Oh! And by the way, I would be curious to know how 19th statisticians calculated "literacy rates" and what did they mean by "literacy"? No doubt a good many early Victorian labourers could write their names (although I still have to find more than the odd one or two in my motley crew) but whether they could do much more than that, such as spell many of the wonderful words in our huge vocabulary let alone place names, which have their own glorious peculiarities, is another matter altogether ! Jim Halsey On Apr 3, 2005 7:07 PM, John Brown <john.dhb@btopenworld.com> wrote: > "Peter B Park" <pbp@archive-research.freeserve.co.uk> wrote : > > > From: "Tim Powys-Lybbe" <tim@powys.org> > > > <snip> > >> > >> I think that a high proportion of the population was illiterate then, or > >> certainly in 1861 and this is why the schedule was signed by a 13 year > >> old as he was the only one who could write. So theonly way the forms > >> could get filled in was by the enumerator asking questions of the head > >> to the household. What's the guess as to the then illiteracy rate among > >> such heads? 40%? > > > > Modern research shows that the levels of literacy were higher that we > > think - evidenced by thousands of letters written by paupers to overseers > > claiming non-resident relief from the mid-eighteenth century onwards. Even > > allowing for Tim's only 40% for heads of household, it means that there is > > a > > very good chance that the head of a neighbouring household was not > > illiterate. Add to this the number of children and wives that could write, > > I > > would suggest that most forms were filled in before the enumerator > > collected > > them. > > It sounds good but what is the actual evidence ? You say 'thousands of > letters' but how can we be sure these were actually written by the paupers, > and not by someone else on their behalf ? > > Tim's comment about the prercentage of literate heads of household is a > general figure - it doesn't take account of the differential incidence of > literacy in different areas. A poor area would inevitably have a generally > higher level of illiteracy, the neighbours just as dodgy as him indoors. > > Does anyone have any concrete evidence about this issue, or are we just > discusiing opinions and perceptions ? Did none of the enumerators write down > their experiences ? > > John B > Leic., Eng > >

Hello, If returns were generally filled in by the householder/neighbour/child and not by the enumerator, can some kind lister please explain to me why all the filmed enumeration returns for EDs that I have viewed over 35 years of searching are written, for each separate ED, in the same hand? Many is the time when I have breathed a sigh of relief to move on to the next ED, not because it is more relevant to my search but simply because the handwriting is easier to read ! If what some listers are saying is that preliminary forms were left at each house in advance, to be completed and collected by the enumerator who would transcribe them into the books, then I can well understand that that he would have had problems in comprehension through legibility,spelling and interpretation instead of through speech, accent and hearing. Whichever way it was, the enumerators, their own handwriting apart, seem to have coped pretty well with a job for which they probably got little pay and no thanks!! Jim Halsey On Apr 3, 2005 4:27 PM, Peter B Park <pbpand @archive-research.freeserve.co.uk> wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Tim Powys-Lybbe" <tim@powys.org> > To: <SOG-UK-L@rootsweb.com> > Sent: Sunday, April 03, 2005 9:32 AM > Subject: Re: [SoG] Origins > > > In message of 3 Apr, "Peter B Park" <pbp@archive-research.freeserve.co.uk> > wrote: > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > From: "John Brown" <john.dhb@btopenworld.com> > > > To: <SOG-UK-L@rootsweb.com> > > > Sent: Saturday, April 02, 2005 8:17 PM > > > Subject: Re: [SoG] Origins > > > > > > > > > > So the enumerator was very slightly hard of hearing, and the subject > had a > > > > bit of an accent - sounds very reasonable ! > > > > > > Why does this myth persist. The enumerator delivered schedules to each > > > household the during the week before census night. The schedules were > filled > > > in by the householder and collected after a check by the enumerator that > all > > > the correct parts had been filled in on the doorstep. There is no way an > > > enumerator could have written out the details of 2,000 households in the > > > houses - it took them days to copy the schedules into the books we see > > > today. Hardness of hearing and accents very rarely came into the > equation - > > > relatively few households had no one that could read and write in them > or > > > living next door. I have a copy of an original schedule from Darlaston > in > > > 1861 signed by the 13 year old son. So please, lets give the enumerators > a > > > break and not blame them for all the evils of the world - well all the > > > mistakes in the census. > > > > I think that a high proportion of the population was illiterate then, or > > certainly in 1861 and this is why the schedule was signed by a 13 year > > old as he was the only one who could write. So theonly way the forms > > could get filled in was by the enumerator asking questions of the head > > to the household. What's the guess as to the then illiteracy rate among > > such heads? 40%? > > > > -- > > Tim Powys-Lybbe tim@powys.org > > For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org > > Modern research shows that the levels of literacy were higher that we > think - evidenced by thousands of letters written by paupers to overseers > claiming non-resident relief from the mid-eighteenth century onwards. Even > allowing for Tim's only 40% for heads of household, it means that there is a > very good chance that the head of a neighbouring household was not > illiterate. Add to this the number of children and wives that could write, I > would suggest that most forms were filled in before the enumerator collected > them. > > Peter Park. > Walton on Thames, Surrey, UK. > >

"Peter B Park" <pbp@archive-research.freeserve.co.uk> wrote : > From: "Tim Powys-Lybbe" <tim@powys.org> > <snip> >> >> I think that a high proportion of the population was illiterate then, or >> certainly in 1861 and this is why the schedule was signed by a 13 year >> old as he was the only one who could write. So theonly way the forms >> could get filled in was by the enumerator asking questions of the head >> to the household. What's the guess as to the then illiteracy rate among >> such heads? 40%? > > Modern research shows that the levels of literacy were higher that we > think - evidenced by thousands of letters written by paupers to overseers > claiming non-resident relief from the mid-eighteenth century onwards. Even > allowing for Tim's only 40% for heads of household, it means that there is > a > very good chance that the head of a neighbouring household was not > illiterate. Add to this the number of children and wives that could write, > I > would suggest that most forms were filled in before the enumerator > collected > them. It sounds good but what is the actual evidence ? You say 'thousands of letters' but how can we be sure these were actually written by the paupers, and not by someone else on their behalf ? Tim's comment about the prercentage of literate heads of household is a general figure - it doesn't take account of the differential incidence of literacy in different areas. A poor area would inevitably have a generally higher level of illiteracy, the neighbours just as dodgy as him indoors. Does anyone have any concrete evidence about this issue, or are we just discusiing opinions and perceptions ? Did none of the enumerators write down their experiences ? John B Leic., Eng

----- Original Message ----- From: "Tim Powys-Lybbe" <tim@powys.org> To: <SOG-UK-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Sunday, April 03, 2005 9:32 AM Subject: Re: [SoG] Origins > In message of 3 Apr, "Peter B Park" <pbp@archive-research.freeserve.co.uk> wrote: > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "John Brown" <john.dhb@btopenworld.com> > > To: <SOG-UK-L@rootsweb.com> > > Sent: Saturday, April 02, 2005 8:17 PM > > Subject: Re: [SoG] Origins > > > > > > > So the enumerator was very slightly hard of hearing, and the subject had a > > > bit of an accent - sounds very reasonable ! > > > > Why does this myth persist. The enumerator delivered schedules to each > > household the during the week before census night. The schedules were filled > > in by the householder and collected after a check by the enumerator that all > > the correct parts had been filled in on the doorstep. There is no way an > > enumerator could have written out the details of 2,000 households in the > > houses - it took them days to copy the schedules into the books we see > > today. Hardness of hearing and accents very rarely came into the equation - > > relatively few households had no one that could read and write in them or > > living next door. I have a copy of an original schedule from Darlaston in > > 1861 signed by the 13 year old son. So please, lets give the enumerators a > > break and not blame them for all the evils of the world - well all the > > mistakes in the census. > > I think that a high proportion of the population was illiterate then, or > certainly in 1861 and this is why the schedule was signed by a 13 year > old as he was the only one who could write. So theonly way the forms > could get filled in was by the enumerator asking questions of the head > to the household. What's the guess as to the then illiteracy rate among > such heads? 40%? > > -- > Tim Powys-Lybbe tim@powys.org > For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org Modern research shows that the levels of literacy were higher that we think - evidenced by thousands of letters written by paupers to overseers claiming non-resident relief from the mid-eighteenth century onwards. Even allowing for Tim's only 40% for heads of household, it means that there is a very good chance that the head of a neighbouring household was not illiterate. Add to this the number of children and wives that could write, I would suggest that most forms were filled in before the enumerator collected them. Peter Park. Walton on Thames, Surrey, UK.

With apologies for this general posting, however I can't find, and likely lost the Email sent by someone in the Society [I don't remember who it was] concerning contacting the Origins Help Desk about access to the Origins site and using up unused time. I had queried my inability to get into the site the end of 2004 ["Something wrong?" 31 Dec 04] Although I could see my membership number, active status and boxes showing I had unused access time etc. The same had happened on earlier attempts too. [I never did get to use the 3rd Qtr either.] I wrote to Origins Support desk early in January and did get a response. I had to send two Emails since I had two questions, how to access and whether or not I could still use my unused time and their first reply only addressed my inability to gain access. The reply from the Origins Support desk, explainined that I had to turn of my NORTON Privacy settings in order to get in.... As to the second question, I'm quite sure that I received a positive reply to my second Email that Yes, I would be able to use / carry over my unused time - but I don't seem to have printed that. I had also Emailed the person from SoG that wrote to me that I would advise them how my contact with Origins went. However, since I hadn't been able to make use of my access until the last week of March, I had't replied - I thought I would wait until I did get into the site. I did get into the site on March 20th and things worked well. BUT, I too found that there was no option for me to use my unused time, which I'm sure I had been told I could........ Perhaps that there was some time limit ? I don't remember being given any warning /details about that. I turned my Privacy settings back on afterward my visit, however, I didn't run a complete scan......or it was merely the culmination of a lot of things in my computer, I don't know, but I wasn't able to use my "Windows" features after that. [I'd picked up at least one deadly worm and have had to reformat my computer.] I was only able to back up some files since so many features were lost and I'm still looking for what I did manage to save on floppies, zips etc. I'm just now getting back to Email with a new program etc. and getting all my programs and updates in order etc. It's been a long haul - and a good reminder to keep your back-ups current! I had for the most part, but so much accumulates and time flies and I took a lot for granted.... Not a wise thing to do. Catherine Alberta, Canada. Chris Watts wrote: >I tried it for the first time in a long while and found that I could access > snipped >Although told that I had not used my 3rd quarter 2004, I could not activate >that (only the 1st quarter 2005) - and now the botton has disappered. I >have e-mailed Origins about that but no reply yet. > -- Message scanned by Norton AntiVirus - last updated 01 Apr 2005

From: "Peter B Park" <pbp@archive-research.freeserve.co.uk> To: <SOG-UK-L@rootsweb.com> > From: "John Brown" <john.dhb@btopenworld.com> > >> So the enumerator was very slightly hard of hearing, and the subject had >> a >> bit of an accent - sounds very reasonable ! > > Why does this myth persist. The enumerator delivered schedules to each > household the during the week before census night. The schedules were > filled > in by the householder and collected after a check by the enumerator that > all > the correct parts had been filled in on the doorstep. There is no way an > enumerator could have written out the details of 2,000 households in the > houses - it took them days to copy the schedules into the books we see > today. Hardness of hearing and accents very rarely came into the > equation - > relatively few households had no one that could read and write in them or > living next door. I have a copy of an original schedule from Darlaston in > 1861 signed by the 13 year old son. So please, lets give the enumerators a > break and not blame them for all the evils of the world - well all the > mistakes in the census. The original post referred to "Foulness" being recorded as "Fournass", which looks and sounds like a straightforward case of verbal misunderstanding, surely ? I don't dispute the process you describe, but I'd question the extent of illiteracy in the general population and how this would have affected the recording of information. I wasn't 'blaming' the enumerators for anything, by the way, and I do have an enumerator somewhere in my tree - a beautiful job he did too, despite being the local publican ! John B Leic., Eng

In message of 3 Apr, "Peter B Park" <pbp@archive-research.freeserve.co.uk> wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "John Brown" <john.dhb@btopenworld.com> > To: <SOG-UK-L@rootsweb.com> > Sent: Saturday, April 02, 2005 8:17 PM > Subject: Re: [SoG] Origins > > > > So the enumerator was very slightly hard of hearing, and the subject had a > > bit of an accent - sounds very reasonable ! > > Why does this myth persist. The enumerator delivered schedules to each > household the during the week before census night. The schedules were filled > in by the householder and collected after a check by the enumerator that all > the correct parts had been filled in on the doorstep. There is no way an > enumerator could have written out the details of 2,000 households in the > houses - it took them days to copy the schedules into the books we see > today. Hardness of hearing and accents very rarely came into the equation - > relatively few households had no one that could read and write in them or > living next door. I have a copy of an original schedule from Darlaston in > 1861 signed by the 13 year old son. So please, lets give the enumerators a > break and not blame them for all the evils of the world - well all the > mistakes in the census. I think that a high proportion of the population was illiterate then, or certainly in 1861 and this is why the schedule was signed by a 13 year old as he was the only one who could write. So theonly way the forms could get filled in was by the enumerator asking questions of the head to the household. What's the guess as to the then illiteracy rate among such heads? 40%? -- Tim Powys-Lybbe tim@powys.org For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org

----- Original Message ----- From: "John Brown" <john.dhb@btopenworld.com> To: <SOG-UK-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Saturday, April 02, 2005 8:17 PM Subject: Re: [SoG] Origins > So the enumerator was very slightly hard of hearing, and the subject had a > bit of an accent - sounds very reasonable ! Why does this myth persist. The enumerator delivered schedules to each household the during the week before census night. The schedules were filled in by the householder and collected after a check by the enumerator that all the correct parts had been filled in on the doorstep. There is no way an enumerator could have written out the details of 2,000 households in the houses - it took them days to copy the schedules into the books we see today. Hardness of hearing and accents very rarely came into the equation - relatively few households had no one that could read and write in them or living next door. I have a copy of an original schedule from Darlaston in 1861 signed by the 13 year old son. So please, lets give the enumerators a break and not blame them for all the evils of the world - well all the mistakes in the census. Peter Park (no knowingly related to any enumerator) Walton on Thames, Surrey, UK.

Following the correspondence about census transcriptions, may I point out a further problem with the enumerators' returns? The enumerator may have had to struggle not only with unfamiliar place names, but with the poor handwriting of semi-literate residents. I had great difficulty finding the birth of my great-grandmother Mary Ann Dorrington (nee Cooper) and needed lateral thinking besides the comparison of two censuses to solve the mystery. Living in Brighton, she was described in 1891 as born in Barnett, Kent, which doesn't exist; in 1881 in Whelslne, Middlesex, which turned out to be Whetstone, in Barnet registration district, which was divided between Middlesex and Hertfordshire (I suppose Hert and Kent could be confused). In 1901 her birthplace was given, in the enumerator's clear scropt, as Maidstone, Kent! I fully sympathise with the laments of enumerators. Elizabeth Silverthorne London

"Hector Davie (by way of Geoffrey <lists@sog.org.uk >) wrote : >I tried out the 1871 census, and was disappointed that the index seemed to >contain an even higher proportion of mistranscriptions than we have got >used to from >1881 and 2001. >Of the five entries I knew to be there, only two were in the index, and for >one of those, >the street address was given as "Davids Road" - a mistaken >assumption caused by that >being the last street name which had been >mentioned in the enumerator's schedule, >some twenty pages previously. Hope you don't really mean 2001 ! My experience with 1871 is to have found an entry that I've had great trouble finding elsewhere; isn't it just a case of all transcriptions including a degree of 'best guesses' and "yer pays yer money and teks yer choice' ? Any index is better than none. >Not that the transcriber was always to blame - I managed to find a missing >gt-gt-gt->uncle, George Knight from Foulness, whose place of birth, in >unmistakable handwriting, >was written "Fournass, Essex". So the enumerator was very slightly hard of hearing, and the subject had a bit of an accent - sounds very reasonable ! Isn't the issue that census returns are subject to a variety of original errors, as well as bad handwriting, and that the modern transcribers, who may well never have seen many of the words presented to them and may have no real idea of UK geography etc., will make mistakes ? The commercial imperative, allied to the internet, means that there are many organisations now competeing for our cash and their main objective is speed. If FHSs and/or the SoG or other organisations had already produced top quality indexes, they wouldn't be able to exploit us. John Brown Leic., Eng

It was good to be reminded of our 72-hour access to Origins before the first quarter ran out, and of our access to other, non-SoG, databases. I tried out the 1871 census, and was disappointed that the index seemed to contain an even higher proportion of mistranscriptions than we have got used to from 1881 and 2001. Of the five entries I knew to be there, only two were in the index, and for one of those, the street address was given as "Davids Road" - a mistaken assumption caused by that being the last street name which had been mentioned in the enumerator's schedule, some twenty pages previously. Not that the transcriber was always to blame - I managed to find a missing gt-gt-gt-uncle, George Knight from Foulness, whose place of birth, in unmistakable handwriting, was written "Fournass, Essex". Hector Davie This email has been scanned for viruses by NetBenefit using Sophos anti-virus technology

> From: "David Beakhust" <dave@beakhust.com> (by way of Geoffrey > <lists@sog.org.uk>) > Reply-To: SOG-UK-L@rootsweb.com > Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2005 09:14:00 +0100 > They probably had so many people wanting to use compact cameras, many of > which cannot focus closer than 2m, have flash, and cannot make use of the > low light in search rooms, that they felt it easier to ban them as a class. Whether you can focus a camera or not is surely up to the user. It is not for TNA to dictate on this matter. > It would be interesting if someone involved in setting the rule could > comment... They have - see my last email on the subject. Dated 29/03/05 > > Most film cameras with built-in flash cannot inhibit the flash in dark > conditions. But many can. > A digital camera cannot easily cope with very low light, which a film camera > can easily do by lengthening the exposure time. All depends on the camera. I frequently take close ups in room light without flash and get perfectly acceptable results. > Obviously, using any kind of camera in the light of a search room requires a > support of some kind, Again, depends on the camera. It is my understanding that the facilities provided at TNA for camera users is a table near to a window. This should provide plenty of light for most purposes. After all, you are only trying to take the information away to read. If you need a photograph suitable for publication, then you move into a totally new level. Peter Amsden ARPS ABIPP ASAT Productions Argyll, Scotland http://www.asat.biz

I think they have tried (and failed) to rationalise a complex problem (but at least they allow SOME cameras). It will be good to hear what you find out. They probably had so many people wanting to use compact cameras, many of which cannot focus closer than 2m, have flash, and cannot make use of the low light in search rooms, that they felt it easier to ban them as a class. It would be interesting if someone involved in setting the rule could comment... Until you mentioned SLRs I had always thought the leniency towards digital cameras was that they (used to) lack the resolution to make a copy which could be illicitly exploited commercially, but all the same, usually did provide staff with the means to check what had been photographed. It is such a pity (as those who follow parliamentary debates must often feel), that the basic purpose of a rule should not be given more prominence, the better to inform the rule-makers and those who have to interpret the rules. For example (I made this up, of course, but it should cover the ground): "use of cameras should be permitted if: documents are neither exposed to lighting other than that provided in the office, nor handled in a way that stresses them more than they would be by reading them; noise nuisance is avoided; safety or convenience of staff and other users is unaffected." Rules about which kind of cameras or supports fitted the bill would then be aids to interpretation. Most film cameras with built-in flash cannot inhibit the flash in dark conditions. Most Digital cameras can inhibit flash, as can those few SLRs with built-in flash. A tripod on the floor would pose a tripping hazard; a tripod on the reading table *may* intrude on your neighbour, and if copying large-format documents, the temptation to stand a small tripod ON the map or document would be high (for those who simply did not realise the damage that coud result). Motor-rewind is a noise nuisance, as can be the focussing noise of some cameras. BUT: The rewind noise of a compact film camera may be loud and embarrassing, but nothing compared to the "kerplock" noise of a SLR, or possibly the "kerplock-whheech" noise of a motordriven SLR. A digital camera cannot easily cope with very low light, which a film camera can easily do by lengthening the exposure time. For example, my compact 35mm film camera (made by Minox) has no flash, is as silent as it is possible to be, has automatic exposure which will run for a minute or more, if the lighting is dim, and can with a supplementary lens copy an A4 sheet. It would probably not be allowed, but I have never asked to use it. Another camera (contemporary with mine) had the type number "A4", because it could focus on and copy an A4 page. Obviously, using any kind of camera in the light of a search room requires a support of some kind, but the kind of "G-shaped support" cited elsewhere on this list would probably involve resting the document ON the baseplate of this device. This in itself may pose a risk, as this will not be the same material as used for the table-tops (even if it were, you'd have the problem of proving it). Dave Beakhust -----Original Message----- From: Peter Amsden [mailto:amsden@btinternet.com] Sent: 22 March 2005 19:30 To: SOG-UK-L@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [SoG] Scanning an old book The actual words used on the NA web site are: "Records copying by readers with own cameras The National Archives provides a service whereby readers are permitted to make copies of records using their own digital and Single-lens reflex (SLR) cameras. There is no charge for this service." So you can use a film camera if it is an SLR. Very odd - what is wrong with a none SLR camera? I shall find out. No flash, light or tripods of course. Peter Amsden Argyll, Scotland > From: Brian Randell <Brian.Randell@newcastle.ac.uk> > Reply-To: SOG-UK-L@rootsweb.com > Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2005 18:01:11 +0000 > To: SOG-UK-L@rootsweb.com > Subject: Re: [SoG] Scanning an old book > Resent-From: SOG-UK-L@rootsweb.com > Resent-Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2005 11:14:16 -0700 > > Hi Tim: > > At 3:54 pm +0000 22/3/05, Tim Powys-Lybbe wrote: >> Yes. Many libraries will now allow you to photo pages of (old) books >> instead of paying for expensive photocopies. > > Intriguingly, the National Archives at Kew will allow you to > photograph documents as long as you use a *digital* camera (without > flash or tripod). Why the restriction to digital cameras is beyond > me, and beyond the member of their staff who remarked on it to me > when I was registering my digital camera with them. > > 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

On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 17:38:28 +0100, Peter Abbott wrote: >I just saw an article in a magazine saying there is a new search engine >(beta test). It is UK based and reduces the amount of non UK material >included (down to about 10%). > >It was call seek.... something. I did not have a pencil and cannot remember >the full site address. > >Anyone help please? > >Peter You can set GOOGLE up to do the same thing. Go to: www.google.co.uk and after entering your search criteria select uk pages and bobs your uncle. Cheers, Tom <tomp@st.net.au> Tom Perrett Proud to be member of Melbourne DPS, first port of call re Victorian research - http://home.vicnet.net.au/~dpsoc

I tried it for the first time in a long while and found that I could access all of British Origins datasets whether they were from the SoG or not. And yes, that did include the 1841 (and 1871) indexes and images. I could also access Irish Origins databases. Access to Scottish Origins was weird - they were just links to scotlandspeople - no datasets of their own. So the statement that SoG members can access British Origins is true but not complete - unless the access is presently actually wider than intended! Although told that I had not used my 3rd quarter 2004, I could not activate that (only the 1st quarter 2005) - and now the botton has disappered. I have e-mailed Origins about that but no reply yet. Chris Watts ----- Original Message ----- From: "Peter Armstrong" <peter@27petergate.freeserve.co.uk> To: <SOG-UK-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Tuesday, March 29, 2005 11:21 PM Subject: [SoG] SoG members access to British Origins | I have not used the members free 72 hour access for a very long time. | | Does anyone know if this allows access to the 1841 census recently | advertised, or is it purely limited to SoG provided data such as Boyds | marriages, Vicar General Marriage Licence Allegations etc? | | Regards, | Peter Armstrong | | | -- | This email has been verified as Virus free | Virus Protection and more available at http://www.plus.net

-----Original Message----- From: Peter Armstrong [mailto:peter@27petergate.freeserve.co.uk] Sent: 29 March 2005 23:22 To: SOG-UK-L@rootsweb.com Subject: [SoG] SoG members access to British Origins > > I have not used the members free 72 hour access for a very long time. Does anyone know if this allows access to the 1841 census recently advertised, or is it purely limited to SoG provided data such as Boyds marriages, Vicar General Marriage Licence Allegations etc? Regards, Peter Armstrong > > Peter, I have just re-looked at the site and found on the Help Pages - "As part of our SoG partnership, British Origins offers a special deal to SoG members. Members are awarded one 72 hour British Origins session per calendar quarter (unlimited searches over 72 consecutive hours). Members can view all SoG material on British Origins. Members also get 20% discount on orders made via British Origins for hard copies provided by the Society (£8 instead of £10.) These benefits only apply to records for hard copies provided by the Society. " So my reading is that the entire site is available but there is no discount on any hard copy prints of non-SoG data. As there are only two days to the end of the quarter you might just as well try now and see what happens. Regards Dave Tappin

-----Original Message----- From: Peter Armstrong [mailto:peter@27petergate.freeserve.co.uk] Sent: 29 March 2005 23:22 To: SOG-UK-L@rootsweb.com Subject: [SoG] SoG members access to British Origins > > I have not used the members free 72 hour access for a very long time. Does anyone know if this allows access to the 1841 census recently advertised, or is it purely limited to SoG provided data such as Boyds marriages, Vicar General Marriage Licence Allegations etc? Regards, Peter Armstrong > > Peter. It looks to me as if access is allowed to the entire site via the SoG membership. Regards

Peter, Lee Olivers's reply to your query is interesting. TNA check that you know how to turn off the flash when the camera is registered, but not whether it bleeps - most seem to in the search room (mine very quietly!!). On registering they put a sticker on your readers' ticket, but I have never had my ticket checked when using my camera to see if it is registered. Regards, Peter Park, Walton on Thames, Surrey, UK. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Peter Amsden" <amsden@btinternet.com> To: <SOG-UK-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Tuesday, March 29, 2005 3:23 PM Subject: [SoG] Use of cameras at the National Archives, Kew. > Someone raised the question recently about the the type of cameras that were > allowed in the archives at Kew. > > I felt that the information was misleading since whilst it permitted SLRs > and digital cameras, there was no mention of non-SLR cameras. I qeuried this > with the Public Services Department, and the reply from the head of the > department is below. > > I find it interesting that whilst 'beeping' is deemed annoying, they have > not taken account of the noise that some SLRs make. My Nikon is enough to > scare the birds away! > > 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. > > > > Reply from NA > ________ > > You are correct that it is an oversight in out current policy, which we are > currently rewriting. We permit any type of handheld still camera, providing > it can be operated without flash, and without audible bleeps. The one > exception to this is cameras which are contained in mobile telephones, which > are not permitted in our reading rooms. > > I hope this answers your query. > > Yours sincerely > > Lee M. Oliver > Head of Public Services Development > The National Archives > Kew > >

I have not used the members free 72 hour access for a very long time. Does anyone know if this allows access to the 1841 census recently advertised, or is it purely limited to SoG provided data such as Boyds marriages, Vicar General Marriage Licence Allegations etc? Regards, Peter Armstrong

I just saw an article in a magazine saying there is a new search engine (beta test). It is UK based and reduces the amount of non UK material included (down to about 10%). It was call seek.... something. I did not have a pencil and cannot remember the full site address. Anyone help please? Peter