Index CD be kind enough to see if they can find a marriage for said John and Mary please? I suspect it would have been very early 1700 sometime. So far this marriage has eluded me and has become my brick wall. Many thanks. ------------------------------- 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

All I'm considering a subscription as an addition to Ancestory (currently, annual for UK & Irish records). Are there any recommendation for that which I could use to extend my searches for example to early (1800's) military records and Welsh parish records. I suspect what would be really useful is a website that compares the records available from each supplier, is there one out there? Regards to all Terry Lawson

I am sorry Jill but it looks as if your wall is staying for the moment. The nearest marriage of a John to a Mary is in 1697 in Steyning to a Mary Loving (or Leving). There are not many marriages of a Welling in Cuckfield and doesn't appear a hotbed for the name around that time. Cheers, Brian -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of jill weller Sent: 12 December 2012 10:45 To: SFHG SFHG Subject: [SFHG] Weller marriage I have a William Weller born 20.9.1711 in Cuckfield, son of John Weller and Mary ? Would somebody with access to the Sussex Marriage Index CD be kind enough to see if they can find a marriage for said John and Mary please? I suspect it would have been very early 1700 sometime. So far this marriage has eluded me and has become my brick wall. Many thanks. ------------------------------- 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 message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2013.0.2805 / Virus Database: 2634/5946 - Release Date: 12/08/12 ----- No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2013.0.2805 / Virus Database: 2634/5946 - Release Date: 12/08/12

Please note that there is a change of time and date for our first meeting in 2013. To try to forestall the effects of any inclement weather, it will be on Saturday morning 12th January at 10.30 am when Joe Hughes will be talking about the 'History of St.Francis Hospital, Haywards Heath'. See you there, Mick Richardson.

I have a William Weller born 20.9.1711 in Cuckfield, son of John Weller and Mary ? Would somebody with access to the Sussex Marriage Index CD be kind enough to see if they can find a marriage for said John and Mary please? I suspect it would have been very early 1700 sometime. So far this marriage has eluded me and has become my brick wall. Many thanks.

Does anyone on SFHG know anyone who works at/with Origins.Net?  I have sent an inquiry X 4 over the last month+ to this site about a list of apprentice search responses I rec'd when on their site.  I have a concern about the responses I get, and about their database of the apprentices.  I have a question for them and their reply may help me to understand the responses I am getting. I cannot  understand why I do not rec'v a reply.  I always check my SPAM email incoming for email that reaches that mail box and it has not appeared there. Any suggestions are most welcome. Donna TILLINGHAST Casey Michigan, USA   The pessimist complains about the wind; the optimist expects it will change; the realist adjusts the sails.

Hi Wendy Please see my web site for more information http://peter-brown.net/Pages_Family/Bones/bonesjohn1720.html Regards Peter Brown -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of wendy miles Sent: 10 December 2012 21:21 To: [email protected] Subject: [SFHG] BONES / TASKER Marriage Can anyone help me sort out my 'SARAHs' please?. Have long thought via LDS & Family comments that my x2 Gt.G'Father David HUMPHREY married Harriet Bones in 1822 14 Dec. Horsemonden- Kent. Census lists showed Harriet as born in Wadhurst.1807.(married at 15?) Her Parents were suggested to me as John BONES & Sarah TASKER I have found a Sarah TASKER christening in St Michaels, Withyham, E.Sussex 1785 ( Online Parish Clerks). Parents William & Ann.no other info. Batch: BAP_C152011 - Withyham.csv. Source: International Genealogical Index. Cannot find a marriage for a John BONES to Sarah TASKER. A John BONE is listed as marrying 08 Jan 1791 - Arundel,?Sussex,?England spouse:Sarah Berry The only Harriet BONES (b.1807) which seems to fit was born to Joseph & Deborah. Another born to John Bones & Sarah? b. 1797 Rotherfield, Sussex. LDS Family search Any help so much appreciated, trying to decide to buy marriage C.D. Wendy ------------------------------- 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

Unsure why my reply to Brian didn't go through yesterday, I do thank you Brian, yours  gave me confidence that my info was correct, the families possibly moved around the close districts, which would explain bapt/marriages in various places.   Peter thank you also, you confirm what I have in my files, only more of them as I didn't continue with childrens marriages until I was certain I had the right people. Mine taken from Familysearch OPC & Family contacts.   This looks like the place to bring my next mystery case.   gratefully, Wendy 

Wendy, The SMI shows John Bones m. Sarah Tasker @ Mayfield on 28th Feb 1780 both 'of this parish' The only Tasker on the Sussex Data Archive being born in Mayfield is Richard in 1758. It is possible that she may have been born earlier and the family moved to Mayfield. I will have a look in the other parishes to see if I can find a suitable candidate. Regards, Brian -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of wendy miles Sent: 10 December 2012 21:21 To: [email protected] Subject: [SFHG] BONES / TASKER Marriage Can anyone help me sort out my 'SARAHs' please?. Have long thought via LDS & Family comments that my x2 Gt.G'Father David HUMPHREY married Harriet Bones in 1822 14 Dec. Horsemonden- Kent. Census lists showed Harriet as born in Wadhurst.1807.(married at 15?) Her Parents were suggested to me as John BONES & Sarah TASKER I have found a Sarah TASKER christening in St Michaels, Withyham, E.Sussex 1785 ( Online Parish Clerks). Parents William & Ann.no other info. Batch: BAP_C152011 - Withyham.csv. Source: International Genealogical Index. Cannot find a marriage for a John BONES to Sarah TASKER. A John BONE is listed as marrying 08 Jan 1791 - Arundel,​Sussex,​England spouse:Sarah Berry The only Harriet BONES (b.1807) which seems to fit was born to Joseph & Deborah. Another born to John Bones & Sarah? b. 1797 Rotherfield, Sussex. LDS Family search Any help so much appreciated, trying to decide to buy marriage C.D. Wendy ------------------------------- 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 message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2013.0.2805 / Virus Database: 2634/5946 - Release Date: 12/08/12 ----- No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2013.0.2805 / Virus Database: 2634/5946 - Release Date: 12/08/12

Can anyone help me sort out my 'SARAHs' please?. Have long thought via LDS & Family comments that my x2 Gt.G'Father David HUMPHREY married Harriet Bones  in 1822 14 Dec. Horsemonden- Kent. Census lists showed Harriet as born in Wadhurst.1807.(married at 15?) Her Parents were suggested to me as John BONES & Sarah TASKER I have found a Sarah TASKER christening in St Michaels, Withyham, E.Sussex 1785 ( Online Parish Clerks). Parents William & Ann.no other info. Batch: BAP_C152011 - Withyham.csv. Source: International Genealogical Index. Cannot find a marriage for a John BONES to Sarah TASKER. A John BONE is listed as marrying 08 Jan 1791 - Arundel,​Sussex,​England spouse:Sarah Berry The only Harriet BONES (b.1807) which seems to fit was born to Joseph & Deborah. Another born to John Bones & Sarah? b. 1797 Rotherfield, Sussex. LDS Family search Any help so much appreciated, trying to decide to buy marriage C.D.  Wendy

11th December 2012 Tuesday 1x30 -3x30 hello Listers next Tuesday is the last roffey meeting of 2012 . we are taking part in the St Andrews festivities by dressing one of the church windows for Christmas . we are making a Jesse tree [ that's the line of Jesus back to David . so remember to bring a small decoration to hang on the tree -angel -stars- bells which you have made yourselves please ,to represent the members. also we want your Childhood memories of Christmas. so if you can not come but would like to send a short memory please do . Christine God Bless

Hi Listers, I have emailed [email protected] regarding The Stephens family at WEst Firls but it has bounced. Can Pauline please contact me. Thanks Robin Walker, Tasmania, Australia member 11290

Macs are just wonderful. I have been using one since 1984 (not the SAME one, obviously - I have a MacBook now) and I have never had any troubles, ever - no crashes, no viruses, no stuff-ups at all. I use Reunion for my family history stuff, which is great. And nowadays you can get just about anything to run on a Mac - except the SMI :-) But all is not lost. I have a non-genealogical friend with a PC who has agreed to let me use my SMI CD on his machine. Cordelia 14526 On 3 December 2012 22:12, Tony Holkham <[email protected]> wrote: > I absolutely agree. Perhaps you should ask for a refund, or at least sell it > to a Windows user for cost. And lets keep up the pressure - who knows, > someone may have the answer. > > Hope you don't resist 'going over' to Mac - from my experience and that of > several friends, you won't regret it. On cost alone, my sister has spent > twice as much keeping her Windows machine going that she would have spent on > a Mac - but will she listen...? > > For the record, my iMac has been running for 15+ hours a day for 5 years now > without missing a beat. All I have spent on it is £35 to expand the memory. > If only we had decent broadband in this little corner of Wales, I would be a > happy man. > > Cheers, > > Tony > > > On 3 December 2012 06:46, Cordelia Hull <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Unfortunately, Tony, from this distance (Australia) one does not see >> the box before one makes one's purchase - that's why I suggested the >> Mac incompatibility be made known to prospective purchasers BEFORE >> they make their purchases . . . . so Mac users don't waste their money >> :-) >> >> Cheers, Cordelia >> 14526 >> >> On 3 December 2012 08:26, Tony Holkham <[email protected]> wrote: >> > It certainly doesn't run on my Mac, and I wouldn't expect it to as it >> > only >> > says on the box "minimum requirement Windows 95 or later". >> > >> > Fortunately I've hung on to an ancient Windows 95 laptop on which I can >> > access the SMI but I fervently hope that one day SFHG will produce a >> > Mac-compatible version. >> > >> > Macscrimination, if you ask me... :-)> only joking before you all jump >> > in... >> > >> > Tony 9967 >> > www.tonyholkham.org >> > >> > On 2 December 2012 19:40, Cordelia Hull <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> >> Thanks, Joe >> >> >> >> It should also be noted that the CD doesn't seem to work on a Mac >> >> computer. I don't THINK it is just my lack of computer skills >> >> (although I am ready to stand corrected on that one any time). >> >> >> >> My SMI CD lies a-mouldering pristine in its pack because I cannot use >> >> it on my computer. >> >> >> >> Cordelia >> >> 14526 >> >> >> >> On 2 December 2012 23:25, Joe Bysh <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> > I sense some misunderstanding on this List about the Sussex Marriage >> >> > Index >> >> > which SFHG issued on CD in 2004 comprising details of over 300,000 >> >> > marriages >> >> > by Banns or Licence and includes Catholic, Nonconformist and Quaker >> >> > marriages. As well as marriages in Sussex it includes Sussex spouses >> >> > who >> >> > married in Surrey, London and Fleet. >> >> > The few addenda were put on the SFHG website and are included on >> >> > later >> >> > copies of the CD. But as the completed index of every extant record >> >> > is >> >> > on >> >> > CD, SFHG have no plans to put the Index on the members' Data Archive. >> >> > >> >> > When the Index was conceived nearly 50 years ago it was intended as a >> >> > finding device for EVERY known marriage prior to General Registration >> >> > which >> >> > began on 1st July 1837. >> >> > If you have found just one Sussex ancestor who married before 1837, >> >> > the >> >> > Index can potentially find thousands more of your ancestors in the >> >> > preceding >> >> > 12 generations in the 300 years back to 1538 when King Henry VIII set >> >> > up >> >> > Parish Registers. >> >> > >> >> > A Sussex Family Historian without the Sussex Marriage Index CD is >> >> > like a >> >> > writer without a dictionary ! >> >> > >> >> > Joe Bysh, Publications Officer, SFHG #5525 >> >> > >> >> > ----- Original Message ----- > >> >> >> Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2012 12:26:44 -0000 >> >> >> From: Judy Excell <[email protected]> >> >> >> Think I should point out that SMI is up to 1837, erratically a >> >> >> little >> >> >> further. >> >> >> Judy Excell >> >> > >> >> >> Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2012 7:26 PM >> >> >> The SMI only covers as far as 1850, Roger. .... >> >> >> Phil Vaughan >> >> >> >> >> >> Roger Nash >> >> >> Sent: November-27-12 1:59 PM >> >> >> Subject: [SFHG] Denyer marriage >> >> >> Please can someone with access to Sussex Marriage Index check out a >> >> >> marriage in about 1870 +- 5 years for James Denyer of Kirdford to >> >> >> Martha. >> >> >> They have no children in 1871 census in Plaistow Kirdford, so I >> >> >> believe >> >> >> them >> >> >> to be newly married. A possible marriage is to Martha Meredith >> >> >> Nightingale >> >> >> (born Warnham) in 1871 Petworth District. My normal method of >> >> >> finding >> >> >> them >> >> >> on the same page in the indexes on Ancestry has defeated me! >> >> > >> >> >> Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2012 09:04:58 -0500 >> >> >> From: sandra moffatt <[email protected]> >> >> >> Does anyone with access to the Sussex marriage index do a look up >> >> >> for >> >> >> me? >> >> >> I'm trying to see if a James Hobden appeared on many marriage >> >> >> records >> >> >> in >> >> >> Bolney as a witness. (1800-1830) Thank you,Sandra >> >> >> 22/11/1820 >> >> >> ?Groom??????????HOBDEN Thomas >> >> >> Bride???????? ????STARLEY Martha >> >> >> Witness???? HOBDEN James >> >> >> Witness???? TAYLOR John >> >> >> ? >> >> >> ? >> >> >> Neal >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > ------------------------------- >> >> > 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 >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > -- >> > _________________ >> > Tony Holkham >> > Writer >> > www.tonyholkham.co.uk >> > > > > > > -- > _________________ > Tony Holkham > Writer > www.tonyholkham.co.uk >