It really is surprising just how long some companies do retain records. If they do still have them, and since your father is now dead I can see no reason why they would not let the son have a copy of them. You may need to produce the death certificate though. If the armed services will do this, then companies surely will. I have spent some time looking into the 1951 Post Office Directory for London, and I have not spotted any companies allied to plastics in the NW2 area. That would have been the postal area for Cricklewood in those days. However there are a lot of them, so I could have missed something. If you have a some other identity for the firm it would help a great deal. Peter Amsden Argyll, Scotland > From: "Brian Beanland" <brian.beanland@virgin.net> > Reply-To: SOG-UK-L@rootsweb.com > Date: Tue, 23 May 2006 16:00:44 +0100 > To: SOG-UK-L@rootsweb.com > Subject: [SoG] Tracing Employment Records > Resent-From: SOG-UK-L@rootsweb.com > Resent-Date: Tue, 23 May 2006 09:01:07 -0600 > > My father was born in June 1904 and he died in 1978. I have a general idea > of his early employment record but I have a gap between 1947-1963, when my > siblings and I think that he continuously worked for a single company based > in Cricklewood, North London. All his siblings are dead and neither I nor > any of my siblings can recall the name of his employer. > > > > My father was skilled in moulded and extruded plastics and I am searching > trade directories to see whether or not any such companies are listed as > operating in that geographic area. > > > > I would like to identify a source that would positively identify his > employer - national insurance/ tax records for example - however I have a > feeling that the relevant authorities would either not have the records > available or if they did would not be able to disclose their content until > 100 years had elapsed since his death. > > > > Does anyone have experience of a similar problem and if so did they manage > to find a solution? > > > > Brian Beanland > > > > > >

My father was born in June 1904 and he died in 1978. I have a general idea of his early employment record but I have a gap between 1947-1963, when my siblings and I think that he continuously worked for a single company based in Cricklewood, North London. All his siblings are dead and neither I nor any of my siblings can recall the name of his employer. My father was skilled in moulded and extruded plastics and I am searching trade directories to see whether or not any such companies are listed as operating in that geographic area. I would like to identify a source that would positively identify his employer - national insurance/ tax records for example - however I have a feeling that the relevant authorities would either not have the records available or if they did would not be able to disclose their content until 100 years had elapsed since his death. Does anyone have experience of a similar problem and if so did they manage to find a solution? Brian Beanland

It obviously relates to royal etiquette. In message <003401c67dc5$afc10650$0200a8c0@Hockerley>, David Wason <wason@dsl.pipex.com> writes >"David G Jackson" writes > >> In describing the funeral of the Duke of Wellington: >> "Etiquette did not permit the Queen to attend the funeral of one of >>her subjects...." > >I suspect this is "royal" etiquette rather than a "men only" >convention. I don't believe British monarchs attend the funerals of >their subjects do they? They send representatives. I think the only >exception was for Churchill's funeral. > > > > -- David G Jackson

"David G Jackson" writes > In describing the funeral of the Duke of Wellington: > "Etiquette did not permit the Queen to attend the funeral of one of her > subjects...." I suspect this is "royal" etiquette rather than a "men only" convention. I don't believe British monarchs attend the funerals of their subjects do they? They send representatives. I think the only exception was for Churchill's funeral.

Geoff: At 01:15 +0100 22/5/06, Geoff Riggs wrote: >The custom in Scotland that Sheila refers to also prevailed in Wales until >the 1960s. I can confirm this, and am talking about Cardiff, not some small rural parish. cheers Brian Randell -- School of Computing Science, University of Newcastle, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE1 7RU, UK EMAIL = Brian.Randell@ncl.ac.uk PHONE = +44 191 222 7923 FAX = +44 191 222 8232 URL = http://www.cs.ncl.ac.uk/~brian.randell/

J S Curl gives an example on page 216 of "The Victorian Celebration of Death", (Sutton, 2000, ISBN 0-7509-2318-0.) In describing the funeral of the Duke of Wellington: "Etiquette did not permit the Queen to attend the funeral of one of her subjects...." In message <001401c67cfb$9ac86e20$1000000a@gateway>, Chris Watts <ml@ctwatts.plus.com> writes > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "David G Jackson" <David_G_Jackson@old-hickory.demon.co.uk> >To: <SOG-UK-L@rootsweb.com> >Sent: Sunday, May 21, 2006 5:50 PM >Subject: Re: [SoG] no women allowed > > >...and yet Queen Victoria was not present at her beloved Albert's funeral. >| >I get the impression that the Royal Family often do things that the upper >and middle classes would not but which the lower classes are happy to do. >The example that come to mind is the use of fish knives and forks which are, >I understand, not used by royalty. > >Am I over generalising?? > >Chris > > -- David G Jackson

The custom in Scotland that Sheila refers to also prevailed in Wales until the 1960s. In fact, my mother insisted she would observe it and remain at home when my father was cremated (in 1972). Geoff Riggs ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sheila Murray" <SheilaMurray@mtcharlesayr.fsnet.co.uk> To: <SOG-UK-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Sunday, May 21, 2006 11:28 PM Subject: RE: [SoG] no women allowed > In Scotland, it has been the custom until very recently that women should > not attend a funeral. A short service would be held in the house for close > family and then the men would go off to the graveside for the burial. > > I don't know if that is any help but I thought it was of interest. > > Sheila Murray > > >Executors. So, why could she settle his estate but not attend his > >funeral? I > >cheecked a reference book (Death in England) but found no mention of such > an > >oddity. Thoughts anyone? > >Mary

When I was living in Australia in the early 1970's, we lived in a smallish town in country Victoria. The Headmaster's wife died suddenly. As she had been very kind to me as a newcomer, I intended to attend the funeral but was told in no uncertain terms that there would be no women attending. Needless to say, I didn't go. I attributed the custom to the large number of people of Irish background. Susan ----- Original Message ----- From: Geoff Riggs <geoff@riggs.org.uk> Date: Sunday, May 21, 2006 7:15 pm Subject: Re: [SoG] no women allowed > The custom in Scotland that Sheila refers to also prevailed in > Wales until > the 1960s. In fact, my mother insisted she would observe it and > remain at > home when my father was cremated (in 1972). > > Geoff Riggs > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Sheila Murray" <SheilaMurray@mtcharlesayr.fsnet.co.uk> > To: <SOG-UK-L@rootsweb.com> > Sent: Sunday, May 21, 2006 11:28 PM > Subject: RE: [SoG] no women allowed > > > > In Scotland, it has been the custom until very recently that > women should > > not attend a funeral. A short service would be held in the > house for > close > > family and then the men would go off to the graveside for the > burial.> > > I don't know if that is any help but I thought it was of interest. > > > > Sheila Murray > > > > > >Executors. So, why could she settle his estate but not attend his > > >funeral? I > > >cheecked a reference book (Death in England) but found no > mention of > such > > an > > >oddity. Thoughts anyone? > > >Mary > > >

In Scotland, it has been the custom until very recently that women should not attend a funeral. A short service would be held in the house for close family and then the men would go off to the graveside for the burial. I don't know if that is any help but I thought it was of interest. Sheila Murray >Executors. So, why could she settle his estate but not attend his >funeral? I >cheecked a reference book (Death in England) but found no mention of such an >oddity. Thoughts anyone? >Mary > > -- David G Jackson

----- Original Message ----- From: "David G Jackson" <David_G_Jackson@old-hickory.demon.co.uk> To: <SOG-UK-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Sunday, May 21, 2006 5:50 PM Subject: Re: [SoG] no women allowed ...and yet Queen Victoria was not present at her beloved Albert's funeral. | I get the impression that the Royal Family often do things that the upper and middle classes would not but which the lower classes are happy to do. The example that come to mind is the use of fish knives and forks which are, I understand, not used by royalty. Am I over generalising?? Chris

Judith Flanders says, in The Victorian House (2003, pub Harper Perennial), p333, ISBN0 00 713189 5: Whether women attended or not was a vexed question. Many manuals said absolutely not, as women could not contain their emotions and would be overcome. Other books accepted that women did go; still others thought it was only upper- and lower class women who did so (and yet Queen Victoria was not present at her beloved Albert's funeral). In message <41c.1b90dca.31a19791@aol.com>, MWTRE@aol.com writes >i was at the FRC yesterday making copies of numerous PCC wills. In reading >through them more carefully last night, I came across an (in my experience) >unique proviso. Sir John Osborn wrote his will in 1837 (proved in 1848) with >the following item included: "I desire that my funeral may be attended with >as little expence as can be consistently with my situation in life and I >strictly forbid the attendance of any of the female members of my >family." Yes, >he had a wife and daughters, from whom he did not seem to be alienated, >referring to his wife as "my dear wife" and, in fact, naming her as >one of the >Executors. So, why could she settle his estate but not attend his >funeral? I >cheecked a reference book (Death in England) but found no mention of such an >oddity. Thoughts anyone? >Mary > > -- David G Jackson

Sounds like one to ask Julian Litten - is he still at the V&A? Chris | i was at the FRC yesterday making copies of numerous PCC wills. In reading | through them more carefully last night, I came across an (in my experience) | unique proviso. Sir John Osborn wrote his will in 1837 (proved in 1848) with | the following item included: "I desire that my funeral may be attended with | as little expence as can be consistently with my situation in life and I | strictly forbid the attendance of any of the female members of my family." Yes, | he had a wife and daughters, from whom he did not seem to be alienated, | referring to his wife as "my dear wife" and, in fact, naming her as one of the | Executors. So, why could she settle his estate but not attend his funeral? I | cheecked a reference book (Death in England) but found no mention of such an | oddity. Thoughts anyone? | Mary | | -- | This email has been verified as Virus free | Virus Protection and more available at http://www.plus.net

Now theres a thought (I can just hear my wife, three daughters, two sisters and a brace of granddaughters muttering). Probably wanted to ensure that the maximum amount of money was available to his family and not wasted on the frippery of a full blown funeral. Probably an early model humanist. Regards Mike Say -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.1.392 / Virus Database: 268.6.1/344 - Release Date: 19/05/2006

In message of 21 May, MWTRE@aol.com wrote: > i was at the FRC yesterday making copies of numerous PCC wills. In > reading through them more carefully last night, I came across an (in > my experience) unique proviso. Sir John Osborn wrote his will in > 1837 (proved in 1848) with the following item included: "I desire > that my funeral may be attended with as little expence as can be > consistently with my situation in life and I strictly forbid the > attendance of any of the female members of my family." Yes, he had > a wife and daughters, from whom he did not seem to be alienated, > referring to his wife as "my dear wife" and, in fact, naming her as > one of the Executors. So, why could she settle his estate but not > attend his funeral? I cheecked a reference book (Death in England) > but found no mention of such an oddity. Thoughts anyone? I think this practice can still be foundd in some parts of the world and have heard of it before in England. Perhaps it was thought that the wailing should not be done in public? A tiny thought even tells me that wailers used to be hired to make an even more impressive racket and perhaps this caused some to say that enough was enough. -- Tim Powys-Lybbe                                          tim@powys.org              For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org

I showed this posting to my wife. One of her friends (now dead) always said her mother (who was born in the 1870s) said it was traditional for female members of the deceased's family not to attend the funeral. Maybe the testator was one of those who felt traditions of this sort needed to be spelt out in writing. As for the reasons for the tradition, I can only speculate: perhaps it was considered inappropriate for women to attend because they would only wail, blubber and sniffle, getting in the way of the menfolk manfully bearing their grief, keeping stiff upper lips etc. Or was it that important events were considered men-only? Regards, Colin Mills

i was at the FRC yesterday making copies of numerous PCC wills. In reading through them more carefully last night, I came across an (in my experience) unique proviso. Sir John Osborn wrote his will in 1837 (proved in 1848) with the following item included: "I desire that my funeral may be attended with as little expence as can be consistently with my situation in life and I strictly forbid the attendance of any of the female members of my family." Yes, he had a wife and daughters, from whom he did not seem to be alienated, referring to his wife as "my dear wife" and, in fact, naming her as one of the Executors. So, why could she settle his estate but not attend his funeral? I cheecked a reference book (Death in England) but found no mention of such an oddity. Thoughts anyone? Mary

Peter - Thanks for the response. I haven't been on the SoG forum for very long, although I have been researching for some 35 years! > I was blaming A2 at first but nothings too obvious in computing! How true! Hope you get on better with the lists format. Best wishes Adrian

In message of 20 May, "Jane Hammond" <trident@btconnect.com> wrote: > This is my first contribution to the e-group, although I did write to the > Genealogist about a Huguenot forebear who was both an army captain and a > pastor in the French Prot Church until the church fathers in Geneva put > their collective foot down. This was around 1690/1700, shortly after he got > away from Montpelier. > > My daughter is the 15th in a line of mother-daughter descent - you could > call it the Feminists' Family Tree. It is also called matrilineal (as opposed to the more commonly studied patrilineal) descent. Google gives over 120,000 items if you search for "matrilineal descent". Obviously it is rather difficult to establish a matrilineal line in a European culture because of all the name changes so a line of 15 sounds a great achievement. -- Tim Powys-Lybbe                                          tim@powys.org              For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org

This is my first contribution to the e-group, although I did write to the Genealogist about a Huguenot forebear who was both an army captain and a pastor in the French Prot Church until the church fathers in Geneva put their collective foot down. This was around 1690/1700, shortly after he got away from Montpelier. My daughter is the 15th in a line of mother-daughter descent - you could call it the Feminists' Family Tree. Much of it is quite easy as from my great-grandmother and back from her everyone lived in Guernsey and a fair number of them married cousins. The earliest I have been back is to an Elizabeth de la Marche, baptised in 1610 and born in Guernsey. She appears to have had relatives who were pastors and are commemorated in the Town Church in St Peter Port. Can anyone else trace as long a female line descent? I would be interested to know. I, my sister and two cousins can all the fourteenth in line, but at the moment it appears that my daughter Louisa might be the only one in the fifteenth line - certainly in the northern hemisphere. But there may be someone lurking around in Australia of the same generation. Jane Brown ----- Original Message ----- From: "Gordon Adshead" <gordon@adshead.com> To: <SOG-UK-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Friday, May 19, 2006 6:47 PM Subject: Re: [SoG] Large family > At 18:01 19/05/2006, Peter Park wrote: >>Tracing a family in the 1841 and 51 censuses, I found they had eleven >>children. Nothing odd in that, but they were all girls, which is a bit >>uncommon. Statistically the older children of a marriage tend to be boys >>and it is not uncommon for the first seven to be males, but eleven girls >>on the trot must be a record -unless you know better!! > > I'm sure your right about the low statistical probability Peter > But in this case surely it is much more likely that the father's genetic > make-up was only capable of (or heavily biased towards) female offspring. > > > > +Z_______________+Z_______________+Z__________________________+Z > <www.adshead.com> Gordon Adshead Manchester Design Technology > Beaumont House, 2 Goodrington Road, Handforth, Cheshire, SK9 3AT, England > Tel:Fax:Msg:+44-1625-549770 Mob:+44-777-6145602 <gordon@adshead.com> > > >

My brother-in-law and all his siblings have only been able to produce female children; they would give anything to have had a boy to continue their surname. The good news is that their children are now producing a mixture of boys and girls. Lawrence. > -----Original Message----- > From: Peter Park [mailto:peterbpark@tiscali.co.uk] > Sent: 19 May 2006 18:02 > To: SOG-UK-L@rootsweb.com > Subject: [SoG] Large family > > > Tracing a family in the 1841 and 51 censuses, I found they > had eleven children. Nothing odd in that, but they were all > girls, which is a bit uncommon. Statistically the older > children of a marriage tend to be boys and it is not uncommon > for the first seven to be males, but eleven girls on the trot > must be a record -unless you know better!! > > > Peter Park. > > Please note my new e-mail address: peterbpark@tiscali.co.uk > > -- > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.1.392 / Virus Database: 268.6.1/343 - Release > Date: 18/05/2006 > > -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Ha Haa! Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.392 / Virus Database: 268.6.1/343 - Release Date: 18/05/2006