I can't help wondering whether it might be a bit like 'of full age' for marriage ... Recruiter asks "Are you 18?" (implying but not saying '18 or over'). Recruit says 'Yes, I'm 18." (again implying 'over'). So '18' goes onto the record. 2p, Malcolm. On Wed, 16 Apr 2014 23:05:03 +0100, Adrian Bruce <abruce@madasafish.com> wrote: > Thanks to Google, I was reminded of the Victorian Wars Forum > http://www.victorianwars.com/index.php so posed this question on there. > > The consensus appeared to be that there is no obvious reason of > - age (their stated age of 18 is just as adult as their real ages), > - height (the elder, at least, was well over the required height for an > adult soldier) > - or bounty (we don't think the amount would be different for an 18y > old) > why these two brothers would understate their ages on joining the Army in > the late 1820s, and that therefore the most likely explanation is indeed > an > "honest" error. Possibly if the elder brother thought he was 2y younger > than > he was, then everyone else had to shuffle down to match, so that's why > the > younger brother understated his age as well. > > Adrian B > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > SOG-UK-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message -- Using Opera's mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/

Here are a couple more examples. My gt gt grandfather William Fenning, from 1845 and throughout his life, gave his year of birth as 1829 when I know he was definitely baptised in 1828. Similarly, the man who was later to become his son-in-law, Henry Stafford Goodfellow, was born in 1843 but stated his year of birth as 1844. This would have enabled them, on joining the merchant navy in 1845 and 1860 respectively, to claim to be 16. I read somewhere that once you were 17 you were too old to be apprenticed as a seaman. Maybe someone can confirm that this was the case and so could be the likely explanation? Hew Stevenson Jobs for the Boys: the Story of a Family in Britain's Imperial Heyday by Hew Stevenson (ISBN 978-1-902563-02-2). £15 + £5 p&p. _www.dovebooks.co.uk_ (http://www.dovebooks.co.uk/)

Thanks to Google, I was reminded of the Victorian Wars Forum http://www.victorianwars.com/index.php so posed this question on there. The consensus appeared to be that there is no obvious reason of - age (their stated age of 18 is just as adult as their real ages), - height (the elder, at least, was well over the required height for an adult soldier) - or bounty (we don't think the amount would be different for an 18y old) why these two brothers would understate their ages on joining the Army in the late 1820s, and that therefore the most likely explanation is indeed an "honest" error. Possibly if the elder brother thought he was 2y younger than he was, then everyone else had to shuffle down to match, so that's why the younger brother understated his age as well. Adrian B

Perhaps for people familiar with the structure of the registers, the following may be either a statement of the extremely blindingly obvious, or just plain wrong, but the registers are new to me, as it will be to a few others. So: Trying a few searches gives me the following: Searching for a name will find you a proprietor or proprietors and all sorts of notes and observations, including in an example i searched, mention of a marriage certificate. It will find you title number(s), but not the location (parish, county). Remove the name, and search for that title number, and this time you will get a definition of the land to which the title applies, PLUS the name(s) as before. Indeed presumably all pages relating to that title. Perhaps an obvious approach, but not initially to me. I guess it is structured as a primitive database, with one part devoted simply to defining what a title is composed of, and changing little or not at all over time (apart from splitting and possibly merging); the other part concerns itself with the steady procession over time of proprietors, notes and various other observations - some of which seem to consist of arbitrary scraps of paper written in a relatively modern hand! - but not with restating the definition of the land in the title. Doubtless others with better knowledge than mine will be able to refine this somewhat! (I searched for Thomas Pollard, a name of interest to me. Clearly i did not find MY Thomas, and did not expect to, but initially i was puzzled why he would be described as "of Guildford", but Guildford, or Surrey, still did not appear anywhere, nor a description of the land in question. That was when i went back to the search and simply entered the title number, as described above). Perhaps i should have read more before diving in but it is SO tempting! Dave Beakhust On 16 April 2014 16:49:59 Jeremy Wilkes <jeremywilkes@compuserve.com> wrote: > The Land Registry has announced that it has made the entries from its > 1862 > register available on the internet free of charge. What is more, one > can search by the proprietor's name, unlike the position with the > current register. I have not seen a reference to the date to which the > register runs, but I presume that it is 1875. The U.R.L. is > http://www.landregistry.gov.uk/market-trend-data/digitalarchives > > I should not expect to see many landowners shown. Registration was > voluntary and rather complex. Even now there is little incentive to > register one's title voluntarily if it is clearly sound, and before > 1875 it could not be registered unless it was sound. > > Jeremy Wilkes > > > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to SOG-UK-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

The Land Registry has announced that it has made the entries from its 1862 register available on the internet free of charge. What is more, one can search by the proprietor's name, unlike the position with the current register. I have not seen a reference to the date to which the register runs, but I presume that it is 1875. The U.R.L. is http://www.landregistry.gov.uk/market-trend-data/digitalarchives I should not expect to see many landowners shown. Registration was voluntary and rather complex. Even now there is little incentive to register one's title voluntarily if it is clearly sound, and before 1875 it could not be registered unless it was sound. Jeremy Wilkes

<<snipped>> So maybe they wanted to join up but hoped they would not immediately be sent abroad? Just a thought.... <<snipped>> It's as good a thought as any - though I don't think there was much going on in the late 1820s, apart, no doubt, from an ever-present tendency for the locals across the Empire (if it was called that then) to take things as far as they could without calling down too much retribution. Joseph seems to have spent all his time in the UK on garrison duty. Samuel went to India on garrison duty before taking part in the First Opium War (am I permitted to join Gladstone and express shame and disgust at that one?) Adrian B

>From that, one can draw a few possible conclusions: One is that the person wanted to avoid being marked out as a coward (especially in days before conscription), but all the same did not want to be in harms way. After all, it was going to be "all over by Christmas" What i prefer to think is that the more thoughtful man, no matter how keen to "get at the hun", thought that a spot of training was very desirable, and may help him to survive. Dave Beakhust On 14 April 2014 21:58:07 Cathy Roberts <roberts.research36@gmail.com> wrote: > The website http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/boy_soldiers.htm has > the following info: "Recruitment rules were simple. To enlist and fight > abroad, you had to be nineteen or over. If you were eighteen, you could > enlist but you had to remain in the UK until you were nineteen before being > posted abroad. No one could join the army under the age of eighteen." > > So maybe they wanted to join up but hoped they would not immediately be > sent abroad? Just a thought.... > > Cathy > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to SOG-UK-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

The website http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/boy_soldiers.htm has the following info: "Recruitment rules were simple. To enlist and fight abroad, you had to be nineteen or over. If you were eighteen, you could enlist but you had to remain in the UK until you were nineteen before being posted abroad. No one could join the army under the age of eighteen." So maybe they wanted to join up but hoped they would not immediately be sent abroad? Just a thought.... Cathy

------------------------------------------ From: sog-uk-request@rootsweb.com To: sog-uk@rootsweb.com; Subject: SOG-UK Digest, Vol 9, Issue 52 Today's Topics: 1. Copy wills (Peter Bennett) 2. Under-declaration of age on entry to the Army (Adrian Bruce) 3. Re: Under-declaration of age on entry to the Army (carole.eales@talktalk.net) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message: 1 Date: Sun, 13 Apr 2014 08:25:41 +0100 From: Peter Bennett <pkbennett@btinternet.com> Subject: [SOG-UK] Copy wills To: sog-uk@rootsweb.com Message-ID: <CAAJawubdNiE+YgpkAhB+DGrNpDmMrtPpDYZ2d+SmV6JsiiJZMw@mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Copies of modern wills go from ?6.00 to ?10.00 from 22 April, according to a notice at the probate registry last week. Peter Bennett Charlbury, Oxon. ------------------------------ Message: 2 Date: Sun, 13 Apr 2014 21:39:45 +0100 From: "Adrian Bruce" <abruce@madasafish.com> Subject: [SOG-UK] Under-declaration of age on entry to the Army To: <sog-uk@rootsweb.com> Message-ID: <1A7003E2F9824C3396CD9ED5027E3845@GalaxyChill> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Just looking at two of my distant relatives who joined the British Army in the 1820s. Joseph Bateman joined the 6th Dragoon Guards at Manchester on 1 March 1828, claiming to be 18, when he was (based on his baptism) at least 19y 10m old. His brother, Samuel Bateman, joined the 53rd Foot in March 1831, claiming to be 18 years 10 months old, when he was more like 20y 10m old. (Both sets of data from their discharge data on FindMyPast, though Samuel was indexed as James! Their identity is clear as both are recorded in the Army papers as coming from the small village of Haslington in Cheshire) Can anyone suggest if there is any reason why anyone should under-declare their age on joining the Army? I could believe ignorance, except both do it, which makes it slightly less believable. Was there, perhaps, an upper limit on age? I note that Joseph was to receive a bounty of ?2 12s. Always tricky to evaluate but comparing to average earnings, the MeasuringWorth web-site suggests that this amount in 1828 bore the same relation to Joseph's earnings as ?1,940 would to an average worker in 2013. (Although he may only have had 2s 6d in cash). Could it be that this bounty was payable only to 18y olds? Grateful for any thoughts... Adrian Bruce ------------------------------ Message: 3 Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2014 02:25:42 -0400 From: carole.eales@talktalk.net Subject: Re: [SOG-UK] Under-declaration of age on entry to the Army To: abruce@madasafish.com, sog-uk@rootsweb.com Message-ID: <8D125C17B577FB2-BC8-205C9@webmail-vfrr18.sis.aol.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format=flowed My own grandfather did exactly the same in 1906...he was small for his age and wished to persuade the Army that he was still growing. I assume from what he told me, there was a minimum height restriction. Carole -----Original Message----- From: Adrian Bruce <abruce@madasafish.com> To: sog-uk@rootsweb.com Sent: Sun, 13 Apr 2014 21:45 Subject: [SOG-UK] Under-declaration of age on entry to the Army Just looking at two of my distant relatives who joined the British Army in the 1820s. Joseph Bateman joined the 6th Dragoon Guards at Manchester on 1 March 1828, claiming to be 18, when he was (based on his baptism) at least 19y 10m old. His brother, Samuel Bateman, joined the 53rd Foot in March 1831, claiming to be 18 years 10 months old, when he was more like 20y 10m old. (Both sets of data from their discharge data on FindMyPast, though Samuel was indexed as James! Their identity is clear as both are recorded in the Army papers as coming from the small village of Haslington in Cheshire) Can anyone suggest if there is any reason why anyone should under-declare their age on joining the Army? I could believe ignorance, except both do it, which makes it slightly less believable. Was there, perhaps, an upper limit on age? I note that Joseph was to receive a bounty of ?2 12s. Always tricky to evaluate but comparing to average earnings, the MeasuringWorth web-site suggests that this amount in 1828 bore the same relation to Joseph's earnings as ?1,940 would to an average worker in 2013. (Although he may only have had 2s 6d in cash). Could it be that this bounty was payable only to 18y olds? Grateful for any thoughts... Adrian Bruce ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to SOG-UK-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message ------------------------------ To contact the SOG-UK list administrator, send an email to SOG-UK-admin@rootsweb.com. To post a message to the SOG-UK mailing list, send an email to SOG-UK@rootsweb.com. __________________________________________________________ To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to SOG-UK-request@rootsweb.com with the word "unsubscribe" without the quotes in the subject and the body of the email with no additional text. End of SOG-UK Digest, Vol 9, Issue 52 *************************************

<<snipped>> My own grandfather did exactly the same in 1906...he was small for his age and wished to persuade the Army that he was still growing. I assume from what he told me, there was a minimum height restriction. <<snipped>> There certainly was a minimum height - during the First World War that restriction led to the formation of the Bantam Battalions when groups of under-height miners who, it may imagined were otherwise pretty tough guys, were initially refused entry to the Army. Re my two Bateman soldiers - I like your suggestion but I suspect it's not the explanation here as Joseph is 5ft 10in on entry according to his attestation form. Not sure about Samuel, the later one, as bureaucracy had lost his attestation form when he changed regiments. Thanks for the suggestion, though. Adrian PS - found this out last night - anyone trying to read these 19th century discharge documents may be interested to learn that the phrase "distinguishing marks" refers not to scars, tattoos, etc, but to the precursor of Good Conduct Badges - which explains why one Bateman form refers to "distinguishing mark without pay", which otherwise had made no sense to me!

Being short seems a very plausible reason. These days boys may not grow much after 18 if at all, but 100 years ago, it is possible that poor nutrition would delay completion of growth. My maternal grandfather joined the navy as a "boy" in 1897 or 1898. He did not meet the height requirement, even allowing for his being only 15, but was overweight. The recruiting officer said "never mind, lad, we will soon roll that out". He did grow a little but was always short. If the people with ancestors falsifying their age downwards looked at the height recorded on the attestation forms (i am pretty sure this was recorded), then it may be clear if being short was the reason, as on enlistment they would be recorded as under (or perhaps more likely just on) the height limit. The only issue is- what was that limit? If any really tall ones turn up, another reason needs to be sought. Dave Beakhust On 14 April 2014 07:31:56 carole.eales@talktalk.net wrote: > My own grandfather did exactly the same in 1906...he was small for his > age and wished to persuade the Army that he was still growing. I > assume from what he told me, there was a minimum height restriction. > > Carole > > -----Original Message----- > From: Adrian Bruce <abruce@madasafish.com> > To: sog-uk@rootsweb.com > Sent: Sun, 13 Apr 2014 21:45 > Subject: [SOG-UK] Under-declaration of age on entry to the Army > > > Just looking at two of my distant relatives who joined the British Army > in > the 1820s. Joseph Bateman joined the 6th Dragoon Guards at Manchester > on 1 > March 1828, claiming to be 18, when he was (based on his baptism) at > least > 19y 10m old. His brother, Samuel Bateman, joined the 53rd Foot in March > 1831, claiming to be 18 years 10 months old, when he was more like 20y > 10m > old. > > (Both sets of data from their discharge data on FindMyPast, though > Samuel > was indexed as James! Their identity is clear as both are recorded in > the > Army papers as coming from the small village of Haslington in Cheshire) > > Can anyone suggest if there is any reason why anyone should > under-declare > their age on joining the Army? I could believe ignorance, except both > do it, > which makes it slightly less believable. Was there, perhaps, an upper > limit > on age? > > I note that Joseph was to receive a bounty of £2 12s. Always tricky to > evaluate but comparing to average earnings, the MeasuringWorth web-site > suggests that this amount in 1828 bore the same relation to Joseph's > earnings as £1,940 would to an average worker in 2013. (Although he may > only > have had 2s 6d in cash). Could it be that this bounty was payable only > to > 18y olds? > > Grateful for any thoughts... > > Adrian Bruce > > > > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > SOG-UK-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > > > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to SOG-UK-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

My own grandfather did exactly the same in 1906...he was small for his age and wished to persuade the Army that he was still growing. I assume from what he told me, there was a minimum height restriction. Carole -----Original Message----- From: Adrian Bruce <abruce@madasafish.com> To: sog-uk@rootsweb.com Sent: Sun, 13 Apr 2014 21:45 Subject: [SOG-UK] Under-declaration of age on entry to the Army Just looking at two of my distant relatives who joined the British Army in the 1820s. Joseph Bateman joined the 6th Dragoon Guards at Manchester on 1 March 1828, claiming to be 18, when he was (based on his baptism) at least 19y 10m old. His brother, Samuel Bateman, joined the 53rd Foot in March 1831, claiming to be 18 years 10 months old, when he was more like 20y 10m old. (Both sets of data from their discharge data on FindMyPast, though Samuel was indexed as James! Their identity is clear as both are recorded in the Army papers as coming from the small village of Haslington in Cheshire) Can anyone suggest if there is any reason why anyone should under-declare their age on joining the Army? I could believe ignorance, except both do it, which makes it slightly less believable. Was there, perhaps, an upper limit on age? I note that Joseph was to receive a bounty of £2 12s. Always tricky to evaluate but comparing to average earnings, the MeasuringWorth web-site suggests that this amount in 1828 bore the same relation to Joseph's earnings as £1,940 would to an average worker in 2013. (Although he may only have had 2s 6d in cash). Could it be that this bounty was payable only to 18y olds? Grateful for any thoughts... Adrian Bruce ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to SOG-UK-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Just looking at two of my distant relatives who joined the British Army in the 1820s. Joseph Bateman joined the 6th Dragoon Guards at Manchester on 1 March 1828, claiming to be 18, when he was (based on his baptism) at least 19y 10m old. His brother, Samuel Bateman, joined the 53rd Foot in March 1831, claiming to be 18 years 10 months old, when he was more like 20y 10m old. (Both sets of data from their discharge data on FindMyPast, though Samuel was indexed as James! Their identity is clear as both are recorded in the Army papers as coming from the small village of Haslington in Cheshire) Can anyone suggest if there is any reason why anyone should under-declare their age on joining the Army? I could believe ignorance, except both do it, which makes it slightly less believable. Was there, perhaps, an upper limit on age? I note that Joseph was to receive a bounty of £2 12s. Always tricky to evaluate but comparing to average earnings, the MeasuringWorth web-site suggests that this amount in 1828 bore the same relation to Joseph's earnings as £1,940 would to an average worker in 2013. (Although he may only have had 2s 6d in cash). Could it be that this bounty was payable only to 18y olds? Grateful for any thoughts... Adrian Bruce

Copies of modern wills go from £6.00 to £10.00 from 22 April, according to a notice at the probate registry last week. Peter Bennett Charlbury, Oxon.

Such archive material that exists is mainly with the Canal and River Trust, Waterways Archive *http://canalrivertrust.org.uk/national-waterways-museum/the-museum-collections/the-waterways-archive *although other material does exist elsewhere (at The National Archives, and in local archive services). As regards individual navigators, you are unlikely to find any details. You mau find details of undertakers, in terms of contracts between the canal company and said undertakers. I would also suggest that you are unlikely to be able to find the relevant material without some detailed help - there is a long way to go on indexing some of this stuff. I would suggest a letter to one of the specialist magazines, such as Narrowboat http://www.narrowboatmagazine.com/ or to one of the specialist societies, such as the Railway and Canal Historical Society http://www.rchs.org.uk/trial/gwpf.php?wpage=home You may at least get responses that tell you which canal he was likely to be working on, and where what archives there are exist. regards Keith Drage Swindon UK On 04/04/2014 11:21, Vivien Emons wrote: > Dear All, > Can anyone tell me if there is a means of finding workers on the early building of the canals, 1780-1800? > Thanks > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to SOG-UK-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message > . >

A notice at the Principal Probate Registry yesterday informed us that copies will increase from £6.00 to £10.00 from 22 April. Peter Bennett Charlbury, Oxon.

A notice at the Principal Probate Registry yesterday informs us that copies will rise from the present £6.00 to £10.00 from 22 April. Peter Bennett Charlbury, Oxon.

<<snipped>> All the more reason, also, for pressure to be put on all such repositories as TNA Kew to refuse to allow any and all monopoly access. The beauty of the E&W census is its being available through several different commercial providers. Would this were the case with all records. <<snipped>> The census is a jewel with a national market. Workhouse records from (say) Manchester have a strictly limited market. If only company A wishes to digitise them, what is to happen? Suppose company A also reckons it's too much of a risk to digitise them unless it has a period of exclusive access. What then? Remember, even the 1911 and 1901 censuses were only available through one site for a certain time period. We have to deal with realities. Remember even FamilySearch is doing this for a reason that is not altruism. Adrian Bruce

<<snipped>> In the case of WO 97 there *is* no alternative. <<snipped>> Funnily enough that's not totally true - as I found out recently. Ancestry have a dataset named "UK, Royal Hospital Chelsea Pensioner Registers of Soldiers Who Served in Canada, 1743-1882 [database on-line]". This cites TNA's "Royal Hospital Chelsea Pensioner Registers & Service Records, 1760-1882", i.e. WO97. I recently found the discharge papers of a distant relative, one Samuel Bateman, 834, discharged 1850 from the 49th Regiment of Foot. Said records were not on FMP. Apparently. Eventually I did find them - Samuel had been indexed as James. (Nope, me neither). So far as I can see, the title "Soldiers Who Served in Canada" is a misnomer. What seems to have happened is that WO97 papers were loaded for *regiments* with Canadian service in their history - Samuel did not serve in Canada, but did serve in India and China. The 49th had been in Canada some years before, but what percentage of WO97 papers for the 49th were loaded in this dataset, I've no idea. So if you have a subs to Ancestry - and that probably has to be one with Canadian access - you may, just may, strike it lucky. And in fact it gets even better as some of the regimental rosters for British Army regiments with a Canadian connection have also been filmed and loaded. Adrian B

Richard Heaton wrote: > totally agree always look at the original record - and if we cannot see > the original (for which there could be many reasons) do cite the source of > the "copy" I well remember one instance in Durham Archives where I had to insist on seeing the original record: transcriptions existed - two of them - the IGI and a local transcription, both of which gave an unnamed infant AINSLEY baptism as "male". Not so - in the original record no sex of the infant was given - assumptions had been made and the record distorted. And another - a "good" IGI transcription of a North Riding parish - which simply omitted my great grandmother... There in the original, gone in transcription! Like most competent genealogists i always emphasise the importance of the original when talking to beginners - and not necessarily believing that *that* is the absolute truth either! My mentor when I started some 40 years ago hammered into me "they ALL tell lies....and many of them lie about the lies they tell..." Hugh