Hi: Attempting a reply to my own question, I belatedly wonder whether "& P" should be transcribed as "&c"? Comments anyone? Cheers Brian Randell >Hi: > >I am just finishing transcribing the records of a civil court >proceedings set up to adjudicate a 1727 dispute over the tithes due >on herring fishing in Clovelly in North Devon. (I plan to make the >results available in GENUKI - though i have yet to deal with the one >page of Latin! :-) > >The records include a set of interrogatories, of which the following >is a sample: > >"Item Doe you know the Rectory & parish of Clovelly in the County of >Devon if yea how long have you known the same Doth the said parish >stand upon or towards the Sea Coasts who by name been the successive >Rectors of the said parish ever since your remembrance to this >present time and what is the chief Imployment of most of the >parishioners of the said parish Declare & P" > >In the above I have given the last characters as "& P" - I am sure >of the "&" but not the "P" - the character/abbreviation thoughit >looks much like a capital "P" is not identical to the form of >capital "P" found elsewhere in the text. > >Could anyone suggest the meaning of "Declare & P", which is how most >though not all the interrogatories end? > >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/ -- 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/

Hi: I am just finishing transcribing the records of a civil court proceedings set up to adjudicate a 1727 dispute over the tithes due on herring fishing in Clovelly in North Devon. (I plan to make the results available in GENUKI - though i have yet to deal with the one page of Latin! :-) The records include a set of interrogatories, of which the following is a sample: "Item Doe you know the Rectory & parish of Clovelly in the County of Devon if yea how long have you known the same Doth the said parish stand upon or towards the Sea Coasts who by name been the successive Rectors of the said parish ever since your remembrance to this present time and what is the chief Imployment of most of the parishioners of the said parish Declare & P" In the above I have given the last characters as "& P" - I am sure of the "&" but not the "P" - the character/abbreviation thoughit looks much like a capital "P" is not identical to the form of capital "P" found elsewhere in the text. Could anyone suggest the meaning of "Declare & P", which is how most though not all the interrogatories end? 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/

I have found a stained glass memorial window, in a church, which was given in 1929 by my great aunt in memory of her parents and 2 of her siblings. The main part of the window shows St.George and St.Patrick - her mother was English and her father Irish. At the bottom, to the left of the inscription naming the family members, is a square showing a castle with an animal's head above it (horse?, dog?) and below it the words Tet an Avan. Does anyone have any idea what this means?

And, at the end of the day, the only true line is the female line!! Best, Yvonne > > I suspect that the mother simply made false statements to the registrar > but would like to know if that were possible. When i first started doing genealogy, I was advised by an older and wiser genealogist that "they all tell lies - and many of them tell lies about /telling/ lies". So true! My paternal grandfather William AINSLEY married twice, and on each occasion gave his father's name as Reginald William AINSLEY - except that he knew damn well that it was Reginald William ATKINSON.... because his mother Alice AINSLEY was in RW's keeping for a number of years before she was ousted by a later mistress and had an illegitimate daughter by someone else... (unless he had 2 mistresses pregnant at the same time of course). It was clearly far more acceptable to lie to Congregation and State than admit one was a bastard! At least my maternal grandmother was more honest in a way, since she put her adoptive father down as her father (I think he was probably her step-grandfather). Mind you, she was a 2nd generation bastard, and that /was/ a family secret - I only learned of that as a deathbed confession! They ALL tell lies.... hugh<<

Hi Soggies, I am sorry if this has already been mentioned but Google are trialling a new map site. <maps.google.co.uk> Go there click on "local search". Put in "record office" (without the quotes) and then a place name, town, county and click search. You can centre the map using the left mouse held down. You can zoom in several ways using the +/- vertical scroll bar. Enjoy! Phil.

> I suspect that the mother simply made false statements to the registrar > but would like to know if that were possible. When i first started doing genealogy, I was advised by an older and wiser genealogist that "they all tell lies - and many of them tell lies about /telling/ lies". So true! My paternal grandfather William AINSLEY married twice, and on each occasion gave his father's name as Reginald William AINSLEY - except that he knew damn well that it was Reginald William ATKINSON.... because his mother Alice AINSLEY was in RW's keeping for a number of years before she was ousted by a later mistress and had an illegitimate daughter by someone else... (unless he had 2 mistresses pregnant at the same time of course). It was clearly far more acceptable to lie to Congregation and State than admit one was a bastard! At least my maternal grandmother was more honest in a way, since she put her adoptive father down as her father (I think he was probably her step-grandfather). Mind you, she was a 2nd generation bastard, and that /was/ a family secret - I only learned of that as a deathbed confession! They ALL tell lies.... hugh But

In message of 26 May, Peter Abbott <PeterAbbott.Eymore@btinternet.com> wrote: > Does anyone know what checks were made when registering births in 1902. > > I have a birth registration which I think might have been as follows. > > The mother was single and the father was already married. I think the > registration was made in another registration district from the birth. The > mother registered the birth and gave her forename and birth name as the > surname with a formerly name. The father's name contained the mother's > formerly name as a second forename. The mother did have a brother with the > same first forename. The mother gave an address within the district where > the registration took place. > > The mother married the child's father the next year (in church) and he was > described as a widower and she a spinster with her correct father's > details. The child did tell the family many years later that she knew who > the birth father was and he had married her mother just over 12 months > after she was born. > > I suspect that the mother simply made false statements to the registrar but > would like to know if that were possible. No problem at all. When he married for the first time, my paternal gt-grandfather, being under 21 and estranged from his father, told the registrar that his father was dead and so it was entered in the records. This saved him having to get his father's permission for this obviously impetuous marriage. I have been assured that, while ha may have committed a crime, the marriage was still lawful. -- Tim Powys-Lybbe                                          tim@powys.org              For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org

Does anyone know what checks were made when registering births in 1902. I have a birth registration which I think might have been as follows. The mother was single and the father was already married. I think the registration was made in another registration district from the birth. The mother registered the birth and gave her forename and birth name as the surname with a formerly name. The father's name contained the mother's formerly name as a second forename. The mother did have a brother with the same first forename. The mother gave an address within the district where the registration took place. The mother married the child's father the next year (in church) and he was described as a widower and she a spinster with her correct father's details. The child did tell the family many years later that she knew who the birth father was and he had married her mother just over 12 months after she was born. I suspect that the mother simply made false statements to the registrar but would like to know if that were possible. Thanks Peter

On Tue, 24 May 2005 19:13:25 +0100, Geoff Beach wrote: >Why not a scanner for 35mm slides only, I've been using a Nikon Coolscan lll >for some years now. Modern flat bed photo scanners such as the Epson series are both more versatile and cheaper than good quality dedicated film scanners. The Epson 4870 has film holders for: - 4 strips of 6 x 35mm film - 8 35mm mounted slides - 3 strips of 120/220 (6x12 max) film - 2 sheets of 5 x 4 inches film I have examples of all these sizes (and others) that need scanning. But it also does reflective scans of paper based images up to A4 size. The top of the range Epson 4990 scanner (4800 x 9600 dpi) that has replaced the 4870 costs around UKP 300 plus VAT. The similar resolution but lower priced Epson 4180 scanner costs around UKP 140 plus VAT. Dedicated film scanner prices have come down in recent years, but a Nikon 4000dpi Super Coolscan LS 5000 ED dedicated film scanner (suitable for only 35 mm and APS film) costs around UKP 900 plus VAT. The iPhoto website http://www.photo-i.co.uk/ spent some time comparing 35 mm film scans on high quality dedicated film scanners with those done on the Epson flatbeds and concluded that the dedicated scanner results were better but not significantly so for most purposes. Cheers, John John Addis-Smith Thurleigh, Bedfordshire, England

My understanding of the Society members access to the Origins website is exactly what Origins say, namely limited to those datasets that belong to the SoG, and that in the contractual arrangements made with Origins right from the first day of the site. We took the view that any material from the Society, that would have been freely available at Charterhouse Buildings would be accessible free on line and the best deal was offered by Origins when we sought a company to run the operation for us. Over the last few months it has been possible to get access to the full site, but that was an oversight by Origins, alas now corrected. Frank Hardy -----Original Message----- From: Mlc1@aol.com [mailto:Mlc1@aol.com] Sent: 24 May 2005 15:54 To: SOG-UK-L@rootsweb.com Subject: Britishorigins This morning I activated my 72 hour session on the Origins website for this quarter, but I am unable to search the 1841 and 1871 census. I was able to access the 1871 census during the last quarter. I have queried this on the Website Mail Form, but have not yet received any response and in the meantime the hours are ticking away. Has our entitlement as SOG members changed? Celia Cole ______________________________

Thank you Michael for Jane's address. I have not had the same problem as you, but today, I was unable to view any images of 'Apprentices of Great Britain', which is one of the SOG datasets, so as I understand the response I had yesterday, viewing these comes within our entitlement. The image viewer worked perfectly well a couple of months ago when I was able to view images from the 1871 census, but today even after uninstalling and re-installing it and with the test pages apparently working perfectly, still no images! Regards Celia

John, " Ideally I would like it to have the facility to scan negatives and slides as well but that is a secondary consideration." Why not a scanner for 35mm slides only, I've been using a Nikon Coolscan lll for some years now. Geoff South Wales -----Original Message----- From: John Addis-Smith [mailto:genl@addisgen.com] Sent: 24 May 2005 19:04 To: SOG-UK-L@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [SoG] A3 scanners (repost) On Fri, 13 May 2005 09:44:28 +0100, "Chris Watts" <ml@ctwatts.plus.com> wrote: >Can anybody recommend a flatbed A3 scanner that does not cost an arm and >three legs? >Ideally I would like it to have the facility to scan negatives and slides as >well but that is a secondary consideration.

On Fri, 13 May 2005 09:44:28 +0100, "Chris Watts" <ml@ctwatts.plus.com> wrote: >Can anybody recommend a flatbed A3 scanner that does not cost an arm and >three legs? >Ideally I would like it to have the facility to scan negatives and slides as >well but that is a secondary consideration. For under UKP 100 I believe there is no other A3 scanner other than the Mustek A3. After that you need to jump to around UKP 700 or so - unless you can find one secondhand. With its USB (not USB2) interface it does a fair job, though rather slow for full A3 scans. I also have found the USB interface a little unstable (with both Win 98SE and Win XP OSs), but still usable after the occasional reboot. The maximum optical resolution is 300 x 600 dpi on my A3 Mustek. So it would not be suitable for scanning 35 mm slides or negatives, unless you only require output to a screen, say for a web page. If you want to print from the slide scans the output preferably should be up to 3200 dpi, depending on how large you want to print. I have successfully use the Mustek A3 to scan large maps and other documents that required 4 scans (2 x 2) which were then stitched together in Adobe Photoshop Elements. I placed pencil marks on the scanner casing to help align the document for each scan. So for scanning transparencies you would need a more expensive scanner, such as one of the Epson series that has a built in light in the cover and provides the special supplied holders to hold the transparencies/negatives. In the better models the light in the cover keeps pace with the moving scanner head under the platen ensuring an even light distribution. Before I purchased my Epson 4870 photo scanner last year I read many magazine reviews and Epson photo scanners seems to come out better than either Hewlett Packard and Cannon . . . There are disputes about the Epson 4870's claimed 4800 dpi optical resolution, but 3200 dpi is all one really need for 35 mm film stock - in fact 2400 dpi is usually satisfactory. The scanner's dynamic range (how it resolves both the darkest and lightest parts of you film) is also important, particularly for transparencies (positives) as opposed to negatives that do not have as wide a dynamic range. One reason for the special negative/transparency holders is to hold the film just off the glass platten to prevent light interference patterns, although recently I successfully scanned old black and white negatives that measured 6" x 4" which had been placed straight on the platten, there being no suitable holder available. I was going to make one out of cardboard but found it unnecessary! I think that for many the cheaper Epson 3200 or 3170 scanners would be adequate as a combined (A4) paper and film scanner, but read their specifications to ensure that you do not require a feature that they do not have . . . Finally I recommend the excellent UK based photo-i web site at: http://www.photo-i.co.uk/ Mainly aimed at professional photographers, the reviews of equipment are very thorough and there is an online forum. I have learnt a lot from this site . . . Cheers, John John Addis-Smith Thurleigh, Bedfordshire, England

Celia,I have also been having problems with it, virtually every quarter only my symptoms are, that I can log in to it,use it for an hour or so, log out but not get back in. I get a message stating that my time is spent. I spoke to a young lady at the SOG Fair about it and she got me set up again. the same thing has happened yet again. I Emailed her about three weeks ago and, as yet, have received no reply or use of. This is her address, her name is Jane: jane@origins.net. We can only try. Michael Tebbutt.

Following my earlier query about our 72 hours quarterly access to the Britishorigins website, I have just received this response. 'Unfortunately we can no longer offer members of the SoG access to non- SoG material such as the two censuses. If you go to www.britishorigins.com - the datasets you are able to search free have the SoG logo next to them.' What a disappointment! Celia Cole

This morning I activated my 72 hour session on the Origins website for this quarter, but I am unable to search the 1841 and 1871 census. I was able to access the 1871 census during the last quarter. I have queried this on the Website Mail Form, but have not yet received any response and in the meantime the hours are ticking away. Has our entitlement as SOG members changed? Celia Cole

thanks for the hint peter..yours is the only suggestion to time,so I will bear it in mind.. prost and cheers.. eddy in bavaria. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Peter Amsden" <amsden@btinternet.com> To: <SOG-UK-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2005 1:07 AM Subject: Re: [SoG] Identification of Photograph > >From his head-dress I have the impression that he may have belonged to > >one > of the Indian regiments. He was a sergeant with a long service stripe, so > he > could easily have been serving in India. > > I am probably miles out, but sometimes an impression can help. > > Best regards > > Peter > > > ---- > Peter Amsden, > Argyll, Scotland > ASAT Productions: http://www.asat.biz > > 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. > > >

----- Original Message ----- From: "David Hawgood" <david@hawgood.com> To: <SOG-UK-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Thursday, May 19, 2005 1:46 PM Subject: [SoG] Re: Army Quartermasters c. 1800 | he was listed in the 10th Regiment of | Foot 1805-1811 there were two quartermasters and two adjutants, Two battalions? | and for a time he is a lieutenant with neither of those functions (in fact he is | never listed as a Captain - that rank comes from family information). Not sure about the practice at that time but certainly more recently officers assumed a courtesy rank one above their actual one on retirement. | And I found that the Commissariat | officers are in the Army List, and looking after 1811 he does not appear. Remember that many Commissariat officer rose through the ranks - so looking in WO 31 can be especially fruitful. Chris Watts

I asked a question about quartermasters and adjutants in the British Army in the Peninsular war. By looking more at the Army List, and with help from Nick Newington-Irving on available material in the SoG library, I have resolved most of my queries and can now go to Kew to look up regimental records. I though Captain Speedy might have been combining Quartermaster and Adjutant roles, but all the time he was listed in the 10th Regiment of Foot 1805-1811 there were two quartermasters and two adjutants, and for a time he is a lieutenant with neither of those functions (in fact he is never listed as a Captain - that rank comes from family information). Also, J Soc Historical Research vol 23 no 96 Winter 1945 has an article on The Quartermaster Generals Dept in the Peninsula 1809-1814 by S G P Ward, with a staff list, and Speedy is not included. And I found that the Commissariat officers are in the Army List, and looking after 1811 he does not appear. regards, David Hawgood.

From his head-dress I have the impression that he may have belonged to one of the Indian regiments. He was a sergeant with a long service stripe, so he could easily have been serving in India. I am probably miles out, but sometimes an impression can help. Best regards Peter ---- Peter Amsden, Argyll, Scotland ASAT Productions: http://www.asat.biz 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.