David -- Have you tried Weather+America+1777 in your Search. You might be surprised what you may find.... Edna - Ottawa ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Wason" <wason@dial.pipex.com> To: <SOG-UK-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Sunday, February 27, 2005 10:48 AM Subject: [SoG] Old weather records Forgive a slightly off-topic question... but SOG members have such a wide collective experience of using archives... Does anyone know where I might find comtemporary weather records for New York State on a specific day in 1777? I believe there may be Royal Naval vessel weather logs at Kew - but have any archive/diary/record office specialists got any other ideas? David Wason

Hi Peter, Are you aware of the "Atlas & Guide to London, 1896" which has a street index. A facsimile was re-published by Audrey Collins Publications in 2002, and provides quite a good street index of that time. There is no cross reference to the 1891 census pieces though. I think I bought my copy from the SoG ! Regards Pickard Trepess ----- Original Message ----- From: "Peter Abbott" <PeterAbbott.Eymore@btinternet.com> To: <SOG-UK-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Thursday, February 24, 2005 21:58 PM Subject: 1891 Census Street > If anyone has access to a street index for the 1891 census I would > appreciate details of Piece and Folios for Lurgan Street, London. > > Thanks > > Peter Abbott > > ______________________________

----- Original Message ----- From: "Jeremy Wilkes" <JeremyWilkes@compuserve.com> To: <SOG-UK-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Thursday, February 24, 2005 10:26 PM Subject: [SoG] Change of name | He quotes a similar story to the opposite effect: "the head of an Oxford | college, in far-off days when such appointments were subject to the | condition of celibacy, astonished the fellows of his society by announcing | his marriage and confronting them with a clause in a local Canal Act which | gave him statutory sanction." Sounds like somebody had a propensity for plays on words - Ca(r)nal Act - <vbg> Chris

Sheila Murray wrote: > some of the records ... went up to 1946 and some of the > people mentioned could, conceivably, have still been alive. Well yes, Sheila...just conceivably. David Wason b. Aberdeen. 1946

Peter Abbott wrote: > If anyone has access to a street index for the 1891 census I would > appreciate details of Piece and Folios for Lurgan Street, London. > > Thanks > > Peter Abbott Rg12/36 f57-60 Peter Walker

John Brown wrote: > "Sheila Murray" <SheilaMurray@mtcharlesayr.fsnet.co.uk> wrote : > > >> For anyone who might find this of interest, I have recently enquired >> of the London Metropolitan Archives as to whether, under the Freedom >> of Information Act, the 100 year rule still applies. > > <snip> > > While what followed was useful to know, I don't think the FoIA > actually has anything to do with such records. FoIA applies to > Government, local Government etc administraive records but not to > records involving strictly personal information. Or am I wrong ? :-) > > John B > Leic., Eng You are right, of course, but it seems to have made a difference to Hospital Records, too - at least those stored at the London Metropolitan Archives! Sheila Murray Ayr > > > >

If anyone has access to a street index for the 1891 census I would appreciate details of Piece and Folios for Lurgan Street, London. Thanks Peter Abbott

Megarry mentions the case of the town clerk in his Miscellany-at-Law (though he attributes it to Clause 64 of a waterworks bill "mingled with something technical about filter beds and stopcocks". He went on in his Lectures on the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947 to pose the question whether the provision was personal to that town clerk or applied to his successors as well. However, I do not think that anyone has identified the local act and the story seems to be apocryphal. He quotes a similar story to the opposite effect: "the head of an Oxford college, in far-off days when such appointments were subject to the condition of celibacy, astonished the fellows of his society by announcing his marriage and confronting them with a clause in a local Canal Act which gave him statutory sanction." On a topical point, though, he was able to cite an instance in 1844 (therefore about 67 years before the Parliament Act 1911) in which royal assent was given to a bill before it had even been considered by the House of Lords. Should it be of interest, it was one of two bills promoted by the Eastern Counties Railway Company. What is more, I once appeared in a nullity case in which the decree was pronounced before any evidence had been given. Jeremy Wilkes

"Sheila Murray" <SheilaMurray@mtcharlesayr.fsnet.co.uk> wrote : > For anyone who might find this of interest, I have recently enquired of > the London Metropolitan Archives as to whether, under the Freedom of > Information Act, the 100 year rule still applies. <snip> While what followed was useful to know, I don't think the FoIA actually has anything to do with such records. FoIA applies to Government, local Government etc administraive records but not to records involving strictly personal information. Or am I wrong ? :-) John B Leic., Eng

For anyone who might find this of interest, I have recently enquired of the London Metropolitan Archives as to whether, under the Freedom of Information Act, the 100 year rule still applies. I sent details of the person in which I was interested, and the very helpful staff informed me that, as long as I could prove the person in question was really dead (death certificate forwarded post-haste) they would check the records for me. I wouldn't have been able to look at some of the records myself as one lot went up to 1946 and some of the people mentioned could, conceivably, have still been alive. This meant that I had to pay LMA research fees but this was no problem as it would have cost me more to get there from Scotland, anyway. I received everything I wanted, complete with photographs, full face and side view, of my grandfather. Treasure indeed, as far as I am concerned! Sheila Murray Ayr, Scotland

Peter Here is the reply I received from my cousin regarding the 1861 Census: "It was at the Family Records Centre in London where I read in the street index that part of one side of Dean St was missing. The thick books of London Street indexes on shelves just outside where the film drawers are kept, near where you pick up the dummy film box. I remember getting the film out anyway and it stopped on Dean Street at a house very close to the one I was looking for (i.e. 19, I have a vague recollection that the last house before the break was 16, but cannot be sure & of course the note book is eluding me.) " Sheila Murray Ayr, UK Peter B Park wrote: >Sheila, > >>From where is the district missing? > >Peter Park, >Walton on Thames, Surrey, UK. > > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Sheila Murray" <SheilaMurray@mtcharlesayr.fsnet.co.uk> >To: <SOG-UK-L@rootsweb.com> >Sent: Friday, February 18, 2005 7:02 PM >Subject: Re: [SoG] 1861 Census > > > > >>Great - I've found an entry from a district which was posted as missing >>elsewhere! >> >>Sheila Murray >> >>Jeanne Bunting UK wrote: >> >> >> >>>David, >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>>Have just noticed a news release from the 15 Feb on the >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>><http://www.1837online.com/> www.1837online.com homepage. >>> >>>Transcriptions and original census images for the 1861 census are being >>> >>> >put > > >>>online now starting with London, Middlesex, Surrey and Kent. < >>> >>>I wondered how long it would be before someone noticed!! It has been >>> >>> >there > > >>>since midnight on Monday!! <g> >>> >>>Jeanne Bunting >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> > > > > > >

One of my family history collaborators looked it up and was told that it was missing but I regret to say that I don't know where she went to look. She lives in Worksop so possibly Sheffield. I shall write and ask her. Sheila Peter B Park wrote: >Sheila, > >>From where is the district missing? > >Peter Park, >Walton on Thames, Surrey, UK. > > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Sheila Murray" <SheilaMurray@mtcharlesayr.fsnet.co.uk> >To: <SOG-UK-L@rootsweb.com> >Sent: Friday, February 18, 2005 7:02 PM >Subject: Re: [SoG] 1861 Census > > > > >>Great - I've found an entry from a district which was posted as missing >>elsewhere! >> >>Sheila Murray >> >>Jeanne Bunting UK wrote: >> >> >> >>>David, >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>>Have just noticed a news release from the 15 Feb on the >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>><http://www.1837online.com/> www.1837online.com homepage. >>> >>>Transcriptions and original census images for the 1861 census are being >>> >>> >put > > >>>online now starting with London, Middlesex, Surrey and Kent. < >>> >>>I wondered how long it would be before someone noticed!! It has been >>> >>> >there > > >>>since midnight on Monday!! <g> >>> >>>Jeanne Bunting >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> > > > > > >

Thanks to the combined 25 plus contributors from the two mailing lists of the SoG & the KFHS,on the mortification subject. What a powerfully knowledgeable grouping you are! Thanks & best wishes, David Gilroy als the Lenham transcriber. 21 February 2005. -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 266.2.0 - Release Date: 21/02/05

In an email dated Sunday, February 20, 2005 7:03, Colin Mills <MILLSC64@aol.com> writes: > Private acts of parliament can also be used, but the last one > was passed in 1907 and would likewise cost a Very Large Sum. Not connected with change of name, but concerns private Acts of Parliament. There is the story of the Town Clerk from the West Country (Exeter?) who wanted a divorce but couldn't afford the special Act of Parliament required in those days. As the Act for the town's (city's?) Charter was about to be debated in Parliament he inserted the clause similar to 'and the Town Clerk is hereby granted a divorce'. Either the MPs didn't notice it or didn't understand it, but the Act went through with this clause unamended and the Town Clerk got his way. It couldn't happen these days . . . . could it? DaveD

I think mortification, as it latin derivation suggests, means "death of tissue" otherwise known as gangrene. John Betts Bony growth? Perhaps that is calcification. LOL, Doc Edna - Ottawa ----- Original Message ----- From: <MILLSC64@aol.com> To: <SOG-UK-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Friday, February 18, 2005 4:50 AM Subject: Re: [SoG] Fw: Mortification. In a message dated 17/02/2005 10:46:20 GMT Standard Time, john.dhb@btopenworld.com writes: > Alternatively, isn't there an unpleasant medical condition that > results in substantial additional bony growth ? > I think this is acromegaly (caused by excesive activity of pituitary gland). Regards, Colin Mills ______________________________Dr John Betts <dr@muswell.org.uk> London, UK Researching CHAPMAN London, CORDREY London, Surrey, WILKINSON London, KNOWLES South London, all early 1800's Further details on web site at www.browser.demon.co.uk This email has been scanned for viruses by NetBenefit using Sophos anti-virus technology

List members may be interested to learn that the Society of Australian Genealogists website has an index to Soldiers and Marines 1788-1830. These are people from British forces who served in Australia (then simply New South Wales), many of whom settled in Australia on completing their terms, but a good many of whom returned home or went on with their regiments to other colonial postings. The regiments/units involved are: 3rd Foot (Buffs) 39th Foot 40th Foot 46th Foot (South Devon) 48th Foot 73rd Foot, 1st Battalion 73rd Regt, Invalid Company 102nd Regt (New South Wales Corps) The database may be searched by going to www.sag.org.au and clicking the "Databases" icon at the top of the page. Graham Lewis Sydney This email has been scanned for viruses by NetBenefit using Sophos anti-virus technology

Monica, New Brunswick became a Canadian province in 1867. Immediately prior to that it was a British colony. It has never been part of the US. Try the provincial archives at http://archives.gnb.ca/Archives/Default.aspx?L=EN. St. Andrews is located in Charlotte County, so make sure you read its "County Guide" (http://archives.gnb.ca/Archives/CountyGuides.aspx?L=EN). Civil registration started in 1888, but many earlier births were officially registered in later years. If you fail to find anything relevant through civil registration, your best bet may be the 1861 census. Good luck, Kevin On Sun, 20 Feb 2005 22:35:32 -0000, Monica Baldwin <monicam@sagainternet.co.uk> wrote: > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Monica Baldwin" <monicam@sagainternet.co.uk> > To: "SOG-UK-L" <SOG-UK-L-request@rootsweb.com> > Sent: Friday, February 18, 2005 4:40 PM > Subject: Records for New Brunswick > > >> An entry in the 1871 Census for Colchester states that John EDKINS was > born >> in "N.America - New Brunswick, St.Andrews". Having found him after >> searching for years, how do I continue the search for his birth in > 1858/59? >> As New Brunswick is now a province of Canada, do I look there or in the >> United States? >> >> Monica in Luton. >> -- Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/

----- Original Message ----- From: "Monica Baldwin" <monicam@sagainternet.co.uk> To: "SOG-UK-L" <SOG-UK-L-request@rootsweb.com> Sent: Friday, February 18, 2005 4:40 PM Subject: Records for New Brunswick > An entry in the 1871 Census for Colchester states that John EDKINS was born > in "N.America - New Brunswick, St.Andrews". Having found him after > searching for years, how do I continue the search for his birth in 1858/59? > As New Brunswick is now a province of Canada, do I look there or in the > United States? > > Monica in Luton. >

For those searching in Canada, you could try -- The Archives Canada site has moved to http://www.collectionscanada.ca/index-e.html Edna - Ottawa

Hi, Think that was the reason my William Lloyd Jones changed his name to Worth as his wife, Henrica Duntz Worth, was the Landowner way back in 1882 (in Washfield, Devon). I see it clearly now ~~~ Edna - Ottawa ----- Original Message ----- From: <MILLSC64@aol.com> To: <SOG-UK-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Sunday, February 20, 2005 7:03 AM Subject: Re: [SoG] Change of name In a message dated 19/02/2005 09:22:26 GMT Standard Time, tim@powys.org writes: > Additionally, and particularly if you are left large sums on the > condition that you do change your name, you can do it by Royal Licence. > I have no idea what this would cost, but rest assured, it would be a Very > Large Sum. > Not sure whether Royal Licences are required for this reason; seems doubtful to me. The royal licence route is applicable to enemy aliens (provided for by legislation passed in 1916) and armigers (those who have coats of arms), presumably including peers of the realm. I'm not sure whether it also includes members of orders of chivalry, knights and baronets (but they are likely to be armigerous) or those having other honours e.g. medals. Private acts of parliament can also be used, but the last one was passed in 1907 and would likewise cost a Very Large Sum. The other means of changing names are by advertisement in the press (one good reason for indexing newspapers) and by a Statutory Declaraion before a Justice of the Peace or a Commissioner for Oaths. Regards, Colin Mills