At 10:22 25/04/2005, Geoffrey wrote: >The outcome of all these percentages is that the estimated number of cards >with addresses on the reverse, based on five million cards, is 14,500 to >50,500. A long way short of 100,000. Geoff, I *did* WARN you that I might come back <grin> 1) I could I suppose suggest that it is surely "academic" as to whether the number of WW1 Medal Cards that contain information "useful" to family Historians is 33,000 or 50,000 or 200,000 - the fact is that the number concerned is sufficient to challenge the intent to destroy them. Period,. 2) Surely even a next-of-kin name is better than nothing? 3) I understand that the figure of 0.65% covers only the cards that have a next of kin name *AND* address 4) So, how many contain other information? 5) How much information about all the cards do you personally know? 6) How much does Miss Else Churchill know? 7) Is TNA aware of the true facts OR only MOD? 8) May not the SoG membership know the true story and not just part of the story 9) Failure to make access to historical records, the reported shredding of Governmental records in 2004, history of Governments making decisions for us all, the attempted changes in Civil Registration, none of these give us faith in public servants. 10) The SoG exists to make information available to its membership and day visitors. What I do not want to see is rubber stamping of official decisions. If I can, I want to raise this whole issue at the AGM, can this be done by proxy? That s, can I raise it as an issue by a letter to the AGM Chairman? Phil Still in Orpington

At 10:22 25/04/2005, Geoffrey wrote: >The key to this is the requirement of a random sample. If they just looked >at the first 2000 cards in the first drawer then the sample is far from >random. However if they took one random card from every drawer (I estimate >that there are 2002 drawers) then the sample is very fair. > >This is all fairly academic at the moment. Geoff, Since your email seems to be a "pot shot" at me, perhaps I might be allowed a Right of Reply? 1) We do not get an update on this List of developments on the WW1 Medal Cards on this List, I think. 2) Do you know whether the 2,000 cards were "randomly" selected or they went to the first 2,000 cards in a "randomly" selected filing cabinet? 3) Why is it academic? As a member of the SoG I would like to see us being kept up to date on this matter. The Quarterly Journal is not the place for tha, too infrequentt. Randomness cannot be ever achieved, random number generator algorithms on computers are notoriously fickle and one never achieves true randomness. It seems to me that had this matter not been made public, these cards would have been destroyed, period. Does TNA act on behalf of genealogists on as a revenue source for the Government? This List is for discussion and I hope that your posting was not to be seen as an attempt to stifle legitimate talk about a subject close to my heart.. My mother's father died in a most horrendous manner 10 years after the end of WW1, having been gassed by mustard gas in the WW1 trenches. Why should not I and other family historians be allowed access to the back as well as the front of each record card? I will fight to the last breath I draw to fight for freedom of access to all relevant records. Please allow us what our own government is trying to do - stifle free speech, something enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations - I would refer you too to the ECHR. "Academic" is an adjective that often underlies attempts of denial of free speech - please think twice about using it,. Geoff. My first thoughts on your amazing words. I may say more on further reflection. Phil Worried of Orpington, Kent

Phil wrote <heavily edited>: >You may be quite interested in an email I got from TNA after I challenged >their statistics about WW1 Medal cards. > >A formal random sampling of 2,000 cards was carried out in March this year, >to inform TNA whether the past users' "gut feeling" on this was correct. >Soldiers' cards bearing addresses were found in 0.65% of the cards sampled. > >By my count, if there were 5 million cards, as many as 33,000 cards with an >address on the reverse were about to be lost > >The sample size is rather small to be stastistically significant. > >So, who knows, there might be over 100,000 addresses in limbo. This guess of 100,000 is not born out by the statistics. Although 2000 cards out of an estimated 5 million may seem rather small, in fact statistically this is classified as a large sample. Had the number of 'hits' been around 50% then we would be talking of a variation of plus or minus 2% giving a range of 48% to 52% with 95% probability of this being correct. The problem in the case of these cards is that the percentage 'hits' is less than 1% which means that the range of certainty is much wider. With a 95% confidence (odds of 19 to 1 that this is correct) a result of 0.65% has a range of plus or minus 0.36% i.e. 0.29% to 1.01%. The outcome of all these percentages is that the estimated number of cards with addresses on the reverse, based on five million cards, is 14,500 to 50,500. A long way short of 100,000. The key to this is the requirement of a random sample. If they just looked at the first 2000 cards in the first drawer then the sample is far from random. However if they took one random card from every drawer (I estimate that there are 2002 drawers) then the sample is very fair. This is all fairly academic at the moment. The Society's Genealogy Officer has been in touch with the MoD and we understand that they are in serious discussion with a third party regarding the preservation of the cards. It has been suggested that this may be the Western Front Association, but neither party has confirmed this. It does appear that these cards will survive. Geoff Geoffrey T. Stone, SoG Mailing List Administrator. lists@sog.org.uk http://www.sog.org.uk

Dear Soggies, You may be quite interested in an email I got from TNA after I challenged their statistics about WW1 Medal cards. [ I have removed the name to protect the guilty! <grin> ] Note that, of many million cards only 2,000 were sampled and if 2/3 of one percent had addresses, one wonders if others had other info on their reverse? By my count, if there were 5 million cards, as many as 33,000 cards with an address on the reverse were about to be lost The sample size is rather small to be stastistically significant. So, who knows, there might be over 100,000 addresses in limbo. So much for an Act that gives us access to non-classified records from 1st January 2005! One is lead to wonder what other family history useful information was shreaded by Ministries before 1/1/2005? Phil. >>>> Dear Mr Warn I have been asked to reply to your enquiry below. I am a former member of the MOD staff, I worked for 11 years on the Hayes site where these cards have been stored since the late 1980s, in a role in which I and other staff made regular use of the cards, quite often in the hope of finding an address on the back. In the course of that work, we formed a user's view of the likelihood of finding anything there and, had I been asked the question a year ago or ten years ago, I would have said that it is extremely rare to find an address on the back of a soldier's card. I might have guessed at one in a hundred or one in a thousand - in other words, in my considerable experience of delving into the cards, success was rare. I could not say how many thousands of cards I looked at over a period of years, but it would not have been inconsiderable and, as I say, the experience was not exclusively my own. A formal random sampling of 2,000 cards was carried out in March this year, to inform TNA whether the past users' "gut feeling" on this was correct. Soldiers' cards bearing addresses were found in 0.65% of the cards sampled. Yours sincerely <<<<

To SoG Members Within a 50 mile radius of Buxton DBY. I am taking the SoG Bookstall to Buxton on Sunday, 22nd May 2005 and need your support on two counts. 1. The Fair will be open between 10.00am and 5.00pm. So I will need help to layout the publications from about 8.00am followed by support behind the counter. Come armed with your own drinks and sandwiches! 2. As Members take the opportunity coming along to purchase SoG and other material as the following two Fairs will be at York and Gateshead in June and September respectively. Michael Bunting.

Hi Chris: >Land Tax Redemption - IR 22, 23 and 24 >Check to see if any Enclosure Awards are there. > >also but much later than your dates: >National Farm Survey >Lloyd George's Survey (IR 58 etc). Many thanks. cheers Brian -- 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/

Land Tax Redemption - IR 22, 23 and 24 Check to see if any Enclosure Awards are there. also but much later than your dates: National Farm Survey Lloyd George's Survey (IR 58 etc). Chris ----- Original Message ----- From: "Brian Randell" <Brian.Randell@newcastle.ac.uk> To: <SOG-UK-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Saturday, April 23, 2005 6:44 PM Subject: [SoG] Parish-related information at the National Archives | Hi: | | In a few weeks time I plan to visit the National Archives for a day, | something that I manage all too rarely. | | I am trying to ransack the National Archives for information relating | to the Clovelly, North Devon (especially in the period 1600-1820) - | most of whose parish chest material has unfortunately not survived. | (I have of course already spent some time investigating the Devon | Record office holdings, though not as much as I would like.) | | I have used the TNA on-line catalogue extensively, and have made | several earlier visits to the Archives. The purpose of this query is | to ask for advice as to types of information held in the National | Archives that is so organised or indexed (by at least county, but | ideally by hundred or parish) as to make it relatively easy to search | for information relating to a particular parish, yet which is not as | yet covered to this level of detail in the on-line catalogue. | | The types of material I have already searched, albeit not always as | thoroughly as I would have wished, are: | | Registers of Protection from being pressed (ADM 7/381-385) | Assizes: Western Circuit: Crown Minute Books (ASSI 21) | Assizes: Western Circuit: Civil Minute Books (ASSI 22) | Chancery: Petty Bag Office: Writ Files - index to warrants of | appointments of customs officers (C 202 ) | Chancery: Petty Bag Office: Victuallers Recognizances (C203) | Association Oath Rolls (C213) | Customs pay lists (CUST 18) | Customs Board Minute Books (CUST 28/2) | Excise Officers - Minute Books (CUST 47) | Outport Records (CUST 64) | Bristol Channel Ports, Officer of Oaths of Admission (CUST 69/166) | Outport Records (CUST 75 ) | Subsidies (E179) | Port Books (E190) | Tithe Apportionments (IR29) | List of persons paying duty on male servants (T 47/8 ) | Excise Officers - Quarterly salary lists (T44) | | As indicated above, I am looking for other ideas as to what other | files, covering the period 1600-1820, are relatively easy to search | by virtue of how they are organised, or through the existence of | indexes. | | 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 verified as Virus free | Virus Protection and more available at http://www.plus.net

Try the Estate Duty Office registers (IR 27) at the FRC or Kew. Chris ----- Original Message ----- From: "Terry Silcock" <terry.silcock@btinternet.com> To: <SOG-UK-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Saturday, April 23, 2005 12:01 PM Subject: [SoG] Value of estates UK 1848 | I have a copy of the will of my 2GGrandfather who died in London, | Westminster in1848. He left many properties to his children and brothers, | Is there any simple way that I can find out the value of his estate? | This information is contained in the indexes to later will at First Avenue | House. | | Terry Silcock | | | | -- | This email has been verified as Virus free | Virus Protection and more available at http://www.plus.net

Hi: In a few weeks time I plan to visit the National Archives for a day, something that I manage all too rarely. I am trying to ransack the National Archives for information relating to the Clovelly, North Devon (especially in the period 1600-1820) - most of whose parish chest material has unfortunately not survived. (I have of course already spent some time investigating the Devon Record office holdings, though not as much as I would like.) I have used the TNA on-line catalogue extensively, and have made several earlier visits to the Archives. The purpose of this query is to ask for advice as to types of information held in the National Archives that is so organised or indexed (by at least county, but ideally by hundred or parish) as to make it relatively easy to search for information relating to a particular parish, yet which is not as yet covered to this level of detail in the on-line catalogue. The types of material I have already searched, albeit not always as thoroughly as I would have wished, are: Registers of Protection from being pressed (ADM 7/381-385) Assizes: Western Circuit: Crown Minute Books (ASSI 21) Assizes: Western Circuit: Civil Minute Books (ASSI 22) Chancery: Petty Bag Office: Writ Files - index to warrants of appointments of customs officers (C 202 ) Chancery: Petty Bag Office: Victuallers Recognizances (C203) Association Oath Rolls (C213) Customs pay lists (CUST 18) Customs Board Minute Books (CUST 28/2) Excise Officers - Minute Books (CUST 47) Outport Records (CUST 64) Bristol Channel Ports, Officer of Oaths of Admission (CUST 69/166) Outport Records (CUST 75 ) Subsidies (E179) Port Books (E190) Tithe Apportionments (IR29) List of persons paying duty on male servants (T 47/8 ) Excise Officers - Quarterly salary lists (T44) As indicated above, I am looking for other ideas as to what other files, covering the period 1600-1820, are relatively easy to search by virtue of how they are organised, or through the existence of indexes. 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 imagine that, in the absence of inheritance tax, the only reason for valuing an estate before 1858 was to ensure the executors entered into a bond for a sufficient surety to make certain that they did their work honestly. If the original will is not extant and there is no inventory and no separate letters of administration, there would be no way of finding out the value of the estate. In any case, only moveable chattels would be valued. Tim Powys-Lybbe noted: > I wonder if the word 'real' derived from 'royal' No, it derives from the Latin "res", meaning that the thing itself could be awarded in judgement - if you agreed to sell land and did not hand over possession, the courts could demand that you handed it over "really". The opposite is "personal", where the thing could not be given in judgement, but merely damages. ("Real" may indeed have the other meaning, in "real tennis" or "Real Madrid", but that's different from real estate! Hector Davie

Colin Mills wrote on Sat, 23 Apr 2005: >I have for many years had a sword engraved "Robert Gordon, 19th Middleses >Rifles", and I should like to know where the records of this unit are >located so that I can find out something about its original owner - so >far as I know he is no relation of mine, I would be willing to pass it >on to the regimental museum or a proven descendant. I think if you go to <http://regiments.org/regiments/> and have a good root around, you should find some good leads. Within it, <http://regiments.org/regiments/uk/inf/057Midx.htm> looks as if it might be promising. There's also Forrest Anderson's site <www.military-researcher.com/>. -- Iain Archer

In message of 23 Apr, "Terry Silcock" <terry.silcock@btinternet.com> wrote: > I have a copy of the will of my 2GGrandfather who died in London, > Westminster in1848. He left many properties to his children and brothers, > Is there any simple way that I can find out the value of his estate? > This information is contained in the indexes to later will at First Avenue > House. I have a strong negative feeling that the value reported for the post 1858 wills was only the personal estate: landed (aka real) property was omitted. Though at an even later date, possibly in the 20th century, real estate was included. PS I wonder if the word 'real' derived from 'royal' and referred to the medieval feudal practice that all land was, supposedly, held of the king? -- Tim Powys-Lybbe tim@powys.org For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org

I have a copy of the will of my 2GGrandfather who died in London, Westminster in1848. He left many properties to his children and brothers, Is there any simple way that I can find out the value of his estate? This information is contained in the indexes to later will at First Avenue House. Terry Silcock

I have for many years had a sword engraved "Robert Gordon, 19th Middleses Rifles", and I should like to know where the records of this unit are located so that I can find out something about its original owner - so far as I know he is no relation of mine, I would be willing to pass it on to the regimental museum or a proven descendant. Regards, Colin Mills

The following has just been posted on www.sog.org.uk SoG Family History Show Last Orders! Tickets for the Beginners' Conference on Friday 29 April and Lecture tickets for the show on Saturday 30 April will be available to purchase from the SoG website up till 6pm Tuesday 26 April. After this date tickets for the conference will be available from the SoG reception or at the Royal Horticultural Hall on Friday. Lecture tickets for the Saturday can be purchased from SoG reception or on Saturday at the hall. (We will not be selling Saturday lecture tickets at the Friday conference) Note the computer demonstrations and Welcome to Family History lecture are free on Saturday but you will need to pick up a free ticket for the lecture on Saturday to ensure a place. Anyone who orders Family History Show tickets between 6pm Tuesday 26 April and 6pm Thursday 28 April can collect the tickets from the SoG Family History Show ticket office (conference side entrance) on Saturday 30 April and still take advantage of the special 2 tickets for £10 offer. No show tickets can be purchased via the website after Thursday 6pm. Tickets will be available on the door at the RHS at £8 Also follow the link to the "Exhibitors & Show Guide" to find our who will be there and download the floorplan (Acrobat) Chris Broomfield, Webmaster, Society of Genealogists, London webmaster@sog.org.uk www.sog.org.uk On-line retail shopping? Use www.buy.at/genealogists our affiliate shop and SoG gains funds at no cost to you

I am on the scrounge. As you maybe aware we are running more lecture streams at the Show this year than we have done in the past. This year we have an precedented number of lecturers using powerpoint and therefore we fine ourselves in the position of requiring more up-to-date equipment than in the past. Whereas a few years ago we could have got away with overhead projectors now everyone wants to use powerpoint and data projectors. Using our usual technique of begging and borrow (I draw the line at stealing) we have acquired the use of five but it still leave us one machine short. If there is someone out there, that we haven't already approached, who has a machine or knows of the whereabouts of one would they please get in touch with me. If all else fails then we will have to hire one for the day at a cost of about £250 John Hanson Chairman, Family History Show Working Party Please reply to ~ john.hanson@one-name.org

The wife was born in Jamaica but the son's baptismal record states quite clearly that the parents were not married. I rather think that he would have to produce a copy of that record as well as his parent's marraiage certificate. So far as is known the son did not write any memoirs or such. Three of the parent's 12 children had children and only two had grandchildren. Neither of the two families - one family in Australia and one in Canada - have any obituaries. As far as the parents were concerned I have the wife's from the Scotsman and the husband's from the Gleaner in Jamaica. I also have the entries from Fasti Ecclesiae Scoticanae for both the son and the branch that has no descendants. There is no inkling of anything in any of these but this is not something that I would expect to be broadcast. Unfortunately, I have not had access to local newspapers. According to the father's will, he was married to "my dear wife" and left her a liferent in most of his estate both in Scotland and Jamaica. It took some time to find the marriage entry because occurred twenty years after the first child was born. My feeling is that whether two people were married or not was really not of great importance in Jamaica. It only began to matter if there were a reason for it to matter. Susan At 06:32 AM 4/13/2005 +0100, you wrote: > >In this case, if the wife was a native of Jamaica, could there have been >some sort of traditional 'joining ceremony' in Jamaica, at the start of >her liason with her husband, meaning that all their children would have >been considered to be the local equivalent of 'legitimate' from day one, >but when the family's ties to Scottish culture, ethics and laws became >stronger in later years, a formal reassertion of their marriage under >Scottish practice then became necessary to 'underwrite' the sincerity of >their vows and thus allow the son's advancement? Did the son write any >memoirs, or are there any articles (perhaps in 1856) or obituaries of >the family in local newspapers? > >Lawrence

Does the Scottish "marriage by repute" enter into the equation here? Chris | I think I have had the same situation but the term 'under the skirt' was | not used. | | My case was a man who went to Jamaica as a licentiate of the College of | Surgeons in Edinburgh in 1816. In 1822, he had a liaison with a woman with | whom he had nine children. In 1838, he decided to return to Scotland to | take his MD. He brought with him his eldest surviving son, aged 10, who was | put into school in Dundee. The rest of the family, including the liaison, | remained in Jamaica looking after the property. | | The father graduated in 1839 and returned to Jamaica late that year or very | early the next having a tenth child in November 1840. The son continued at | school. In 1842, by special licence, the father married the mother of his | children. They had two more children, and then the whole family went to | Dundee in 1847. | | The son became a minister in the Church of Scotland in 1856. In order to | become a minister, he had to be legitimate. It would seem that the marriage | in 1842, legitimized the son. | | Susan | | | At 11:43 PM 4/12/2005 +0100, you wrote: | > | >Cedric Hoptroft wrote | > | > | >> Brian Randell wrote (or, rather, quoted): | >> <so I wonder if the usage might be something to do with accepting | >> children | >> from the husband's previous marriage> | > | >...but he added | > | >> I would think it could at least as easily be the other way round. | > | >...interesting, but in the specific case I'm looking at, the two small | >children were said to be (and other evidence backs this up) the children | >previously born of the couple who were now marrying each other. | > | >Under Scots law did their marriage actually legitimise the children, and was | >keeping them 'under the skirt' some kind of social convention? | > | >The marriage took place in about 1843 in Ayrshire. | > | > | > | > | > | >-- | >No virus found in this incoming message. | >Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. | >Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.9.5 - Release Date: 4/7/2005 | > | > | | | -- | This email has been verified as Virus free | Virus Protection and more available at http://www.plus.net

In this case, if the wife was a native of Jamaica, could there have been some sort of traditional 'joining ceremony' in Jamaica, at the start of her liason with her husband, meaning that all their children would have been considered to be the local equivalent of 'legitimate' from day one, but when the family's ties to Scottish culture, ethics and laws became stronger in later years, a formal reassertion of their marriage under Scottish practice then became necessary to 'underwrite' the sincerity of their vows and thus allow the son's advancement? Did the son write any memoirs, or are there any articles (perhaps in 1856) or obituaries of the family in local newspapers? Lawrence -----Original Message----- From: SCJ Bethune [mailto:sbethune@shaw.ca] Sent: 13 April 2005 02:21 To: SOG-UK-L@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [SoG] Under the skirt... I think I have had the same situation but the term 'under the skirt' was not used. My case was a man who went to Jamaica as a licentiate of the College of Surgeons in Edinburgh in 1816. In 1822, he had a liaison with a woman with whom he had nine children. In 1838, he decided to return to Scotland to take his MD. He brought with him his eldest surviving son, aged 10, who was put into school in Dundee. The rest of the family, including the liaison, remained in Jamaica looking after the property. The father graduated in 1839 and returned to Jamaica late that year or very early the next having a tenth child in November 1840. The son continued at school. In 1842, by special licence, the father married the mother of his children. They had two more children, and then the whole family went to Dundee in 1847. The son became a minister in the Church of Scotland in 1856. In order to become a minister, he had to be legitimate. It would seem that the marriage in 1842, legitimized the son. Susan At 11:43 PM 4/12/2005 +0100, you wrote: > >Cedric Hoptroft wrote > > >> Brian Randell wrote (or, rather, quoted): >> <so I wonder if the usage might be something to do with accepting >> children >> from the husband's previous marriage> > >...but he added > >> I would think it could at least as easily be the other way round. > >...interesting, but in the specific case I'm looking at, the two small >children were said to be (and other evidence backs this up) the children >previously born of the couple who were now marrying each other. > >Under Scots law did their marriage actually legitimise the children, and was >keeping them 'under the skirt' some kind of social convention? > >The marriage took place in about 1843 in Ayrshire. > > > > > >-- >No virus found in this incoming message. >Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. >Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.9.5 - Release Date: 4/7/2005 > > -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.289 / Virus Database: 266.9.5 - Release Date: 07/04/2005 -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.289 / Virus Database: 266.9.5 - Release Date: 07/04/2005

Cedric Hoptroft wrote > Brian Randell wrote (or, rather, quoted): > <so I wonder if the usage might be something to do with accepting > children > from the husband's previous marriage> ...but he added > I would think it could at least as easily be the other way round. ...interesting, but in the specific case I'm looking at, the two small children were said to be (and other evidence backs this up) the children previously born of the couple who were now marrying each other. Under Scots law did their marriage actually legitimise the children, and was keeping them 'under the skirt' some kind of social convention? The marriage took place in about 1843 in Ayrshire.