Yes Jim, I'm sure you are right: various other scenarios are possible. My point is simply that, like any historical source, PRs (like BMD certificates) are compiled by humans and subject to error, dishonesty or distortion like any other. Upon reflection I doubt this is the problem in Joe's case however. More likely the IGI contributor made a mistake, used a different version of the PRs to the one Joe consulted or relied upon a different source altogether. Rob -----Original Message----- From: JH Sent: Tuesday, August 21, 2012 8:38 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [SFHG] the IGI not supported by PRs Hello Rob, You might like to consider the circumstances where the baptism date could well be a more reliable indication of birth date / age than the certificate. After 42 days from the date of birth fees were payable to register the birth and if more than 6 months after birth, registration was not "lawful" and any person who "knowingly registered or caused to be registered " a birth more than 6 months after the birth (except for births at sea) "shall forfeit and pay a "Sum not exceeding Fifty Pounds". In the early years of registration a not inconsiderable number of people seem to have thought that if the Registrar did not come to them to register the birth then they could ignore the requirement - particularly as many if not most people were probably of the opinion that Baptism was more important than Civil Registration. As the 19th c progressed word would have got around that a birth certificate could be a useful and perhaps important. document for the child to possess and that late registrations could result in fees and fines well beyond the pockets of most ordinary people - and so to get the now desirable certificate,without expensive fees or impossible fines the declared birth date was delayed by weeks, months or even years Provided the Registrar was not too inquisitive a determined, resolute mother might well "get away with it" - indeed I have such a case in my own family - the single mother who was in service away from her home town, with a married sister looking after the child, delayed the birth date by more than four months. The evidence came in census returns, a Royal Marines enlistment document and, most convincing of all, my mother's retort many years ago when I started looking into family history. Upon my production of her father's birth certificate - (he was born in the 1850s) - she said "that's not right - that's not his birthday - it was ... xx xx" quoting a date at least four months earlier, taking it back to the previous year. Later I found his baptism just a few weeks after the date she knew as his birthday. This sort of deception may not have happened often, but it certainly happened ! Jim On 20 August 2012 19:01, Rob Doe <[email protected]> wrote: > > IGI entries are often regarded as not 100% reliable ... but then so should > Parish Records (and transcripts of PRs) be in my view. I have an example > in > my family where the Parish Record claims a baptism took place two years > before the child was born according to the birth certificate. > > > > > > > ------------------------------- 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

Which is as good a reason as any to use "tiny url". Try http://tinyurl.com/9ojzp46. I've only just discovered this useful tool and it does save a lot of clutter. Trevor 10402 > If I can butt in. The link works for me. > I think the problem might be only the first (underlined) bit of the link > is being used. > The formatting in the email split the link over two lines. > > Lionel Carter > > > On 21/08/2012 04:16, Joe Austen wrote: >> https://www.familysearch.org/search/catalog/show?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fcatalog-se >>> arch-api%3A8080%2Fwww-catalogapi-webservice%2Fitem%2F64075 > > > ------------------------------- > 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 Rob, You might like to consider the circumstances where the baptism date could well be a more reliable indication of birth date / age than the certificate. After 42 days from the date of birth fees were payable to register the birth and if more than 6 months after birth, registration was not "lawful" and any person who "knowingly registered or caused to be registered " a birth more than 6 months after the birth (except for births at sea) "shall forfeit and pay a "Sum not exceeding Fifty Pounds". In the early years of registration a not inconsiderable number of people seem to have thought that if the Registrar did not come to them to register the birth then they could ignore the requirement - particularly as many if not most people were probably of the opinion that Baptism was more important than Civil Registration. As the 19th c progressed word would have got around that a birth certificate could be a useful and perhaps important. document for the child to possess and that late registrations could result in fees and fines well beyond the pockets of most ordinary people - and so to get the now desirable certificate,without expensive fees or impossible fines the declared birth date was delayed by weeks, months or even years Provided the Registrar was not too inquisitive a determined, resolute mother might well "get away with it" - indeed I have such a case in my own family - the single mother who was in service away from her home town, with a married sister looking after the child, delayed the birth date by more than four months. The evidence came in census returns, a Royal Marines enlistment document and, most convincing of all, my mother's retort many years ago when I started looking into family history. Upon my production of her father's birth certificate - (he was born in the 1850s) - she said "that's not right - that's not his birthday - it was ... xx xx" quoting a date at least four months earlier, taking it back to the previous year. Later I found his baptism just a few weeks after the date she knew as his birthday. This sort of deception may not have happened often, but it certainly happened ! Jim On 20 August 2012 19:01, Rob Doe <[email protected]> wrote: > > IGI entries are often regarded as not 100% reliable ... but then so should > Parish Records (and transcripts of PRs) be in my view. I have an example > in > my family where the Parish Record claims a baptism took place two years > before the child was born according to the birth certificate. > > > > > > >

Very good!  Thanks for the support.  Trumpeter is really the only thing I could come up with.  And indeed an interesting "occupation"....especially if he was truly the King's trumpeter! Thank you all again.  I always need to have someone else's eyes to confirm my suspicions!   Have a great day, Donna   The pessimist complains about the wind; the optimist expects it will change; the realist adjusts the sails. ________________________________ From: Lara Holman <[email protected]> To: Donna Casey <[email protected]> Cc: SFHG SxFamHXGrp <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, August 21, 2012 10:53 AM Subject: Re: [SFHG] Troompetor/Broompetor? Occupationi? Decipher please. Hi Donna, I would agree that the word is 'troompeter'. I would have thought that this is exactly what it sounds like..........a trumpeter. In an earlier baptism (1600 for Agnes Underhill at the same church) it is spelt 'trumpetter' The clincher would seem to be the baptism for another son Alphonso 19 Jul 1608 Thomas' occupation is 'the Kings Trumpetor'. Interesting! Regards, Lara On 21/08/2012 15:07, Donna Casey wrote: > I have found an (original image) entry of a christening (Ancestry.com London, England, Baptisms, Marriages and Burials, 1538-1812) from 3 December 1601, Southwark, St. Saviour, Denmark Park, London.  The handwriting is rather readable, compared to many others I have seen.  However, I cannot understand or decipher the occupation.  Can anyone help? > > It reads as follows: > > Thomas Underhill s. of Thomas a troompetor or broompetor. > > First, does this word/occupation mean anything to anyone? > Next, I can send the document image off-line to anyone who might like to try deciphering for me. > > Donna > Michigan, USA >  The pessimist complains about the wind; the optimist expects it will change; the realist adjusts the sails. >  ------------------------------- > 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 > >

If I can butt in. The link works for me. I think the problem might be only the first (underlined) bit of the link is being used. The formatting in the email split the link over two lines. Lionel Carter On 21/08/2012 04:16, Joe Austen wrote: > https://www.familysearch.org/search/catalog/show?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fcatalog-se > >arch-api%3A8080%2Fwww-catalogapi-webservice%2Fitem%2F64075

I have found an (original image) entry of a christening (Ancestry.com London, England, Baptisms, Marriages and Burials, 1538-1812) from 3 December 1601, Southwark, St. Saviour, Denmark Park, London.  The handwriting is rather readable, compared to many others I have seen.  However, I cannot understand or decipher the occupation.  Can anyone help? It reads as follows: Thomas Underhill s. of Thomas a troompetor or broompetor. First, does this word/occupation mean anything to anyone? Next, I can send the document image off-line to anyone who might like to try deciphering for me. Donna Michigan, USA   The pessimist complains about the wind; the optimist expects it will change; the realist adjusts the sails.

The man who seems to be the most likely candidate to be my Austen 5x great grandfather was Richard Austen, who according to the IGI was christened on the 9th of December 1745(coincidentally exactly 200 years before my birth) in Climping. A few years ago I visited the SFHG Library in Lewes and checked the PRs for Climping and there were no baptisms in Climping in 1745. any clues. Regards Joe Austen 9934 in oz

Hi Joe IGI entries are often regarded as not 100% reliable ... but then so should Parish Records (and transcripts of PRs) be in my view. I have an example in my family where the Parish Record claims a baptism took place two years before the child was born according to the birth certificate. -----Original Message----- From: Joe Austen Sent: Monday, August 20, 2012 5:32 PM To: [email protected] Subject: [SFHG] the IGI not supported by PRs The man who seems to be the most likely candidate to be my Austen 5x great grandfather was Richard Austen, who according to the IGI was christened on the 9th of December 1745(coincidentally exactly 200 years before my birth) in Climping. A few years ago I visited the SFHG Library in Lewes and checked the PRs for Climping and there were no baptisms in Climping in 1745. any clues. Regards Joe Austen 9934 in oz ------------------------------- 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 Nina I have just checked the record you mention on the Family Search website. The source film number is 1468866 and a search of the Library Catalogue gives the following details Bishop's transcripts for Frant, 1598-1887 authors: Church of England. Parish Church of Frant (Sussex). format: Manuscript/Manuscript on Film language: English publication: Salt Lake City, Utah : Filmed by the Genealogical Society of Utah, 1986 physical: on 2 microfilm reels ; 35 mm. Notes Microfilm of original records at the West Sussex Record Office, Chichester. West Sussex Record Office no. : EP II/16/76A-C You can hire the film(s) at any Latterday Saints Family History Library (go to FamilySearch Centres on the website to find the one closest to you) or I'm sure you could order a copy of the entry from West Sussex Record Office. Gillian -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Nina Teeder Sent: Monday, 20 August 2012 7:34 AM To: [email protected] Subject: [SFHG] Baptisms on Family Search but not on Frontis for Frant parish Hello everyone For years, I have wondered why my ancestor, John FRY, who died in 1785 in Frant, named in his Will a son, Robert FRY, for whom I didn't find a baptism at Lewes. There is no such baptism in the Frant parish register transcript CD produced by the Tonbridge Wells Family History Society and neither is there such a baptism on the Frontis website. However, on a random search on the Family Search website tonight, I found a baptism in Frant for Robert FRY, son of John and Anne on 18 March 1763. This would be exactly right, as John named his surviving children in order of birth date and the last child I found was James, baptised on 13 May 1761. Robert was named last in the Will. I compared all baptisms in Frant in 1763 on Family Search to the CD and to Frontis, and there is another entry on Family Search that doesn't appear on those: Perceval HART on 25 April 1763. Family Search has seven baptisms in 1763, the CD and Frontis have only five. I'm confused! Can anyone shed a light on this? Naturally, I would love the Family Search entry to be correct! Nina Teeder Member 3626 ------------------------------- 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

Thanks for the responses. Neal's theory would seem the most likely answer here. I looked at the film of the original register when I was in Lewes many years ago; next time I'm in Chichester I'll check the film of BTs which are held there. Hopefully, I'll find Robert Fry's baptism! The next problem is to find the parents of John Fry - I have been searching for almost twenty years! The most likely parents are Richard Fry and Elizabeth Children(s), although I have been unable to find conclusive proof. My daughter has transcribed literally hundreds of Fry Wills but, the one little clue that we need has yet to come to light. Unless anyone knows any different.. Nina

Actually, there is a scenario in which that "premature baptism" might be found. The first baby with that name may not have lived long and then the parents gave the same name to a later baby, especially if it was being named after the father, grandfather, etc. -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Rob Doe Sent: August-20-12 2:01 PM To: Joe Austen; [email protected] Subject: Re: [SFHG] the IGI not supported by PRs Hi Joe IGI entries are often regarded as not 100% reliable ... but then so should Parish Records (and transcripts of PRs) be in my view. I have an example in my family where the Parish Record claims a baptism took place two years before the child was born according to the birth certificate.

Hi Nina A lot of the IGI Extractions were from Bishops transcripts and not the PR's I have done some transcription and found entries on BT's that do not appear in the PR's. There appears to be no reason why this occurs, it could be that baptisms are recorded in a working document and then transcribed into the PR's and an entry gets missed but when the BT's are sent the full information is given. This also appears in reverse when an entry in the PR's does not appear in the BT's. Perhaps someone else will have another explanation Tony ----- Original Message ----- From: "Nina Teeder" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Sunday, August 19, 2012 10:34 PM Subject: [SFHG] Baptisms on Family Search but not on Frontis for Frant parish >

I can't put my finger on them at the moment, but I have found several similar instances where Family Search / IGI has entries that do not appear in PR transcripts.  It is possible that the every now and again the available transcripts missed an entry, either by oversight or because the transcriber could not read the entry.  I beleive that the LDS made their own microfilm copies of Parish Registers, and they may be better than those used by transcribers in the UK.   Neal  ________________________________ From: Nina Teeder <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Sunday, 19 August 2012, 22:34 Subject: [SFHG] Baptisms on Family Search but not on Frontis for Frant parish Hello everyone For years, I have wondered why my ancestor, John FRY, who died in 1785 in Frant, named in his Will  a son, Robert FRY, for whom I didn't find a baptism at Lewes.  There is no such baptism in the Frant parish register transcript CD produced by the Tonbridge Wells Family History Society and neither is there such a baptism on the Frontis website. However, on a random search on the Family Search website tonight, I found a baptism in Frant for Robert FRY, son of John and Anne on 18 March 1763. This would be exactly right, as John named his surviving children in order of birth date and the last child I found was James, baptised on 13 May 1761. Robert was named last in the Will. I compared all baptisms in Frant in 1763 on Family Search to the CD and to Frontis, and there is another entry on Family Search that doesn't appear on those: Perceval HART on 25 April 1763.  Family Search has seven baptisms in 1763, the CD and Frontis have only five. I'm confused!  Can anyone shed a light on this?  Naturally, I would love the Family Search entry to be correct! Nina Teeder Member 3626 ------------------------------- 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 everyone For years, I have wondered why my ancestor, John FRY, who died in 1785 in Frant, named in his Will a son, Robert FRY, for whom I didn't find a baptism at Lewes. There is no such baptism in the Frant parish register transcript CD produced by the Tonbridge Wells Family History Society and neither is there such a baptism on the Frontis website. However, on a random search on the Family Search website tonight, I found a baptism in Frant for Robert FRY, son of John and Anne on 18 March 1763. This would be exactly right, as John named his surviving children in order of birth date and the last child I found was James, baptised on 13 May 1761. Robert was named last in the Will. I compared all baptisms in Frant in 1763 on Family Search to the CD and to Frontis, and there is another entry on Family Search that doesn't appear on those: Perceval HART on 25 April 1763. Family Search has seven baptisms in 1763, the CD and Frontis have only five. I'm confused! Can anyone shed a light on this? Naturally, I would love the Family Search entry to be correct! Nina Teeder Member 3626

For several years I have shared "Bedwell" research with SFHG member Steve Bedwell. Now my emails to him are failing. Are you still around Steve? Or can anyone else help? Please reply off-list Thanks Barbara Sanders nee Bedwell

--- On Fri, 13/7/12, Yvonne Carter <[email protected]> wrote: From: Yvonne Carter <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [SFHG] Fisherman to Waterman -Cripps/Moon To: [email protected] Date: Friday, 13 July, 2012, 19:00 Hi, I have a Cripps tree, I wonder if your waterman is any relation. If you would like to contact me off list I can give you more details, as it is Middlesex business not Sussex. Regards, Yvonne --- On Mon, 9/7/12, [email protected] <[email protected]> wrote: From: [email protected] <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [SFHG] Fisherman to Waterman -Cripps/Moon To: [email protected] Date: Monday, 9 July, 2012, 20:19 hello, kinda related...just information, my waterman came from London, the Thames river, Richmond area, surname "Cripps" to become an inlaw to the fisherman in Hastings and area surname "Moon", no other watermen came from Richmond other than this one Cripps and no fisherman left Hastings to go to the Thames to become watermen as far as we can tell so we are not sure what brought the waterman to the sea...!? jennifer #9642 Original Message: ----------------- From: Sharon Newman [email protected] Date: Mon, 09 Jul 2012 18:36:27 +0000 To: [email protected] Subject: [SFHG] Fisherman to Waterman Hi Listers My Great Grandfather, Charles Newington, is described in baptisemal records as 'Fisherman' at the birth of his daughter, Rosina, in 1851... ...Regards Peter Newman SFHG Member 12209       -------------------------------------------------------------------- mail2web.com – What can On Demand Business Solutions do for you? http://link.mail2web.com/Business/SharePoint ------------------------------- 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. This is a message for Margaret Major of Nelson NZ. Could you please email me your email address, I have sent you a site to see but twice it has come back to me saying no such address, Thank you Kay from Chch NZ 8111

Hello Linda, In my copy of the Peter Jerrome and Jonathan Newdick book 'The Men With Laughter In Their Hearts', there is an article reprinted from a Petworth Society bulletin , by a former hoop shaver. Would you like a scanned copy sent offline? Margaret Major [nee Joyes] #5836 -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of L KANE Sent: Thursday, 16 August 2012 4:30 a.m. To: SFHG Subject: [SFHG] Hoopmakers Hi List   Many of my paternal ancestors come from north west Sussex and were Commoners just north of Perworth. Their occupations stated in censuses were Ag Labs, brickmakers and hoopmakers. I've an idea what hoopmakers did (do?)  ie shaping chestnut with a spokeshave, but not sure what the resulting pieces of wood were used for, I can't imagine that barrels had wooden hoops? I'm sure many of you will know the answer and I would grateful for any info   Linda Kane (nee Holden) 14679 ------------------------------- 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

In message <[email protected]> L KANE <[email protected]> wrote: > I can't imagine that barrels had wooden hoops? They did indeed. Barrels were used for moving a wide variety of goods both dry and wet. The wet ones obviously needed a sealed, thick barrel with metal hoops but dry goods were often packed in surprisingly loose fitted barrels bound with wooden hoops. Chris -- Chris Shepheard writing as himself [email protected] from far west Surrey www.chrispics.co.uk

Hi List   Many of my paternal ancestors come from north west Sussex and were Commoners just north of Perworth. Their occupations stated in censuses were Ag Labs, brickmakers and hoopmakers. I've an idea what hoopmakers did (do?)  ie shaping chestnut with a spokeshave, but not sure what the resulting pieces of wood were used for, I can't imagine that barrels had wooden hoops? I'm sure many of you will know the answer and I would grateful for any info   Linda Kane (nee Holden) 14679