I agree with Andrew that, as recorded in the register, the alias can only be Thomas Bate's. However, there are some interesting features of this entry. 1. I have never seen a baptism with the mother's name omitted - unless the child was a foundling. Are there other entries with the mother's name missing in the same period? If it has been done deliberately, why? 2. Presumably you have already tried to establish whether or not it was actually Thomas's own parents who "jumped the gun"? Because if so and if his mother's maiden name was Gibbons, that would in my opinion, resolve the matter . 3. Undoubtedly trivial, and of no significance whatsoever, but Decimo and Sexto do not seem to be Latin. I think they are Italian words and if the writer was intending "sixteenth", the correct form would be sextodecimo, but don't quote me on that. George -------Original Message------- From: Adrian Bruce Date: 04/09/12 12:10:57 To: [email protected] Subject: [SOG-UK] Meaning of Alias on Baptism? On 16 January 1718/19, the parish register for Acton, Cheshire, records the baptism of Maria in these terms: Maria fil: Thomae Bate alias Gibbons de Hurleston Decimo Sexto Jan: 16 Which I reckon translates to: Maria, daughter of Thomas Bate alias Gibbons, of Hurleston, 16 January [1718/19] (my punctuation). So my question is - to whom does that "alias" belong?? Anyone familiar with similar wording who can say? My first inclination is that it's Thomas Bate who has an alias of Thomas Gibbons. However, on 15 June 1719, there's a marriage at Acton of Thomas Bate to Rachel Gibbons, which seems to suggest a distinct possibility that Thomas and Rachel have jumped the gun (there's a similar baptism to Thomas in 1713). But no sign of "illegitimus" or whatever the real Church Latin is... It may not be possible to decide but has anyone certain knowledge of the meaning of such a form elsewhere? Thanks Adrian Bruce ------------------------------- 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: 2012.0.1913 / Virus Database: 2411/4924 - Release Date: 04/09/12

<<snipped>> It has to belong to Thomas. Giving the daughter's surname would be unusual in a christening register of this date, but when it was given it would appear before 'fil:'. <<snipped>> Thanks for that - I needed someone who'd got some feeling for the format of the entries. What you say makes perfect sense and is what I thought it should be when using logic. It's just that, taken in isolation, the entries keep pushing me in the other direction. For instance, after I'd sent the original mail, I found the next baptism to Thomas Bate, after the marriage, and it omits the "alias Gibbons" bit, just as it would if it were referring to the children who are now legitimate. On the other hand, one could argue the clerk might have forgot. BUT I've just been checking the burials, which I hadn't done before, and the burial in the PR of the earliest "Bate alias Gibbons" child is described thus: "Johes Gibbons alias Bate de Stoke sepultus July the 31st [1713]" His baptism in the PR was "Johes filius Thomae Bate alias Gibbons de Stoke July 28 [1713]" While in the BT it's "Johes Gibbons alias Bate de Stoke Bapt [vicessimo] octavo July 28 [1713]" (I think "Johes" is actually a contraction, so probably ought to be transcribed "Joh'es") So while the PR baptism implies the father had the alias, the BT baptism and the burial both implied the son had the alias, and assign primacy to "Gibbons"!! Andrew, I feel certain that what you're saying makes sense. But I'm no longer sure the Acton parish clerk followed the rules! I certainly feel in no way able to decide what the "truth" was. The context of all this is that my 6th great GF (a younger Thomas Bate of Acton) is a brick wall - a user submitted tree on FamilySearch claims he is the son of the Thomas Bate referred to above. I can find no evidence to back this up - not in the PRs or BTs on FindMyPast, nor in a will. My only hope is one of the more unusual sources might provide evidence for a link, e.g. Poor Law, bastardy exams - although looking at the above, I'm not sure I want to find that link! Adrian B

> From: Adrian Bruce > Sent: 09 April 2012 12:09 > > On 16 January 1718/19, the parish register for Acton, Cheshire, records the > baptism of Maria in these terms: > > Maria fil: Thomae Bate alias Gibbons de Hurleston Decimo Sexto Jan: 16 > > Which I reckon translates to: > Maria, daughter of Thomas Bate alias Gibbons, of Hurleston, 16 January > [1718/19] (my punctuation). > > So my question is - to whom does that "alias" belong?? Anyone familiar with > similar wording who can say? It has to belong to Thomas. Giving the daughter's surname would be unusual in a christening register of this date, but when it was given it would appear before 'fil:'. > My first inclination is that it's Thomas Bate who has an alias of Thomas > Gibbons. However, on 15 June 1719, there's a marriage at Acton of Thomas > Bate to Rachel Gibbons, which seems to suggest a distinct possibility that > Thomas and Rachel have jumped the gun (there's a similar baptism to Thomas > in 1713). But no sign of "illegitimus" or whatever the real Church Latin > is... In the absence of any indication of illegitimacy, I think that it is as likely that Thomas was marrying a cousin, and the earlier christening entry is a child by an previous wife. Best wishes Andrew -- Andrew Millard - [email protected] Bodimeade genealogy:   http://www.dur.ac.uk/a.r.millard/genealogy/Bodimeade/ My family history:     http://www.dur.ac.uk/a.r.millard/genealogy/ GenUKI Middx + London: http://homepages.gold.ac.uk/genuki/MDX/ + ../LND/

On 16 January 1718/19, the parish register for Acton, Cheshire, records the baptism of Maria in these terms: Maria fil: Thomae Bate alias Gibbons de Hurleston Decimo Sexto Jan: 16 Which I reckon translates to: Maria, daughter of Thomas Bate alias Gibbons, of Hurleston, 16 January [1718/19] (my punctuation). So my question is - to whom does that "alias" belong?? Anyone familiar with similar wording who can say? My first inclination is that it's Thomas Bate who has an alias of Thomas Gibbons. However, on 15 June 1719, there's a marriage at Acton of Thomas Bate to Rachel Gibbons, which seems to suggest a distinct possibility that Thomas and Rachel have jumped the gun (there's a similar baptism to Thomas in 1713). But no sign of "illegitimus" or whatever the real Church Latin is... It may not be possible to decide but has anyone certain knowledge of the meaning of such a form elsewhere? Thanks Adrian Bruce

Hi Chris: Many thanks - I'll pass this on to the colleague who is interested in these petitions. Cheers Brian Randell On 3 Apr 2012, at 20:10, Chris Pitt Lewis wrote: > > There is some information in Maurice Bond, Guide to the Records of > Parliament (HMSO 1971), especially pp.172-173. The gist is that tens of > thousands of petitions were presented over the years, but most of the > originals have been destroyed, though some have been randomly preserved > and are indeed in the House of Lords Record Office. There may have been > a similar petition to the Commons, but Commons petitions before 1834 > were destroyed in the 1834 fire. > > Chris Pitt Lewis > > > > In message <[email protected]>, Peter Park > <[email protected]> writes >> Brian, >> >> >> >> My guess is that they are in the House of Lords Records Office. >> >> >> >> Peter Park >> >> Fulwood >> >> Lancashire >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On >> Behalf Of Brian Randell >> Sent: 03 April 2012 17:25 >> To: [email protected] >> Subject: [SOG-UK] House of Lords petitions >> >> >> >> Hi: >> >> >> >> A contributor to GENUKI/Devon has recently sent me details of a short >> entry: >> >> >> >>> Great Britain House of Lords. (1833). Journals of the House of Lords, Vol. >> >> >>> 65. page 223. >> >> >> >> (a volume that is available online in Google Books), >> >> >> >> which refers to a "petition by Members of the Farmers Society in the >> Parishes of Hemyock, Culmstock and Clayhidon in the County of Devon". The >> entry ends: "It is Ordered that the said Petition do lie on the Table". >> >> >> >> There are in fact many entries like this referring to various petitions, >> from various parts of the country. >> >> >> >> I was wondering if such petitions were ever retained, and are now accessible >> - and if so how to find them. >> >> >> >> Cheers >> >> >> >> Brian Randell >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> School of Computing Science, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, >> >> NE1 7RU, UK >> >> EMAIL = [email protected] PHONE = +44 191 222 7923 >> >> FAX = +44 191 222 8232 URL = http://www.cs.ncl.ac.uk/people/brian.randell >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ------------------------------- >> >> 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 >> > > -- > Chris Pitt Lewis > > > ------------------------------- > 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 -- School of Computing Science, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE1 7RU, UK EMAIL = [email protected] PHONE = +44 191 222 7923 FAX = +44 191 222 8232 URL = http://www.cs.ncl.ac.uk/people/brian.randell

There is some information in Maurice Bond, Guide to the Records of Parliament (HMSO 1971), especially pp.172-173. The gist is that tens of thousands of petitions were presented over the years, but most of the originals have been destroyed, though some have been randomly preserved and are indeed in the House of Lords Record Office. There may have been a similar petition to the Commons, but Commons petitions before 1834 were destroyed in the 1834 fire. Chris Pitt Lewis In message <[email protected]>, Peter Park <[email protected]> writes >Brian, > > > >My guess is that they are in the House of Lords Records Office. > > > >Peter Park > >Fulwood > >Lancashire > > > > > > > >-----Original Message----- >From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On >Behalf Of Brian Randell >Sent: 03 April 2012 17:25 >To: [email protected] >Subject: [SOG-UK] House of Lords petitions > > > >Hi: > > > >A contributor to GENUKI/Devon has recently sent me details of a short >entry: > > > >> Great Britain House of Lords. (1833). Journals of the House of Lords, Vol. > > >> 65. page 223. > > > >(a volume that is available online in Google Books), > > > >which refers to a "petition by Members of the Farmers Society in the >Parishes of Hemyock, Culmstock and Clayhidon in the County of Devon". The >entry ends: "It is Ordered that the said Petition do lie on the Table". > > > >There are in fact many entries like this referring to various petitions, >from various parts of the country. > > > >I was wondering if such petitions were ever retained, and are now accessible >- and if so how to find them. > > > >Cheers > > > >Brian Randell > > > > > > > >-- > >School of Computing Science, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, > >NE1 7RU, UK > >EMAIL = [email protected] PHONE = +44 191 222 7923 > >FAX = +44 191 222 8232 URL = http://www.cs.ncl.ac.uk/people/brian.randell > > > > > > > > > > > > > >------------------------------- > >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 > -- Chris Pitt Lewis

Brian, My guess is that they are in the House of Lords Records Office. Peter Park Fulwood Lancashire -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Brian Randell Sent: 03 April 2012 17:25 To: [email protected] Subject: [SOG-UK] House of Lords petitions Hi: A contributor to GENUKI/Devon has recently sent me details of a short entry: > Great Britain House of Lords. (1833). Journals of the House of Lords, Vol. > 65. page 223. (a volume that is available online in Google Books), which refers to a "petition by Members of the Farmers Society in the Parishes of Hemyock, Culmstock and Clayhidon in the County of Devon". The entry ends: "It is Ordered that the said Petition do lie on the Table". There are in fact many entries like this referring to various petitions, from various parts of the country. I was wondering if such petitions were ever retained, and are now accessible - and if so how to find them. Cheers Brian Randell -- School of Computing Science, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE1 7RU, UK EMAIL = [email protected] PHONE = +44 191 222 7923 FAX = +44 191 222 8232 URL = http://www.cs.ncl.ac.uk/people/brian.randell ------------------------------- 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

Hi: A contributor to GENUKI/Devon has recently sent me details of a short entry: > Great Britain House of Lords. (1833). Journals of the House of Lords, Vol. > 65. page 223. (a volume that is available online in Google Books), which refers to a "petition by Members of the Farmers Society in the Parishes of Hemyock, Culmstock and Clayhidon in the County of Devon". The entry ends: "It is Ordered that the said Petition do lie on the Table". There are in fact many entries like this referring to various petitions, from various parts of the country. I was wondering if such petitions were ever retained, and are now accessible - and if so how to find them. Cheers Brian Randell -- School of Computing Science, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE1 7RU, UK EMAIL = [email protected] PHONE = +44 191 222 7923 FAX = +44 191 222 8232 URL = http://www.cs.ncl.ac.uk/people/brian.randell

There has been much debate about this, and several, no doubt true, facts posted It seems in summary that whatever the UK conscription rules were, Chaplin was not a UK resident, and thus was obliged (and, from what we understand) did indeed attempt to sign up with his host country army. The rules of the USA were thus imposed on him, and it is those rules that would be relevant, not those in UK, nor Canada. Whilst I am not an expert on US conscription, it seems possible that he was rejected from the US military on physical grounds. They did not have such an urgency to join the conflict as the Commonwealth that were intimately involved in the war from the start, and had no need to recruit any male in at least the slightest bit fit for warfare, they would logically chose only the best specimens. Chaplin was far from being that ! Happy Hunting Pickard Trepess

There are copies of "My Ancestors came with the Conqueror" by Anthony Camp available at www.abebooks.co.uk Ron Dunning

Canada had many British citizens enlist in the Canadian Army. The attestation papers are digitized and on line at Library and Archives Canada ( http://www.collectionscanada.gc.ca/index-e.html ). They are indexed under Soldiers of the First World War, 1914-1920.  The back of the attestation papers of the ranks contains an amount of physical description. I looked at the surname of my shortest family. There were 53 records. The men ranged in height between 5'1 1/2" and 5'10 1/2". At least 8 of them were 5'4" with another large bunch between 5'4" and 5'6". They were all declared fit for service with the Canadian Expeditionary Force. They ranged in ages from late teens to 45. My father's uncle was the 45 year old. He was at best 4'10" tall. My parents' wedding photo has him standing on the church steps above my mother and she was still taller than he. She was 5'1". Quite a few of the 53 were born in the UK and still had their next of kin listed as in the UK. There were also a number that were living in the US and came up to Canada to enlist. All who enlisted had to swear allegiance to the king. Conscription came into force in Canada in 1917.  At this point in Canada's history we were autonomous with regard to internal affairs but not with regard to external affairs. The attestation papers of the conscriptees clearly state that they were conscripted under the stated act. Only two of the 53 were conscripted, all the rest volunteered. A larger sample would better determine whether people born outside Canada entered the war under conscription or under voluntary enlistment. Prior to 1917, we had had a huge number of volunteer enlistments as well as a high casualty rate. Susan ----- Original Message ----- From: [email protected] Date: Wednesday, March 14, 2012 10:22 am Subject: Re: [SOG-UK] Charlie Chaplin To: [email protected], [email protected] > > Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange > > -----Original Message----- > From: "Adrian Bruce" <[email protected]> > Sender: [email protected] > Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2012 15:45:02 > To: <[email protected]> > Reply-To: [email protected], [email protected] > Subject: Re: [SOG-UK] Charlie Chaplin > > .... > Does anyone know the procedures for an British Citizen living > overseas re > military service in WWI? > ... > was denied for being too small at 5'5" and underweight. > ... > > According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bantam_%28military%29 > the standard > height qualification for the British Army in WW1 was 5ft 3in. > This was > relaxed to 5ft for what became known as the "Bantams" providing > they had > compensatory features - the aim was to pick up people like > miners. > > One issue may be the original question - who was going to pick > him up for > conscription or registration under the Derby scheme? UK based > recruitmentwould miss him, just as it would miss British > citizens in Australia > (because, surely that's what Australians were??) > > Interestingly http://chnm.gmu.edu/episodes/charlie-chaplin-goes- > to-war/ puts > a different spin on the issue... > > "When Chaplin signed his contract with Mutual, it included a clause > stipulating that he could not leave the United States without the > corporation's approval. The British press criticized the > provision since it > meant that Chaplin, who was only twenty-seven years old, could > not join the > British Army. Two years later, when he signed a million-dollar > contract with > First National pictures, he faced similar criticism in the > United States, > which had recently entered the war. Chaplin apparently tried to > enlist in > the U.S. army; only when he was rejected as underweight did the > criticismabate". Although most of the other references I found > in Google repeat the > original version, I find this one to be more convincing since it > brings in > contracts / bureaucracy, those inevitable aspects! > > Of course, in the absence of evidence about his weight, we might > not know > the full story. Certainly he was registered in the US "World War > I Draft > Registration" in 1917 (you can see his card on Ancestry) when he > is still an > alien. > > Adrian B > > > > > >   > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to SOG-UK- > [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 SOG-UK- > [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message >

Try GoogleBooks or Internet Archive (http://www.archive.org) for copies, etc. Be aware that there are all sorts of lists with different listings; it was necessary to be creative with ancestries to write some people into history giving the appearance of a long pedigree. The English Heritage website for the Abbey is at : http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/daysout/properties/1066-battle-of-hastings-abbey-and-battlefield/ Hope this helps Walt O'Dowd On 14/03/2012 07:00, [email protected] wrote: > Message: 1 > Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2012 08:06:45 -0000 > From: "Jane Hammond"<[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [SOG-UK] going to Africa > To:<[email protected]> > Message-ID:<[email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; > reply-type=original > > I am interested in the Battle Abbey Roll listing men who came to England > with William the Conqueror. Is this a physical item that one can see? Is > there anything on it at Hastings? > > My Rotary Club (Putney) is hosting members of our twin Club at Tourcoing > West and we are taking them round Sussex the weekend after next. Hastings > will be on the route. Is there anything that we can show them? > > I would be grateful for any replies. > > Jane Brown

Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange -----Original Message----- From: "Adrian Bruce" <[email protected]> Sender: [email protected] Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2012 15:45:02 To: <[email protected]> Reply-To: [email protected], [email protected] Subject: Re: [SOG-UK] Charlie Chaplin .... Does anyone know the procedures for an British Citizen living overseas re military service in WWI? ... was denied for being too small at 5'5" and underweight. ... According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bantam_%28military%29 the standard height qualification for the British Army in WW1 was 5ft 3in. This was relaxed to 5ft for what became known as the "Bantams" providing they had compensatory features - the aim was to pick up people like miners. One issue may be the original question - who was going to pick him up for conscription or registration under the Derby scheme? UK based recruitment would miss him, just as it would miss British citizens in Australia (because, surely that's what Australians were??) Interestingly http://chnm.gmu.edu/episodes/charlie-chaplin-goes-to-war/ puts a different spin on the issue... "When Chaplin signed his contract with Mutual, it included a clause stipulating that he could not leave the United States without the corporation's approval. The British press criticized the provision since it meant that Chaplin, who was only twenty-seven years old, could not join the British Army. Two years later, when he signed a million-dollar contract with First National pictures, he faced similar criticism in the United States, which had recently entered the war. Chaplin apparently tried to enlist in the U.S. army; only when he was rejected as underweight did the criticism abate". Although most of the other references I found in Google repeat the original version, I find this one to be more convincing since it brings in contracts / bureaucracy, those inevitable aspects! Of course, in the absence of evidence about his weight, we might not know the full story. Certainly he was registered in the US "World War I Draft Registration" in 1917 (you can see his card on Ancestry) when he is still an alien. Adrian B ------------------------------- 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

Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange -----Original Message----- From: "Adrian Bruce" <[email protected]> Sender: [email protected] Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2012 15:45:02 To: <[email protected]> Reply-To: [email protected], [email protected] Subject: Re: [SOG-UK] Charlie Chaplin .... Does anyone know the procedures for an British Citizen living overseas re military service in WWI? ... was denied for being too small at 5'5" and underweight. ... According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bantam_%28military%29 the standard height qualification for the British Army in WW1 was 5ft 3in. This was relaxed to 5ft for what became known as the "Bantams" providing they had compensatory features - the aim was to pick up people like miners. One issue may be the original question - who was going to pick him up for conscription or registration under the Derby scheme? UK based recruitment would miss him, just as it would miss British citizens in Australia (because, surely that's what Australians were??) Interestingly http://chnm.gmu.edu/episodes/charlie-chaplin-goes-to-war/ puts a different spin on the issue... "When Chaplin signed his contract with Mutual, it included a clause stipulating that he could not leave the United States without the corporation's approval. The British press criticized the provision since it meant that Chaplin, who was only twenty-seven years old, could not join the British Army. Two years later, when he signed a million-dollar contract with First National pictures, he faced similar criticism in the United States, which had recently entered the war. Chaplin apparently tried to enlist in the U.S. army; only when he was rejected as underweight did the criticism abate". Although most of the other references I found in Google repeat the original version, I find this one to be more convincing since it brings in contracts / bureaucracy, those inevitable aspects! Of course, in the absence of evidence about his weight, we might not know the full story. Certainly he was registered in the US "World War I Draft Registration" in 1917 (you can see his card on Ancestry) when he is still an alien. Adrian B ------------------------------- 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

Many thanks to everyone who replied to my question about 'Land in Africa' - I have some more possibilities to pursue now. Angela

The SoG has been asked to pass on the following request for help to the family history community The National Archives needs you! The National Archives is looking for volunteers to take part in an online community pilot. They need your help to trial an online community to see if it could help them develop and improve their online services. They'll be using the community to get feedback on new features and functions they're developing, as well as creating a space for generating new ideas. As a test they are controlling the number of people who can sign up, so to start with they only need 100 volunteers who will be signed up on a first come, first served basis. They will also keep the community closed so that only members can view and interact with the content. If you are not selected for the initial trial, you'll be able to join their waiting list - they'll then notify you if they decide to expand the community and increase the number of members. The trial will run for six months between March and August 2012. If they then decide that the trial has been successful, they will aim to establish a permanent community as part of their package of online services. Please register your interest to take part in the pilot by providing some basic details by clicking on the following link: http://www.dotsurvey.me/b2mand7-4e3ir3b As a member of TNA's User Advisory Group I hope to be able to take part myself to see if TNA's online support for family historians can be improved. But if in the mean time you have any comments as users of The National Archives either online or at Kew please don't hesitate to contact me. Else Churchill Genealogist Society of Genealogists 14 Charterhouse Buildings Goswell Road London EC1M 7BA direct phone 020 7702 5488 visit the Society of Genealogists' Website <http://www.sog.org.uk/> www.sog.org.uk www.Findmypast.co.uk proud to sponsor the Society's centenary year WOULD YOU LIKE ADVICE ON YOUR FAMILY HISTORY? >From beginners onwards: all queries and problems welcomed. Phone our dedicated family history advice line on 020 7490 8911 Thursdays 6pm - 7.45 pm; Saturdays 11 am - 1pm and 2pm - 4 pm The Society also runs regular one-to-one advice half hour advice sessions with experts at the Society's library on alternate Saturdays from 2pm. Telephone the library direct on 020 7702 5485 to book an advice session or library tour. This email and any attachments are confidential and intended for the addressee only. You must not use, disclose, reproduce, copy or distribute the contents of this communication unless explicitly permitted to do so. If you have received this in error, please contact the sender and then delete this email from your system without further distribution or use. Opinions, conclusions and other information in this message and attachments that do not relate to the official business of The Society of Genealogists are neither given nor endorsed by it. Registered Charity No. 233701. Company limited by guarantee. Registered No. 115703. Registered office as above

<Note that I have put the OP's note in a new thread as it was getting lost in a thread about will in Africa.> On 13 Mar at 8:06, "Jane Hammond" <[email protected]> wrote: > I am interested in the Battle Abbey Roll listing men who came to > England with William the Conqueror. Is this a physical item that > one can see? Is there anything on it at Hastings? > > My Rotary Club (Putney) is hosting members of our twin Club at > Tourcoing West and we are taking them round Sussex the weekend after > next. Hastings will be on the route. Is there anything that we can > show them? > > I would be grateful for any replies. There is a book that you must read: "My Ancestors came with the Conqueror" by Anthony Camp, pub in 1990 by Soc of Genealogists, though I beleive it is currently out of print. The S of G and some libraries will have copies to read. Anyhow it explains that the Battle Abbey Roll is a modern and unreliable document and that there are no more than 30 people whose names we know and were almost certainly at Hastings. But if you want some appalling scholarship to entertain your members, get hold of the Duchess of Cleveland's 'The Battle Abbey Roll: with some Account of the Norman Lineages' published in 3 vols in 1889. www.archive.org has the first volume at <http://www.archive.org/details/battleabbeyrollw01battuoft>. -- Tim Powys-Lybbe [email protected] for a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org/

Re-sealing doesn't necessarily occur even when there is property in the UK. My James Maxwell, who died in 1867, had substantial property in both Jamaica and Scotland with heirs in both countries. There was no resealing in Scotland even although the will was proved only in Jamaica, The properties were distributed in both countries according to the existent Jamaican will. His wife died two years later in a hurricane in the Bay of Biscay on her way to Scotland from Jamaica. She had children in both countries and no will. The administration occurred only in Scotland. I certainly agree all bases should be covered. Land in Africa must have been available. My grandmother's brother-in-law from England had a younger sister (b.1893) who married and went to Southern Rhodesia. Her husband owned land there and still owned it at least until well into the 1950s. I heard about her daughter quite a lot when I was growing up because we shared the same name Susan ----- Original Message ----- From: Chris Watts <[email protected]> Date: Monday, March 12, 2012 5:53 am Subject: Re: [SOG-UK] going to Africa To: [email protected] > The catalogue of the South African National Archives has a > reference > (between 1910 and 1911) to > BARRY, WALTER PATRICK. (ALIAS WALTER GEORGE > BARRY).www.national.archsrch.gov.za/sm300cv/smws/sm30ddf0?201203121247459A4DCB05&DN=00000002and > another to Walter Patrick BARRY.Have you made a search for a > will for this > man here in the UK (E+W or Scotland).  If he died abroard > but had property > here the the will should have been resealed here.cheersChris > Watts-----  > Original Message ----- > From: "ag.hamilton" <[email protected]> > To: <[email protected]> > Sent: Monday, March 12, 2012 9:04 AM > Subject: Re: [SOG-UK] going to Africa > > > > The thread about going to Africa in the eighteenth century has > spurred me > > to ask about a more recent Africa connection. > > > > A will written in 1917 includes a reference to 'my interest in > my son > > Walter Barry's Land in Africa'. > > > > Walter George BARRY was b. in Middlesex in 1867.  I can't > find him after > > 1881 although there is a possible illegitimate child in 1888. > > > > He was presumably alive when his father's will was written in > 1917 but was > > dead by 1929 when his name appears, with other deceased family > members, on > > a memorial window in the church in West Drayton, Middlesex > which was > > dedicated in 1929. > > > > Does anyone have a suggestion about this 'Land in > Africa'.  At that time > > where in Africa was land likely to be bought?  Would > Walter have actually > > been in Africa to buy it?  I can't find a death for him > so have rather > > assumed that he died abroad although I can't find any trace of > that or of > > any voyages either. > > > > Would there be records somewhere about the purchase of this > 'Land in > > Africa'. > > > > This is all rather nebulous.  Any ideas about the > mysterious Walter and > > his land would be very welcome. > > > > Angela > > > > ------------------------------- > > 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 SOG-UK- > [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message >

Quarter Million entries added to Society of Genealogists' Data on My SoG Volunteers have been really busy the SoG in the last couple of months and I'm please to say we've uploaded approximately 250,000 new entries to the Society's online data on MySoG plus images of another 7 poll books. Access to the Society's data is available exclusively to members on MySoG as part of the annual membership subscription, although <http://www.sog.org.uk/index.shtml> a free surname search will enable non-members to see if the names they are interested in appear on MySoG. More background to the newly uploaded collections can be found in the notes on MySoG. PDF image are now available for the following poll books, comprising some of the most useful genealogical lists for the late 18th and early 19th centuries:- Ipswich Poll Book 1820 Suffolk East Poll Book 1835 Evesham Poll book 1780 York Poll Book 1758 City of London Poll Book 1837 Newcastle upon Tyne Poll Book 1741 Norfolk West Poll Book 1865 Our volunteers continue to index furiously and the following Datasets with some 247, 000 entries have been uploaded onto MySoG. . Hertfordshire marriage index 1538-1837 ( 168,969 entries) . Index to The Great Western Railway in WW1 (3,258 entries) This book ("The Great Western Railway in the First World War" by Sandra Gittins, published by History Press 2010) had no consolidated index, with the majority of the tabulated names divided into those receiving specific gallantry awards and a listing of all employees who died and the names on the Rolls of Honour at stations around the former GWR territory. This index makes the book much more useful, SoG Library Shelf mark PR/RAIL . Holborn St Andrew marriages 1813-1837 (expanding the earlier index coverage of 1754-1812) (17,884 entries) The church of St Andrew, Holborn is the largest of Wren's parish churches and stands at the western end of Holborn Viaduct by Holborn Circus. It also served one of the biggest parishes in London (it actually spanned the boundary of London and Middlesex) out of which five new parishes were eventually formed. The registers are large and contain many thousands of entries, as the parish has always been a popular place to marry . Apprentices of Great Britain 1710-1764: Books 10 & 11 & 1773-1811: Piece 62 (46,000 entries This is part of the on- going project to rekey and make the old index volumes easier to use. A tax was levied on Apprentices from 1710-1810 paid to the Board of Stamps. In the 1920's the volumes for the periods 1710-1762 and 1763-1773 at the (then) Public Record Office were transcribed by members of the Society of Genealogists. The typescript index has been on the Library shelves for over 80 years, sorted alphabetically by the names of the Apprentices. The details of masters are found using the separate volumes of the Index to Masters. The original registers are in class IR1 at The National Archives, but the Society of Genealogists holds images of most of the pieces on CD or film. To access the details of Apprentices, it is essential to use the index, as the original is in chronological order or the date when the tax was paid to the Board of Stamps. Work started at the beginning of 2010 and is now in progress by volunteers from the Society of Genealogists to enter the details contained in the original work by the Society of Genealogists on to a database to make the records of a century of apprentices accessible to a wider audience. Having acquired a set of films of the later work towards the end of 2010, the images from the films are being transcribed at the same time as work progresses on re-keying the original work. . Index to Archdeaconry Court of London wills 1750-1781 (1338 entries) . Association Oath Roll for Monmouth 1696 (226 entries) Following a Jacobite plot against William III, an Act of Association required all office holders to take a solemn Oath of Association vowing to combine with others 'for the better preservation of His Majesty's royal person and government'. Although intended for office holders, the Oath rolls were open for all to sign and in many places most males of some age and standing did so. The originals are held at the National Archives in class C 213, whilst the returns for Monmouthshire are in piece numbers 176-180. This transcript, donated to the Society by Denzil Hollis in 1948 is described as being for 'The County of Monmouth'. However it is not clear whether this lists inhabit ants of the town of Monmouth, or the county of Monmouthshire. . Some Scottish rebels of the 1745 Rebellion These two lists of Scottish Rebels of the 1745 Rebellion were transcribed from the Patent Rolls of King George II in 1747, held at the National Archives (Class CC 66-3625). They contain the following: Folio 21 List of Rebels Pardoned on condition of enlistment in Admiral Boscawen's 12 Independent Companies (sent to fight in India) Folio 14 List of Rebels Pardoned on Condition of Transportation to the American Colonies. . Surname studies on the following surnames by Michael J E Gater: Bower (1019 entries) Jenks (2120 entries) Russell (1418 entries) Swancott (813 entries) Tassell (2337 entries) Usborne (1885 entries) Information for these studies has been taken from various sources over a period of 40 years. Where the original record has been consulted the exact entry has been given. However it has been necessary to condense some of the longer entries (Census records for example), and in all instances researchers should check the original source. No guarantee is given for any possible errors or omissions which may have occurred during the transcription and typing process of the index. When research on this name commenced, many of the original records were held by the individual parish. The source reference, therefore, merely indicates the record and does not state where it is held at the present time. Else Churchill Genealogist Society of Genealogists 14 Charterhouse Buildings Goswell Road London EC1M 7BA direct phone 020 7702 5488 visit the Society of Genealogists' Website <http://www.sog.org.uk/> www.sog.org.uk www.Findmypast.co.uk proud to sponsor the Society's centenary year WOULD YOU LIKE ADVICE ON YOUR FAMILY HISTORY? >From beginners onwards: all queries and problems welcomed. Phone our dedicated family history advice line on 020 7490 8911 Thursdays 6pm - 7.45 pm; Saturdays 11 am - 1pm and 2pm - 4 pm The Society also runs regular one-to-one advice half hour advice sessions with experts at the Society's library on alternate Saturdays from 2pm. Telephone the library direct on 020 7702 5485 to book an advice session or library tour. This email and any attachments are confidential and intended for the addressee only. You must not use, disclose, reproduce, copy or distribute the contents of this communication unless explicitly permitted to do so. If you have received this in error, please contact the sender and then delete this email from your system without further distribution or use. Opinions, conclusions and other information in this message and attachments that do not relate to the official business of The Society of Genealogists are neither given nor endorsed by it. Registered Charity No. 233701. Company limited by guarantee. Registered No. 115703. Registered office as above

I am interested in the Battle Abbey Roll listing men who came to England with William the Conqueror. Is this a physical item that one can see? Is there anything on it at Hastings? My Rotary Club (Putney) is hosting members of our twin Club at Tourcoing West and we are taking them round Sussex the weekend after next. Hastings will be on the route. Is there anything that we can show them? I would be grateful for any replies. Jane Brown ----- Original Message ----- From: "Chris Watts" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]>; <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, March 12, 2012 10:35 AM Subject: Re: [SOG-UK] going to Africa > Beware of the indexes on ancestry. They give the port of departure of the > ship and not the passenger. > Chris > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Barry Faiers" <[email protected]> > To: <[email protected]> > Sent: Monday, March 12, 2012 10:14 AM > Subject: Re: [SOG-UK] going to Africa > > >> Just had a quick glance at incoming passenger lists on Ancestry and >> there are several entries for a W Barry travelling from South Africa to >> the UK and a Rev. W G Barry incoming from Australia. Might be worth a >> look. >> >> Good luck >> >> Barry >> >> On 12/03/2012 09:04, ag.hamilton wrote: >>> The thread about going to Africa in the eighteenth century has spurred >>> me >>> to ask about a more recent Africa connection. >>> >>> A will written in 1917 includes a reference to 'my interest in my son >>> Walter Barry's Land in Africa'. >>> >>> Walter George BARRY was b. in Middlesex in 1867. I can't find him after >>> 1881 although there is a possible illegitimate child in 1888. >>> >>> He was presumably alive when his father's will was written in 1917 but >>> was dead by 1929 when his name appears, with other deceased family >>> members, on a memorial window in the church in West Drayton, Middlesex >>> which was dedicated in 1929. >>> >>> Does anyone have a suggestion about this 'Land in Africa'. At that time >>> where in Africa was land likely to be bought? Would Walter have >>> actually >>> been in Africa to buy it? I can't find a death for him so have rather >>> assumed that he died abroad although I can't find any trace of that or >>> of >>> any voyages either. >>> >>> Would there be records somewhere about the purchase of this 'Land in >>> Africa'. >>> >>> This is all rather nebulous. Any ideas about the mysterious Walter and >>> his land would be very welcome. >>> >>> Angela >>> >>> >> >> >> ------------------------------- >> 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 > >