Thanks all, I just received the answer for Membership for the year 2006. All is well, Edna - Ottawa

You should not expect any quicker response because you send an e-mail. AFAIK they are treated with the same priority as letters. Chris ----- Original Message ----- From: "Edna" <ekbrit@rogers.com> To: <SOG-UK-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Monday, November 28, 2005 12:51 AM Subject: [SoG] SOG Membership | Thanks Tim, I have done that -- possibly they are quite busy. Will wait a | few more days. | | All the best, | | Edna - Ottawa | | | | ----- Original Message ----- | From: "Tim Powys-Lybbe" <tim@powys.org> | To: <SOG-UK-L@rootsweb.com> | Sent: Sunday, November 27, 2005 3:06 PM | Subject: Re: [SoG] SOG Membership | | | In message of 27 Nov, "Edna" <ekbrit@rogers.com> wrote: | | > | > Just checking Membership - | > | > Renewal of my membership for the year 2006 ~~ | > If you would let me know the amount for Surface mail to Ottawa, | > Canada.... | | If you go to http://www.sog.org.uk/contact.html it will give you the | e-address of the person to contect about this, the membership secretary. | | -- | Tim Powys-Lybbe tim@powys.org | For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org | | -- | This email has been verified as Virus free | Virus Protection and more available at http://www.plus.net

John Hanson mentions the tutorials etc. run by the Society for users of various family history programmes. When are we going to have one for all of us Mac users with Reunion 8. I can't be the only one who could do with a bit of input. Angela Hamilton

Peter: > > From: Tim Powys-Lybbe <tim@powys.org> > >> >> Buy a Mac Mini and run Reunion: it has one of the best family tree > > programs I've come across. (That's what I did earlier this year.) > >I would most certainly support that idea. > >Peter Amsden >Argyll, Scotland As another (typically smug) Mac user, might I suggest that it is unwise of us to broadcast its' undoubted merits. One of these, the fact that it is at present essentially free of viruses, worms, etc., is at least partly due to the fact that it is under the hackers' horizon, something that would change if too many people switched! :-) Cheers Brian Randell PS I also have worries about the efforts of the Northumberland Tourist Board - to (mis)quote something I read years ago in a San Francisco newspaper: "Isn't it nice that the millions of people who prefer the South of England to the North of England live there! PPS REUNION is indeed very good. -- 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/

> From: Tim Powys-Lybbe <tim@powys.org> > > Buy a Mac Mini and run Reunion: it has one of the best family tree > programs I've come across. (That's what I did earlier this year.) I would most certainly support that idea. Peter Amsden Argyll, Scotland

In message of 27 Nov, "Alastair Ewart" <alastair@ewart62.freeserve.co.uk> wrote: > I am currently using 'Family Origins' and wish to update to a more > uptodate programme. I am considering either Family tree 06 or Roots > Magic. > Currently my trees print out with the ancestor starting at the > lefthand edge. I would like it to start in the middle. Also a > programme which might also print out the ancestors of both Husband > and Wife. > Any help out there? Buy a Mac Mini and run Reunion: it has one of the best family tree programs I've come across. (That's what I did earlier this year.) -- Tim Powys-Lybbe                                          tim@powys.org              For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org

Alastair Why not have a look at the British program Family Historian. Version 3 has just been announced and should be available from January. Full details and a free downloadable demonstration copy are available on the Family Historian website www.family-historian.co.uk The Society runs lectures and tutorials on all three programs and details of the events will be in the calendar for 2006 to be released soon Regards John Hanson -----Original Message----- From: Alastair Ewart [mailto:alastair@ewart62.freeserve.co.uk] Sent: 27 November 2005 21:47 To: SOG-UK-L@rootsweb.com Subject: [SoG] Family tree software I am currently using 'Family Origins' and wish to update to a more uptodate programme. I am considering either Family tree 06 or Roots Magic. Currently my trees print out with the ancestor starting at the lefthand edge. I would like it to start in the middle. Also a programme which might also print out the ancestors of both Husband and Wife. Any help out there? Regards Alastair Ewart ______________________________________________ This email has been scanned by Netintelligence http://www.netintelligence.com/email

I am currently using 'Family Origins' and wish to update to a more uptodate programme. I am considering either Family tree 06 or Roots Magic. Currently my trees print out with the ancestor starting at the lefthand edge. I would like it to start in the middle. Also a programme which might also print out the ancestors of both Husband and Wife. Any help out there? Regards Alastair Ewart

In message of 27 Nov, "Edna" <ekbrit@rogers.com> wrote: > > Just checking Membership - > > Renewal of my membership for the year 2006 ~~ > If you would let me know the amount for Surface mail to Ottawa, > Canada.... If you go to http://www.sog.org.uk/contact.html it will give you the e-address of the person to contect about this, the membership secretary. -- Tim Powys-Lybbe                                          tim@powys.org              For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org

Thanks Tim, I have done that -- possibly they are quite busy. Will wait a few more days. All the best, Edna - Ottawa ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tim Powys-Lybbe" <tim@powys.org> To: <SOG-UK-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Sunday, November 27, 2005 3:06 PM Subject: Re: [SoG] SOG Membership In message of 27 Nov, "Edna" <ekbrit@rogers.com> wrote: > > Just checking Membership - > > Renewal of my membership for the year 2006 ~~ > If you would let me know the amount for Surface mail to Ottawa, > Canada.... If you go to http://www.sog.org.uk/contact.html it will give you the e-address of the person to contect about this, the membership secretary. -- Tim Powys-Lybbe tim@powys.org For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org

Just checking Membership - Renewal of my membership for the year 2006 ~~ If you would let me know the amount for Surface mail to Ottawa, Canada.... Regards, Edna - Ottawa ekbrit@rogers.com

Peter, I applaud that attitude of yours. My own partner, who obtained her divorce absolute earlier this year was married to an illegitimate man. Because she like me, is well into family history, she is helping her ex to trace back both his blood and adoptive line. She is doing that mainly for the sake of her two sons, aged 18 & 20, who might one day, want to take up this time-consuming hobby of ours. [ In some respects, illegitimate people are lucky! they have two times what legitimate peeps have. They have two sets of parents, 8 grand parents, 16 ggf's etc. Twice the power of two unless, their are cousin marriages, of course! <vbg> ] NOTE WELL, I am not advocating Birth outside Marriage, I am sitting firmly on the fence, and painful it is, too! <LOL> etc. By pure coincidence, one set lived in the London Borough of Bromley, and with my newly earned London Freedom Pass, and visits to Bromley Local Studies Library, I was able to go back to 1955with the Electoral Rolls. That helped a lot. Coincidentally, in the one road, up to last year's Bromley & Orpington Telephone Directory, in that same road, at two different addresses, were the same PINNIGER surnamed person(s) - ving. That, after over 50 years!!!!! Serendipity rules OK, often, for us family historians! <vbg> On the same subject, earlier this year I got an email from a gentleman, out of the blue, who (it turned out) was a (half?) cousin, if one can have a half or step cousin? DISCUSS! My grandfather Charles Edward Warn had gone off to Jersey with a Mrs White, allegedly the wife of a Tetbury publican, and got interned by the Germans. On the Surrey List, was placed, a pointer to the Jersey Archives. I did a search and found both He and She! Over the moon? Yes, but not sick as a parrot although I get sick on the boat to the Channel Islands! Charlie WARN was, I thought, one of 13 siblings. This new contact, was a direct descendant of William Warn, by a serving wench! She is clearly on a TETBURY census in the WARN household. So, I too have illegitimacy in my family too! Well, Whoopee! That makes e very chuffed! How the mighty fall! Phil Orpington, Kent, UK . At 11:40 25/11/2005, PeterGoodey wrote: >I don't believe that the PRO document is relevant. There are other things >that might have led you to the second repository. For example, a friend >might have spotted the name and brought it to your attention. > >I think the extent to which you publish the data you found is simply a >matter of your personal judgement and sense of good taste. Others have >provided some examples. I did a bit of uncharged work for someone which was >only intended to whet his appetite for the hobby. As it happened, I found >evidence that clearly proved my friend's illegitimacy. I didn't report it to >him. I simply claimed that I'd failed to find marriage information. So he >can smile at my incompetence and I haven't caused him any unnecessary pain. >Much better for him to find out for himself if he wants to.

I don't believe that the PRO document is relevant. There are other things that might have led you to the second repository. For example, a friend might have spotted the name and brought it to your attention. I think the extent to which you publish the data you found is simply a matter of your personal judgement and sense of good taste. Others have provided some examples. I did a bit of uncharged work for someone which was only intended to whet his appetite for the hobby. As it happened, I found evidence that clearly proved my friend's illegitimacy. I didn't report it to him. I simply claimed that I'd failed to find marriage information. So he can smile at my incompetence and I haven't caused him any unnecessary pain. Much better for him to find out for himself if he wants to.

Brian Randell asked, re Modern PR transcriptions: "One rule of thumb I seem to recall is that we should not provide information from events within the last hundred years. And if so should this apply even to burial registers? ... Does the SoG (or perhaps the FFHS) have any advice or guidelines on this matter? Are there any official government rules?" Most of the replies to his question advocated adopting the "freedom of information" ethos. However, the GENUKI trustees might understandably wish to err on the side of caution, hence the query as to whether there are official government rules. IMHO, Chris Watts therefore gave the most pertinent answer in saying: "GRO Scotland operate a different policy. Whilst the registers are available freely in Edinburgh, those indexes seen online have a cut off - 100 years certainly for births, I am unsure what it is for deaths." The ScotlandsPeople website (www.scotlandspeople.gov.uk) quotes the cut-off years for all three life events applied by the GROS, currently: - Births to 1904 - Marriages to 1929 - Deaths to 1954 Though, as Chris says, this only applies to online publication. I was able to uncover details last week, using the DIGROS system in-house at New Register House in Edinburgh, of a 2002 marriage (a RIGGS from Blandford in Dorset who had romantically gone to Gretna Green to get hitched <g>). These time scales are also in line with the cut-offs eventually proposed by the GRO section of ONS in their various publications on the modernisation of civil registration in England & Wales. Originally the GRO had stipulated cut-offs of 100 years for all three life events but the FFHS, amongst others, lobbied very actively against those and other proposals. Whilst we were successful in getting the GRO to reduce the proposed cut-offs to bring them into line with the Scottish practice, as published in last year's draft RRO on this subject. But we were unable to achieve any further reduction, despite the FFHS giving evidence before the House of Commons Select Committee examining the draft RRO. Effectively, therefore, if the GENUKI trustees wish to be ultra-cautious, they should consider adopting the cut-offs reflecting existing Scottish (and proposed English & Welsh) government practice: 100 years for births, 75 for marriages and 25 for deaths. Geoff Riggs FFHS Director of Computer & Internet Facilities (but expressing my personal views, not publishing "official FFHS guidelines")

I started researching my "Tree" many years ago looking for my "lost Father" who I had never met.Posted various searches on lists, local newspapers, ect. After 3 years of silence I became an e-mail, my father had a brother and this was his daughter. I was not alone any more. We exchanged info per mails, and the big day come as the possibility arose for a visit to england. Then I met her, her brother AND my (step) brother with sister. I and my mother were the unknown factor..As I'd already sent my mothers Marriage Cert. and my Birth Cert. I could not rudder back. As all parties are no longer alive, we three have to face the facts of life together. Eddy in bavaria

> From: "Philip Thirkell" <thirkell@blueyonder.co.uk> > A few years ago I came across what was almost certainly a bigamous marriage. > From correspondence that I had received it was very obvious their only > offspring was unaware of their parent's first marriage and I was faced with > the dilemma of what to do when asked for a copy of the family tree. In the > end I provided an "adjusted" tree which omitted any mention of the first > marriage. Would others have acted differently in a similar situation? I once had a very similar situation. I had been writing to people on different continents, but little did I realise that they were two families arising from the same man. They had no idea that one family came from a bigamous marriage. I didn't deliberately reveal this discovery, it came as a realisation when our correspondence developed. The 'bigamous' family were not very happy at the time, but what had been uncovered was the truth. It was there for anyone to find if they dug deeply enough. Not that I think we should always blast people with uncomfortable truths, especially the very elderly. To me, this seems totally unnecessary and bordering on callousness. In my case the lady who had originally, and unknowingly, entered into a bigamous marriage was no longer alive. There was just a large family left and one or two of them had some real problems with the reality. Still, we continue to send each other Christmas cards, so I think they have come to terms with it. 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.

In message of 23 Nov, "Philip Thirkell" <thirkell@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote: > A few years ago I came across what was almost certainly a bigamous > marriage. From correspondence that I had received it was very > obvious their only offspring was unaware of their parent's first > marriage and I was faced with the dilemma of what to do when asked > for a copy of the family tree. In the end I provided an "adjusted" > tree which omitted any mention of the first marriage. Would others > have acted differently in a similar situation? A similarly abbreviated family tree was published towards the end of the 19th century concealing that my paternal gt-gt-grandfather had spent the last 35 years of his life with another lady and they had some children. I only discovered the details 100 years later. And now nothing is concealed. -- Tim Powys-Lybbe                                          tim@powys.org              For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org

A few years ago I came across what was almost certainly a bigamous marriage. From correspondence that I had received it was very obvious their only offspring was unaware of their parent's first marriage and I was faced with the dilemma of what to do when asked for a copy of the family tree. In the end I provided an "adjusted" tree which omitted any mention of the first marriage. Would others have acted differently in a similar situation? Regards, Phil Thirkell > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Jeremy Wilkes" <JeremyWilkes@compuserve.com> > To: <SOG-UK-L@rootsweb.com> > Sent: Tuesday, November 22, 2005 8:42 PM > Subject: [SoG] Confidentiality undertakings > > > | I should be interested to learn the views of fellow-members on an > ethical > | question. > | > | I wished to search for a relation in a piece at the P.R.O. and was > required > | to sign a confidentiality undertaking. I did not find a reference to > him, > | but, to my surprise, found information about another relation. I > guessed, > | correctly, that I could learn more at another repository, and did so. I > | should not have consulted the documents (which are not at all > confidential) > | at the second repository without having stumbled across the P.R.O. > | reference. > | > | The original information is clearly confidential until the piece becomes > | generally available. What, though, of the information found elsewhere? > | At present I have it all marked with confidential tags on my database, > to > | reduce the likelihood of my disclosing it accidentally. > | > | The relation concerned and his children are all dead. > | > | Jeremy Wilkes > | > | -- > | This email has been verified as Virus free > | Virus Protection and more available at http://www.plus.net > >

An interesting dilema. It is one that is/was faced from time to time when the media found info in the US National Archives that was still closed in the UK. Considering that the information at the second repository is not considered as confidential then you are under no obligation to keep that information under raps - you might after all have stumbled across it, however unlikely, by chance. Anything which you saw at TNA (unless, you might reasonably argue, exactly the same piece of info is in the records at the other repository) you would still be obliged to keep it confidential. You could, of course, ask to look at the record at TNA again with the purpose of seeing info about the second person - but would still be obliged by any confidentiality conditions. Perhaps, since the Freedom of Information Act is now in operation, you should request that TNA reviews the status of the information stating as a reason the open status of the info held at the other repository. As to the moral aspect, Brian Beanland makes a very good point when he says: Quote I have been researching my family name for over twenty years and I try to remain mindful that I am simply pursuing a hobby and as such should not publish information that would cause embarrassment or offence. The genealogist should, in my view, always err on the side of caution. I either keep a mental note of such information or where I am unlikely to be able to remember the same I maintain separate non-computerised records. My policy is to ensure that only I have access to this information. I accept that such data may be lost to future generations. Endquote Chris Watts ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jeremy Wilkes" <JeremyWilkes@compuserve.com> To: <SOG-UK-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Tuesday, November 22, 2005 8:42 PM Subject: [SoG] Confidentiality undertakings | I should be interested to learn the views of fellow-members on an ethical | question. | | I wished to search for a relation in a piece at the P.R.O. and was required | to sign a confidentiality undertaking. I did not find a reference to him, | but, to my surprise, found information about another relation. I guessed, | correctly, that I could learn more at another repository, and did so. I | should not have consulted the documents (which are not at all confidential) | at the second repository without having stumbled across the P.R.O. | reference. | | The original information is clearly confidential until the piece becomes | generally available. What, though, of the information found elsewhere? | At present I have it all marked with confidential tags on my database, to | reduce the likelihood of my disclosing it accidentally. | | The relation concerned and his children are all dead. | | Jeremy Wilkes | | -- | This email has been verified as Virus free | Virus Protection and more available at http://www.plus.net

I have been researching my family name for over twenty years and I try to remain mindful that I am simply pursuing a hobby and as such should not publish information that would cause embarrassment or offence. The genealogist should, in my view, always err on the side of caution. I either keep a mental note of such information or where I am unlikely to be able to remember the same I maintain separate non-computerised records. My policy is to ensure that only I have access to this information. I accept that such data may be lost to future generations. Brian Beanland -----Original Message----- From: Jeremy Wilkes [mailto:JeremyWilkes@compuserve.com] Sent: 22 November 2005 20:42 To: SOG-UK-L@rootsweb.com Subject: [SoG] Confidentiality undertakings I should be interested to learn the views of fellow-members on an ethical question. I wished to search for a relation in a piece at the P.R.O. and was required to sign a confidentiality undertaking. I did not find a reference to him, but, to my surprise, found information about another relation. I guessed, correctly, that I could learn more at another repository, and did so. I should not have consulted the documents (which are not at all confidential) at the second repository without having stumbled across the P.R.O. reference. The original information is clearly confidential until the piece becomes generally available. What, though, of the information found elsewhere? At present I have it all marked with confidential tags on my database, to reduce the likelihood of my disclosing it accidentally. The relation concerned and his children are all dead. Jeremy Wilkes