This is a MIME Encoded Message --=_--- Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit ---- Forwarded message from lists@sog.org.uk attached ---- --=_--- Content-Type: message/rfc822 Return-Path: <listadmin-bounces@rootsweb.com> Received: from punt3.mail.demon.net by mailstore for lists@socgen-adsl.demon.co.uk id 1F7htO-1N7GPo-03-EbZ; Fri, 10 Feb 2006 23:41:34 +0000 Received: from [194.217.242.211] (lhlo=lon1-hub.mail.demon.net) by punt3.mail.demon.net with lmtp id 1F7htO-1N7GPo-03 for lists@socgen-adsl.demon.co.uk; Fri, 10 Feb 2006 23:41:34 +0000 Received: from [212.53.64.112] (helo=coumail03.netbenefit.co.uk) by lon1-hub.mail.demon.net with esmtp id 1F7htO-0002Xy-0u for lists@socgen-adsl.demon.co.uk; Fri, 10 Feb 2006 23:41:34 +0000 Received: from mailmap by coumail03.netbenefit.co.uk with spam-scanned (NetBenefit 2.0) id 1F7htL-00005X-AI for lists@sog.org.uk; Fri, 10 Feb 2006 23:41:33 +0000 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.0 (2005-09-13) on coumail03.netbenefit.co.uk X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.0 required=5.0 tests=UNPARSEABLE_RELAY autolearn=disabled version=3.1.0 X-Spam-Level: Received: from mailmap by coumail03.netbenefit.co.uk with foot_add (NetBenefit 2.0) id 1F7htL-00005R-9N for lists@sog.org.uk; Fri, 10 Feb 2006 23:41:31 +0000 Received: from lists8.rootsweb.com ([66.43.27.27]:41395) by coumail03.netbenefit.co.uk with esmtp (NetBenefit 2.0) id 1F7htK-000053-WA for lists@sog.org.uk; Fri, 10 Feb 2006 23:41:31 +0000 Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists8.rootsweb.com (8.12.10/8.12.8) id k1ANfRgj025176 for SOG-UK-admin@lists8.rootsweb.com; Fri, 10 Feb 2006 16:41:27 -0700 Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2006 16:41:27 -0700 X-From_: Brian.Randell@ncl.ac.uk Fri Feb 10 16:41:27 2006 Received: from mail.rootsweb.com (mail.rootsweb.com [192.168.65.34]) by lists8.rootsweb.com (8.12.10/8.12.8) with ESMTP id k1ANfRfE025162 for <SOG-UK-L@lists8.rootsweb.com>; Fri, 10 Feb 2006 16:41:27 -0700 Received: from smtp-out5.blueyonder.co.uk (smtp-out5.blueyonder.co.uk [195.188.213.8]) by mail.rootsweb.com (8.13.4/8.13.4) with ESMTP id k1ANfNtc028101 for <SOG-UK-L@rootsweb.com>; Fri, 10 Feb 2006 16:41:24 -0700 Received: from [10.0.1.2] ([82.39.45.180]) by smtp-out5.blueyonder.co.uk with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.6713); Fri, 10 Feb 2006 23:42:29 +0000 Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <a06230904c012d0ae72fa@[10.0.1.2]> Old-Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2006 23:41:08 +0000 To: SOG-UK-L@rootsweb.com From: Brian Randell <Brian.Randell@ncl.ac.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" X-OriginalArrivalTime: 10 Feb 2006 23:42:29.0227 (UTC) FILETIME=[A789C3B0:01C62E9B] X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.52 on 192.168.65.34 X-Diagnostic: Not on the accept list Subject: {not a subscriber} Port Books (Was: Chalders of Coals London) X-Envelope-To: SOG-UK-L X-NB-Virus-Scan: virus-free X-NB-Seen: InOVOJnug36R X-Mailmap-To: lists@sog.org.uk Hi: At 11:22 pm +0000 10/2/06, Brian Randell wrote: >I'm currently extracting entries concerning coastal voyages of >Clovelly sailing ships from some early 18th century Port Books for >Padstow, Cornwall held at the National Archives, Kew. I undertook a >similar exercise using Bideford Port books some time ago - the >results are at: > >http://genuki.cs.ncl.ac.uk/DEV/Clovelly/PortBooks.html > >Lots of the Padstow entries concern arrivals from across the Bristol >Channel, from Neath in particular, with "chalders of coal". (Chalder >is I find from the OED an "obsolete dry measure of capacity [which >for coal] varied from 32 to 64 imperial bushels".) > >However, the description of the cargo often takes a form such as "20 >chalders of Coals London". I don't think this relates to London as >an ultimate destination for the coal - I'm pretty sure the sailing >ships used would not have undertaken voyages to London. That I >assume had to await a further century and the coming of steam - and >I wondered whether it refers to a type of coal. (Another typical >cargo description might be "10 chalders of coal & 5 chalders of >culm", i.e. contain no mention of London - culm is I understand >anthracite.) > >Can anyone suggest the meaning of such references to London? (A >colleague wondered whether London related to the unit of measure, >rather than the type of coal.) From another mailing list I've obtained the answer to the above question - "shipments of coal ... were invariably measured in terms of caldrons (or chalders) of London measure---26 cwt per caldron". However I have a couple of more general questions about interpretation of port books that someone here might be able to help with. 1 - The port books (of inward voyages) I've been looking at usually have two dates or sometimes three associated with each item. One date is given in the left hand margin, a second above the text of each item, separating it from the preceding item. The first dates are not necessarily in calendar order. The second dates are in calendar order and are later than the first dates. The third dates, when present are given in the right hand margin and as far as I can tell later than the second dates. There is no indication of the significance of any of these dates - possible candidates are date of departure from last port, date of arrival at port, date of entry of record in port book. Can anyone confirm this or provide me with a definitive explanation of them? 2 - A typical entry in the port books I'm studying is: In the BETTY of Padstow James Lyle Master from Neath - Idem ind - 20 Chalders of Coal and Culm All contain the phrase "Idem ind" I'm not sure which previous word in the item the "Idem" refers to, or what the "ind" means - can anyone suggest an explanation? 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/ This email has been scanned for viruses by NetBenefit using Sophos anti-virus technology --=_-----

This is a MIME Encoded Message --=_--- Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit ---- Forwarded message from lists@sog.org.uk attached ---- --=_--- Content-Type: message/rfc822 Return-Path: <listadmin-bounces@rootsweb.com> Received: from punt3.mail.demon.net by mailstore for lists@socgen-adsl.demon.co.uk id 1F6akg-0VPknw-01-FY9; Tue, 07 Feb 2006 21:51:58 +0000 Received: from [194.217.242.211] (lhlo=lon1-hub.mail.demon.net) by punt3.mail.demon.net with lmtp id 1F6akg-0VPknw-01 for lists@socgen-adsl.demon.co.uk; Tue, 07 Feb 2006 21:51:58 +0000 Received: from [212.53.64.112] (helo=coumail03.netbenefit.co.uk) by lon1-hub.mail.demon.net with esmtp id 1F6akg-0006r2-Lz for lists@socgen-adsl.demon.co.uk; Tue, 07 Feb 2006 21:51:58 +0000 Received: from mailmap by coumail03.netbenefit.co.uk with spam-scanned (NetBenefit 2.0) id 1F6akf-0002ZF-5C for lists@sog.org.uk; Tue, 07 Feb 2006 21:51:58 +0000 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.0 (2005-09-13) on coumail03.netbenefit.co.uk X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.0 required=5.0 tests=UNPARSEABLE_RELAY autolearn=disabled version=3.1.0 X-Spam-Level: Received: from mailmap by coumail03.netbenefit.co.uk with foot_add (NetBenefit 2.0) id 1F6akf-0002Z8-3n for lists@sog.org.uk; Tue, 07 Feb 2006 21:51:57 +0000 Received: from lists8.rootsweb.com ([66.43.27.27]:33731) by coumail03.netbenefit.co.uk with esmtp (NetBenefit 2.0) id 1F6ake-0002XM-OM for lists@sog.org.uk; Tue, 07 Feb 2006 21:51:57 +0000 Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists8.rootsweb.com (8.12.10/8.12.8) id k17LprKJ006537 for SOG-UK-admin@lists8.rootsweb.com; Tue, 7 Feb 2006 14:51:53 -0700 Date: Tue, 7 Feb 2006 14:51:53 -0700 X-From_: Brian.Randell@ncl.ac.uk Tue Feb 7 14:51:53 2006 Received: from mail.rootsweb.com (mail.rootsweb.com [192.168.65.34]) by lists8.rootsweb.com (8.12.10/8.12.8) with ESMTP id k17LprfE006523 for <SOG-UK-L@lists8.rootsweb.com>; Tue, 7 Feb 2006 14:51:53 -0700 Received: from asmtp-out5.blueyonder.co.uk (asmtp-out5.blueyonder.co.uk [195.188.213.64]) by mail.rootsweb.com (8.13.4/8.13.4) with ESMTP id k17LpmH6030724 for <SOG-UK-L@rootsweb.com>; Tue, 7 Feb 2006 14:51:48 -0700 Received: from [82.39.45.180] (helo=[10.0.1.2]) by asmtp-out5.blueyonder.co.uk with esmtp (Exim 4.52) id 1F6akX-0000eL-Gk for SOG-UK-L@rootsweb.com; Tue, 07 Feb 2006 21:51:49 +0000 Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <a0623090ac00ebc04d4ca@[10.0.1.2]> Old-Date: Tue, 7 Feb 2006 21:11:40 +0000 To: SOG-UK-L@rootsweb.com From: Brian Randell <Brian.Randell@ncl.ac.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.52 on 192.168.65.34 X-Diagnostic: Not on the accept list Subject: {not a subscriber} Chalders of Coals London X-Envelope-To: SOG-UK-L X-NB-Virus-Scan: virus-free X-NB-Seen: kkOVnsgfYUh1 X-Mailmap-To: lists@sog.org.uk Hi: I'm currently extracting entries concerning coastal voyages of Clovelly sailing ships from some early 18th century Port Books for Padstow, Cornwall held at the National Archives, Kew. I undertook a similar exercise using Bideford Port books some time ago - the results are at: http://genuki.cs.ncl.ac.uk/DEV/Clovelly/PortBooks.html Lots of the Padstow entries concern arrivals from across the Bristol Channel, from Neath in particular, with "chalders of coal". (Chalder is I find from the OED an "obsolete dry measure of capacity [which for coal] varied from 32 to 64 imperial bushels".) However, the description of the cargo often takes a form such as "20 chalders of Coals London". I don't think this relates to London as an ultimate destination for the coal - I'm pretty sure the sailing ships used would not have undertaken voyages to London. That I assume had to await a further century and the coming of steam - and I wondered whether it refers to a type of coal. (Another typical cargo description might be "10 chalders of coal & 5 chalders of culm", i.e. contain no mention of London - culm is I understand anthracite.) Can anyone suggest the meaning of such references to London? (A colleague wondered whether London related to the unit of measure, rather than the type of coal.) 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/ This email has been scanned for viruses by NetBenefit using Sophos anti-virus technology --=_-----

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20060213/chester What happens if? ---- Peter Amsden, Argyll, Scotland Researching Amsden World Wide Outline History: http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~amsden Books I have written: http://www.btinternet.com/~amsden AllExperts: http://www.allexperts.com/displayExpert.asp?Expert=38044 Never dump originals - they may be all that is left after the computer age.

To any SoG Member who can help me to operate the Out Reach Bookstall on that Sunday. I have only one other helper I am not sure how close to Crawley you live but the fair will be at a new venue this year:- "K2 Crawley", Pease Pottage Hill, Crawley, Sussex. RH11 9BQ. I suppose it must be a new sports centre. Would you be able to arrive there about 8.00am and stay until about 6.00pm? The actual public open hours are 10.00 until 17.00hrs. This will enable us to lay out the goods on the tables and clear them away at the end of the day. As time is now running short perhaps a telephone call to 01252 325644 would be better than e-mail. Michael.

many thanks Edna <ekbrit@rogers.com> wrote: www.familysearch.org There tis... Edna - Ottawa ----- Original Message ----- From: "ADRIENNE NORBURY" To: Sent: Friday, February 03, 2006 1:58 PM Subject: [SoG] IGI What is the current website address for IGI? I seem to get bogged down with census records!

-----Original Message----- From: ADRIENNE NORBURY [mailto:a.norbury@btopenworld.com] Sent: 03 February 2006 18:58 To: SOG-UK-L@rootsweb.com Subject: [SoG] IGI >>>What is the current website address for IGI? I seem to get bogged down with census records! Adrienne Home page is www.familysearch.org then click the top Search button. Or http://www.familysearch.org/Eng/Search/frameset_search.asp for all resources. Or direct to http://www.familysearch.org/Eng/Search/frameset_search.asp?PAGE=igi/search_I GI.asp&clear_form=true for just the IGI. Regards David Tappin d.tappin@ntlworld.com Family Personal Web Pages www.tappin.org.uk Family Genealogy Web Pages http://homepage.ntlworld.com/d.tappin

What is the current website address for IGI? I seem to get bogged down with census records!

www.familysearch.org There tis... Edna - Ottawa ----- Original Message ----- From: "ADRIENNE NORBURY" <a.norbury@btopenworld.com> To: <SOG-UK-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Friday, February 03, 2006 1:58 PM Subject: [SoG] IGI What is the current website address for IGI? I seem to get bogged down with census records!

Geoffrey wrote: > It is more likely that the problem is > with the list > members, or more likely a particular member who uses an unusual email > program or who is using the wrong options, or as Dave Dobbing suggest > - a word processor. Geoff, My experience is that this is caused by senders who use quoted-printable for their transmission and when received by receivers using certain email clients, in particular Eudora. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quoted_printable Quoted printable forces line breaks at 76 characters, which is why you see the =20 symbols. Peter Walker

Graham Pollett wrote: >Why do SOG messages often come out slightly scrambled? >I am talking about lines ending with =20 or what is presumably a Pound sign >being replaced by =A3 and suchlike. >This does not happen on other lists and I suspect it has to do with the >introductory line which reads:- X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable >etc. If so, can the autoconverter be be persuaded to try harder? Rootsweb has several servers to run their 30,000 lists each server with thousands of lists, each one treated the same way - apart from list options. Therefore any problems will not apply just to the SoG, but to perhaps 5,000 lists. It is more likely that the problem is with the list members, or more likely a particular member who uses an unusual email program or who is using the wrong options, or as Dave Dobbing suggest - a word processor. This would explain why you see this only on the SoG list. However, I must add that I have seen this problem on other lists and have not noticed the SoG list to be more prone to this. I guess that depends on which other lists we look at. Regards, Geoff Geoffrey T. Stone, SoG Mailing List Administrator. lists@sog.org.uk http://www.sog.org.uk On-line retail shopping? Use http://www.buy.at/genealogists our affiliate shop and SoG gains funds at no cost to you.

Dear all, Its possible you've;e received an e-mail from me, starting " Important do this now" DO NOT OPEN. if you do, it sends a link to a gay site to various people in your address book. My son got it, & it was sent to everyone in his book, so I got it! Sorry about this! Vince

The only likelihood of success with the Land Registry will be if the name sought is that of the first lessee on a long lease of the flat. The date is around the time that the various parts of the old County of London became compulsory registration areas, so it is possible that one or more titles were registered. What is more, it is now possible to get a copy of the register as it was on a specified date in the past for £8, twice the fee for a current copy. The catch is that this facility is available only for dates since the title was entered on the computer. It is just possible that a lease granted around 1903 will still be mentioned on the register, but that is about the only chance of success. If the person sought were a weekly (or other short-term) tenant, there is no hope with the Land Registry. Jeremy Wilkes

In an email dated Wed, 1 2 2006 2:40:19 pm GMT, writes: >Why do SOG messages often come out slightly scrambled? >I am talking about lines ending with =20 or what is presumably >a Pound sign >being replaced by =A3 and suchlike. This is because this list is text-only, but people still send formatted emails to it. As formatted text can in certain circumstances hide dangerous code, it is safer to receive emails as text-only. Because some equipment does not have the sophistication of modern PCs or Apples, the autoconversion routines have to work to the lowest common denominator, which in most cases is the old teletype. This ensures all recipients get as much as possible of the message, albeit with some odd combinations of characters. Furthermore, the pound sign does not appear in the repertoire of American or other non-Sterling characters so the conversion routine would fail to produce the pound sign for most non-UK recipients. The solution is for everybody to only send pure-text emails (not putting it through a word processor first) and to always use the international standard for currency display, which for Sterling is GBP, as in GBP4.99 Most systems for writing emails do allow you to specify the format you want to output an email in. For currency codes I usually use the document headed 'Rates of Exchange for Customs and VAT purposes' as my guide and you can find the latest version of this via <http://customs.hmrc.gov.uk/channelsPortalWebApp/channelsPortalWebApp.portal?_nfpb=true&_pageLabel=pageVAT_RatesCodesTools> DaveD

Many thanks for all the replies and some v. useful hints. The building was constructed ca 1900 on the site of a previous building. The electoral reg. in 1903 only went up to 154 - either they hadn't finished building or the residents of the higher nos. weren't electors. By 1904 it goes up to 178 and by 1905 184. Still no elector at 159 unfortunately. Angela Hamilton On 31 Jan 2006, at 8:58 am, Chris Watts wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "angela hamilton" <ag.hamilton22@skylinkmail.co.uk> > To: <SOG-UK-L@rootsweb.com> > Sent: Monday, January 30, 2006 9:37 PM > Subject: [SoG] Elm Park Mansions, Chelsea > > > | I am trying to find the name of the occupant of 159, Elm Park > Mansions, > | Chelsea in 1903-4. This is a block of flats. > | The present management company has no old records. The electoral > | registers for those years have no elector at that number. The 1901 > | census only lists the flats up to no. 154 - it is possible that the > | conversion of the block to dwellings was still incomplete in 1901. > | Does anyone have any ideas for further hunting? Angela Hamilton. > | > | -- > | This email has been verified as Virus free > | Virus Protection and more available at http://www.plus.net > > Rate books, if they survive. > Is the 1910 Lloyd George Survey (IR 58 at TNA) too late? > > Are you sure of the number - was it a miscopy of 150? Check at later > electoral register to see. > > Chris Watts >

Why do SOG messages often come out slightly scrambled? I am talking about lines ending with =20 or what is presumably a Pound sign being replaced by =A3 and suchlike. This does not happen on other lists and I suspect it has to do with the introductory line which reads:- X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable etc. If so, can the autoconverter be be persuaded to try harder? Graham Pollett

Straight off, the first possibility that occurs to me is that the numbering has changed since 1904. Another thought is that the 1904 building was damaged/demolished at some time and replaced - some bomb-damaged buildings were rebuilt in a similar style to the destroyed premises. Frank Hardy

----- Original Message ----- From: "angela hamilton" <ag.hamilton22@skylinkmail.co.uk> To: <SOG-UK-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Monday, January 30, 2006 9:37 PM Subject: [SoG] Elm Park Mansions, Chelsea | I am trying to find the name of the occupant of 159, Elm Park Mansions, | Chelsea in 1903-4. This is a block of flats. | The present management company has no old records. The electoral | registers for those years have no elector at that number. The 1901 | census only lists the flats up to no. 154 - it is possible that the | conversion of the block to dwellings was still incomplete in 1901. | Does anyone have any ideas for further hunting? Angela Hamilton. | | -- | This email has been verified as Virus free | Virus Protection and more available at http://www.plus.net Rate books, if they survive. Is the 1910 Lloyd George Survey (IR 58 at TNA) too late? Are you sure of the number - was it a miscopy of 150? Check at later electoral register to see. Chris Watts

Angela Hamilton asks: >I am trying to find the name of the occupant of 159, Elm Park Mansions, >Chelsea in 1903-4. This is a block of flats. >The present management company has no old records. The electoral >registers for those years have no elector at that number. The 1901 census >only lists the flats up to no. 154 - it is possible that the conversion of >the block to dwellings was still incomplete in 1901. >Does anyone have any ideas for further hunting? Try the Post Office Directory. In that period "trade directories" became comprehensive, sometimes being full street directories. Looking at directories before and after the date of interest will at least tell you whether the street (Park Walk) was still being developed. Incidentally, I suspect the "mansions" were purpose built as flats, not as a conversion. I had a similar case in Fulham where the address given on a marriage certificate was in a street only half developed in the 1901 census. It might be worth asking the Land Registry, though I suspect a flat like that would be leasehold. regards, David Hawgood

I am trying to find the name of the occupant of 159, Elm Park Mansions, Chelsea in 1903-4. This is a block of flats. The present management company has no old records. The electoral registers for those years have no elector at that number. The 1901 census only lists the flats up to no. 154 - it is possible that the conversion of the block to dwellings was still incomplete in 1901. Does anyone have any ideas for further hunting? Angela Hamilton.

Hi Lorne. Just one quick thought - have you gone through the rest of that particular returns to find any other instances of this 'V&T'? If there are others, comparison of the people they're assigned to might show up a common theme - especially if it does mean 'visitor & traveller.' If you could quote the piece and folio numbers some listers might be able to study the entry for themselves? Apols if you already have; I might have missed the start of this thread. Regards, Lawrence Greenall. > -----Original Message----- > From: Lorne Pearcey [mailto:lorne.pearcey@talk21.com] > > > There is no doubting that the first letter is a 'V' and the > second a 'T'. I have checked this against other instances of > the same letters appearing in the same enumerators > handwriting. The only slight query is over the middle > letter, but '&' seems most likely. > > I am tempted by the suggestion that it may refer to > 'Visitor' and 'Traveller' or the like, as this would also tie > in with family hearsay... -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Ha Haa! Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 267.14.23/243 - Release Date: 27/01/2006