Some members may find this of interest. A fairly new, to me, site that in many respects replaces the now defunct RAOGK (Random Acts of Genealogical KIndness) one. They can be found at: http://gengathering.com/ US based, but they have no desire to keep it to that continent. Peter Amsden

Thank you John Yes there does appear to be an open Government licence to use the TNA information (with attribution) see;- http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/version/2/ However it does say "This licence does not cover: personal data in the Information;" I imagine that with the 100 year rule in place on publication of censusses it would be reasonable to assume that the "personal data" in a Census has ceased to be personal & has become "historic"........ Keith Please use kandn.atkinson@gmail.com & delete kandn.atkinson@tiscali.co.uk On 30 January 2014 14:55, John Hanson <john.hanson@one-name.org> wrote: > Keith > I believe that the information that you want is probably on the TNA website > itself. > I know that when I wrote my book on the 1911 back in 2009 that we found the > necessary wording there then. > Regards > John > > -----Original Message----- > From: sog-uk-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:sog-uk-bounces@rootsweb.com] On > Behalf Of Keith Atkinson > Sent: 30 January 2014 14:08 > To: sog-uk@rootsweb.com > Subject: [SOG-UK] Census pages Copyright > > We are a not-for-profit Local Amenity Society compiling an online Directory > of historic buildings in our area. We would like to upload or link the > relevant census pages onto our site to show the occupants/occupations etc of > these buildings over the decades The easiest way is to use the TNA Census > pages. These are presumably copyrighted but of course widely available > online and at TNA. > > Does anyone have experience of asking for permission to do this & is it > reasonably easy to obtain (free!). > > Keith Atkinson > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > SOG-UK-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes > in the subject and the body of the message > >

Keith I believe that the information that you want is probably on the TNA website itself. I know that when I wrote my book on the 1911 back in 2009 that we found the necessary wording there then. Regards John -----Original Message----- From: sog-uk-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:sog-uk-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Keith Atkinson Sent: 30 January 2014 14:08 To: sog-uk@rootsweb.com Subject: [SOG-UK] Census pages Copyright We are a not-for-profit Local Amenity Society compiling an online Directory of historic buildings in our area. We would like to upload or link the relevant census pages onto our site to show the occupants/occupations etc of these buildings over the decades The easiest way is to use the TNA Census pages. These are presumably copyrighted but of course widely available online and at TNA. Does anyone have experience of asking for permission to do this & is it reasonably easy to obtain (free!). Keith Atkinson ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to SOG-UK-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

We are a not-for-profit Local Amenity Society compiling an online Directory of historic buildings in our area. We would like to upload or link the relevant census pages onto our site to show the occupants/occupations etc of these buildings over the decades The easiest way is to use the TNA Census pages. These are presumably copyrighted but of course widely available online and at TNA. Does anyone have experience of asking for permission to do this & is it reasonably easy to obtain (free!). Keith Atkinson

> I > sometimes think that we fail to take into account the deep-seated beliefs > and influence of contemporaries and parents, the prevailing social, > religious and moral beliefs and mores of our ancestors. Its a trap that many fall into - one of the reasons i try to get newbies to read some serious social history! A classic example is one of the consequences of "tenancies for three lives" so common in the past. It was more than a little important for generation 1 to know that generation 2 coud/would produce offspring who could take on the tenancy and thus ensure a roof over the heads of generation 1 - a lot of those ultra-short 1st pregnancies - let alone the "test" children born before the marriage were entirely NOT accidental one suspects! Hugh Ainsley

<<snipped>> I sometimes think that we fail to take into account the deep-seated beliefs and influence of contemporaries and parents, the prevailing social, religious and moral beliefs and mores of our ancestors. <<snipped>> Indeed - I found The Tudor Farm series on BBC interesting for such insights there... Adrian

A very interesting discussion, for my part I would like to observe that it is surely, (no matter what the “Law” proclaimed) what the people, consciously or sub-consciously, believed and practised that mattered? I sometimes think that we fail to take into account the deep-seated beliefs and influence of contemporaries and parents, the prevailing social, religious and moral beliefs and mores of our ancestors. For example in my own lifetime, (born 1946) the prevailing “social, religious and moral beliefs and mores” of marriage have changed beyond what I thought “right” when I was, say, 23 when I married: now I learn that more couples are living together before marriage than there are married, unthinkable in 1969! Andrew-Bede On 23 Jan 2014, at 17:19, Adrian Bruce <abruce@madasafish.com> wrote: > > <<snipped>> > I agree; the logic is impeccable. But if the first premise of an argument is > > no more than an assertion/belief, the logic is worthless. > <<snipped>> > > Yes - if the first premise falls, then it is clear the rest of the argument > is worthless. That's why I put "logic" in quotes. > > However - there is no real point in saying - "Our ancestors were wrong > because ..." It's much more valuable to try to understand why they thought > as they did, which was what I was trying to explain. It's anachronistic to > talk in terms of genetics and blood relationships. The first was unknown > then and I'm not sure the second doesn't lead us into more widespread > problems with the further degrees of cousinship. > > Adrian B > > > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to SOG-UK-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

<<snipped>> I agree; the logic is impeccable. But if the first premise of an argument is no more than an assertion/belief, the logic is worthless. <<snipped>> Yes - if the first premise falls, then it is clear the rest of the argument is worthless. That's why I put "logic" in quotes. However - there is no real point in saying - "Our ancestors were wrong because ..." It's much more valuable to try to understand why they thought as they did, which was what I was trying to explain. It's anachronistic to talk in terms of genetics and blood relationships. The first was unknown then and I'm not sure the second doesn't lead us into more widespread problems with the further degrees of cousinship. Adrian B

Just to note that consanguinity is the wrong word for marriage to deceased wife's sisters etc - English law distinguished between "kindred" (i.e. blood relationship) and "affinity" (relationship through marriage). A relationship between in-laws could never give rise to a prosecution for incest. The idea that wife and husband constituted one person (person, of course, in the legal sense!) remained true even after Gladstone's Married Women's Property Act of 1870 - indeed it still lingers on today. The rationale behind it seems to have been the social goal of not allowing property to be accumulated into too few hands. It was given religious overtones partly because of the marriage of Catherine of Aragon to Henry VIII (who was her deceased husband's brother), but it has nothing to do with consanguinity in the literal sense (though the word "cousin" which is related could often be used very loosely to include in-laws. Hector Davie

On 23/01/2014 14:40, Hector Davie wrote:u > A relationship between in-laws could never give rise to a > prosecution for incest. There was a period (hinted at in this thread) when sleeping with a wife's brother or a husband's sister was not just adultery, but incestuous adultery. Regards, Colin Mills --- This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active. http://www.avast.com

I have now received details of Geoff's funeral service The funeral will take place on Wednesday 29th January at 12 midday at St Barnabas Church, Great Tey, CO6 1JS. Parking is a little difficult as there is no car park, so any visitors will need to find parking on the side streets and allow a little extra time for their journey. We have been advised that there is an upstairs gallery in the church, so there is more seating than first anticipated. Everyone is welcome to come for a light buffet lunch after the service at The Thatchers Arms, Mount Bures CO8 5AT from 1pm. Mrs Stone has asked for an indication of numbers attending for catering purposes so we'd be grateful if you let Alec Tritton know by noon on Monday 27th January by emailing alec.tritton@one-name.org . Alec is liaising with Mrs Stone as Chairman of the Halsted Trust of which Geoff was latterly treasurer. It has been decided to keep flowers to family only and they suggest that if anyone wants to make a donation in Geoff's memory to donate to <http://www.firststopcentre.org.uk/>First Stop <http://www.firststopcentre.org.uk/>Centre, a local drop-in centre for the disadvantaged.

-----Original Message----- From: Adrian Bruce Sent: Wednesday, January 22, 2014 7:34 PM To: sog-uk@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [SOG-UK] consanguinity If I recall correctly, the "logic" behind this was that a man and his wife became "one person". Therefore the wife's sister became the husband's sister and the husband could clearly not marry his own "sister". Adrian B I agree; the logic is impeccable. But if the first premise of an argument is no more than an assertion/belief, the logic is worthless. George ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to SOG-UK-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

<<snipped>> I'm afraid it is one of those areas where logic seems to have played very little part in formulating the laws. There is no blood relationship between a man and his dead wife's sister, so it is difficult to understand why such marriages were void anyway. <<snipped>> If I recall correctly, the "logic" behind this was that a man and his wife became "one person". Therefore the wife's sister became the husband's sister and the husband could clearly not marry his own "sister". Adrian B

Thank you for the replies. The TNA isn’t the answer because 1921 is too recent for anything more than the register of applications. I’ll try the Passport Office themselves. If the article found by David is correct there ought to be a photo and since I can prove the deaths of the family members surely it wouldn’t be against rules to release copies to me? Denis

Possibly. I'm afraid it is one of those areas where logic seems to have played very little part in formulating the laws. There is no blood relationship between a man and his dead wife's sister, so it is difficult to understand why such marriages were void anyway. It is quite likely that the prohibition did include in-laws and could easily have been enforced by an over zealous cleric although various cases quoted by Professor Probert suggest that even where there was considerable doubt about the validity of a proposed marriage, a priest was more likely than not to conduct the marriage ceremony. In the absence of reliable evidence one way or the other I think you are going to be stuck with one of the conundrums that for me at least make family history so fascinating. George

Hi Jeanne, The sender replied to the mailing list - it simply wasn't addressed to your personal email address. I released the message to the list as there is no indication in any way it was private - she replied directly to your original open post/the thread. Thanks, Chris. -----Original Message----- From: sog-uk-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:sog-uk-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Jeanne Bunting Sent: 22 January 2014 11:34 To: SOG-UK-L Subject: [SOG-UK] Personal Message May I ask how a personal reply to a List message that seems to be addressed only to me has appeared on the Mailing List? Jeanne Bunting Sent from my iPhone 5 ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to SOG-UK-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

The Wikipedia entry for 'British passport' includes the following: "The British Nationality and Status of Aliens Act 1914 was passed on the outbreak of World War I. A new format was introduced in 1915: a single sheet folded into eight with a cardboard cover. It included a description of the holder as well as a photograph, and had to be renewed after two years." The Wikipedia entry for "Passport" includes: "During World War I, European governments introduced border passport requirements for security reasons (to keep out spies) and to control the emigration of citizens with useful skills, retaining potential manpower. These controls remained in place after the war, and became standard procedure, though controversial. British tourists of the 1920s complained, especially about attached photographs and physical descriptions, which they considered led to a "nasty dehumanization"." David

Mary According to Rebecca Probert in her book "Marriage Law for Genealogists", from 31 August 1835 a marriage in England or Wales between a man and his deceased wife's sister would have been void, as would a marriage between a woman and her deceased husband's brother. The former prohibition was removed in 1907, but the latter not until 1921. Ireland had its own laws, which may or may not have been similar. However, it does seem likely that this problem was at the root of the matter. My apologies to Professor Probert if I have misquoted or misunderstood her. Regards George Bush

Judging by the TNA research guide on the subject http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/records/looking-for-person/passport.htm, you are unlikely to find a photograph and it looks as if the Passport Office only deals with living passport holders Colin From: Denis McElhinney > Sent: Tuesday, 21 January 2014 19:31 > To: SOG-UK@rootsweb.com > Reply To: sog-uk@rootsweb.com > Subject: [SOG-UK] Passport photos > > My father had two uncles who emigrated to Africa in 1921 to work on the > railways. Within 15 years both had died there of Malaria. I have > details of > the passports issued to them in London before the journey and I have a > variety of documents from Northern Rhodesia including their death > certificates. > Does anyone know whether the Passport Office would have copies of their > passport photos and if so whether I could apply for these? > Thanks > Denis >

In England it was, until 1907, illegal to marry your dead wife's sister, and until 1921 to marry your dead husband's brother. The amending acts also seem to have applied to Ireland: http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1907/en/act/pub/0047/print.html http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1921/en/act/pub/0024/print.html Something else to consider is that one of the former spouses may not have been certified dead, but presumed dead. In this situation different rules applied in different countries - but the rules were generally more relaxed in the colonies (certainly in Australia). Hope this helps, Peter > About a year ago I did some Irish research for a friend whose > ancestors had left Co Cork for Massachusetts in the 19th century. The > people who emigrated came from 2 different families. One woman had > married in 1859 & had 5 children before her husband died in 1875. > Another man married in 1874 & had 3 children (1 of whom died young) > before his wife died in 1880. The family story is that the widowed > woman had known the widower man before their marriages. Whether this > is true or not, I do not know, but both families lived in nearby areas > to each other in the parishes of Carrigtwohill & Midleton in E Cork, > and both had married someone named Murphy. It seemed possible that > the deceased spouses may have been siblings, but this has not yet been > proven. At the end of 1881, both families sailed together to Boston - > she with her 4 children (1 daughter having left earlier) & he with his > 2 younger children. Exactly 28 days after docking in Boston, they > married in a small town in ! > Massachusetts. It would seem that both left Ireland in order to > settle together in a new land, but the question is why didn't they > marry first in Ireland - rather than waiting until they arrived in > Massachusetts? If they had been married to siblings before, would > this have made any difference to their ability to remarry in Ireland? > I have looked through information on consanguinity, but do not find > this situation among those described. (They were RC by the way.) Is > there something that would have made it difficult for them to marry > in Ireland but easier in Massachusetts? (It is possible that the > man's father died early in 1881, but I don't see how this could have > made a difference to their marriage plans.) Any ideas?