Another point to remember is that the census takers could write, but the actual level of writing could be in doubt, the occupants themselves could be totally illiterate, and have now idea how their name had been written, or even how it was spelt. My husbands surname of Simpkins, is found a Simkins, Simkin, Simpkin. Simpkins, Sympkin, etc. My BIL said no they could not be our ancestors as our name has a p and a s, until I explained to him the literacy levels in the past. Kay -----Original Message----- From: suffolk-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:suffolk-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of suffolk-request@rootsweb.com Sent: 07 February 2011 09:01 To: suffolk@rootsweb.com Subject: SUFFOLK Digest, Vol 6, Issue 38 Today's Topics: 1. Census errors (John Laflin) 2. Re: Census errors (Nivard Ovington) 3. Re: Census errors (Nivard Ovington) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message: 1 Date: Sun, 6 Feb 2011 16:54:52 -0000 From: "John Laflin" <John@Laflin.force9.co.uk> Subject: [SFK-UK] Census errors To: <SUFFOLK-L@rootsweb.com> Message-ID: <EFBD77BE2BB147D6990047B1496A87AC@sl18n94696ucbp> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Recent comments on this refer to errors by the Ancestry transcribers. It is important to remember they were not transcribed, but produced by OCR. It is not easy for this software to correctly interpret the 'flowery' Victorian handwriting and of course impossible to make judgments and interpretations on what is written. Hence with my own name. Quite frequently in the original entry, the horizontal stoke across the middle vertical stoke of the letter 'f' extends and cuts across into the vertical stoke of the letter 'l'. Now whereas a human subscriber would recognise this and see an 'l', to the OCR software the 'l' has become a 't'. Hence the name in Ancestry is not Laflin, but Laftin. This occurs quite frequently as a quickly written 'a' can be taken as an 'o' making the entry Loflin' and a flowery L with stokes at the top and bottom turn the Ancestry entry into Saflin. To my knowledge only the 1851 and 1881 census returns have human transcriptions by FHS's and the LDS and are therefore much more reliable. It is also clear the Ancestry and Find my Past use different OCR software, as an 'error' on one can be correctly interpreted on the other. John Laflin ------------------------------ Message: 2 Date: Sun, 6 Feb 2011 17:15:20 -0000 From: "Nivard Ovington" <ovington1@sky.com> Subject: Re: [SFK-UK] Census errors To: <suffolk@rootsweb.com>, <SUFFOLK-L@rootsweb.com> Message-ID: <78D59E8622CD416597F4C1DF1E464DC6@claireac3e9bca> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=original Hi John The census were transcribed by humans for both Ancestry and FMP Many other directories and printed sources were OCRd but the census were not as the OCR software is still not available that could make sense of the many different styles of handwriting This came as a reply to may enquiry to Ancestry some years back And yes FMP and Ancestry use different transcriptions The most widely used transcript is the 1881 which is still used by many even though they have their own images Nivard Ovington in Cornwall (UK) > Recent comments on this refer to errors by the Ancestry transcribers. It is > important to remember they were not transcribed, but produced by OCR. It is > not easy for this software to correctly interpret the 'flowery' Victorian > handwriting and of course impossible to make judgments and interpretations > on what is written. > > Hence with my own name. Quite frequently in the original entry, the > horizontal stoke across the middle vertical stoke of the letter 'f' extends > and cuts across into the vertical stoke of the letter 'l'. Now whereas a > human subscriber would recognise this and see an 'l', to the OCR software > the 'l' has become a 't'. Hence the name in Ancestry is not Laflin, but > Laftin. This occurs quite frequently as a quickly written 'a' can be taken > as an 'o' making the entry Loflin' and a flowery L with stokes at the top > and bottom turn the Ancestry entry into Saflin. > > To my knowledge only the 1851 and 1881 census returns have human > transcriptions by FHS's and the LDS and are therefore much more reliable. > > It is also clear the Ancestry and Find my Past use different OCR software, > as an 'error' on one can be correctly interpreted on the other. > > John Laflin ------------------------------ Message: 3 Date: Sun, 6 Feb 2011 17:15:20 -0000 From: "Nivard Ovington" <ovington1@sky.com> Subject: Re: [SFK-UK] Census errors To: <suffolk@rootsweb.com>, <SUFFOLK-L@rootsweb.com> Message-ID: <78D59E8622CD416597F4C1DF1E464DC6@claireac3e9bca> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=original Hi John The census were transcribed by humans for both Ancestry and FMP Many other directories and printed sources were OCRd but the census were not as the OCR software is still not available that could make sense of the many different styles of handwriting This came as a reply to may enquiry to Ancestry some years back And yes FMP and Ancestry use different transcriptions The most widely used transcript is the 1881 which is still used by many even though they have their own images Nivard Ovington in Cornwall (UK) > Recent comments on this refer to errors by the Ancestry transcribers. It is > important to remember they were not transcribed, but produced by OCR. It is > not easy for this software to correctly interpret the 'flowery' Victorian > handwriting and of course impossible to make judgments and interpretations > on what is written. > > Hence with my own name. Quite frequently in the original entry, the > horizontal stoke across the middle vertical stoke of the letter 'f' extends > and cuts across into the vertical stoke of the letter 'l'. Now whereas a > human subscriber would recognise this and see an 'l', to the OCR software > the 'l' has become a 't'. Hence the name in Ancestry is not Laflin, but > Laftin. This occurs quite frequently as a quickly written 'a' can be taken > as an 'o' making the entry Loflin' and a flowery L with stokes at the top > and bottom turn the Ancestry entry into Saflin. > > To my knowledge only the 1851 and 1881 census returns have human > transcriptions by FHS's and the LDS and are therefore much more reliable. > > It is also clear the Ancestry and Find my Past use different OCR software, > as an 'error' on one can be correctly interpreted on the other. > > John Laflin ------------------------------ To contact the SUFFOLK list administrator, send an email to SUFFOLK-admin@rootsweb.com. To post a message to the SUFFOLK mailing list, send an email to SUFFOLK@rootsweb.com. __________________________________________________________ To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to SUFFOLK-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 SUFFOLK Digest, Vol 6, Issue 38 **************************************

Apologies for the last message, I meant to send directly to Kay in confirmation of what she had found. Pat ... I recently found an ancestor's name written as Wyllym Brygges in parish records written in the 1500s. Suddenly there were no more events for our Brygges family. However there was a William and Mary having children whose names looked familir, but their name was written as Bridges. But they all checked out with a Will we have at home. I then rechecked the PRs and there had been a change of incumbent - all the entries following the arrival of the new Reverend gentleman were written as Bridges. Pat ... ----- Original Message ----- From: "Simpkins FH" <simpkinsfh@googlemail.com> To: <suffolk@rootsweb.com> Sent: Monday, February 07, 2011 10:29 AM Subject: Re: [SFK-UK] SUFFOLK Digest, Vol 6, Issue 38 > Another point to remember is that the census takers could write, but the > actual level of writing could be in doubt, the occupants themselves could > be > totally illiterate, and have now idea how their name had been written, or > even how it was spelt. > > My husbands surname of Simpkins, is found a Simkins, Simkin, Simpkin. > Simpkins, Sympkin, etc. My BIL said no they could not be our ancestors > as > our name has a p and a s, until I explained to him the literacy levels in > the past. > > Kay

I recently found an ancestor's name written as Wyllym Brygges in parish records written in the 1500s. Suddenly there were no more events for our Brygges family. However there was a William and Mary having children whose names looked familir, but their name was written as Bridges. But they all checked out with a Will we have at home. I then rechecked the PRs and there had been a change of incumbent - all the entries following the arrival of the new Reverend gentleman were written as Bridges. Pat ... ----- Original Message ----- From: "Simpkins FH" <simpkinsfh@googlemail.com> To: <suffolk@rootsweb.com> Sent: Monday, February 07, 2011 10:29 AM Subject: Re: [SFK-UK] SUFFOLK Digest, Vol 6, Issue 38 > Another point to remember is that the census takers could write, but the > actual level of writing could be in doubt, the occupants themselves could > be > totally illiterate, and have now idea how their name had been written, or > even how it was spelt. > > My husbands surname of Simpkins, is found a Simkins, Simkin, Simpkin. > Simpkins, Sympkin, etc. My BIL said no they could not be our ancestors > as > our name has a p and a s, until I explained to him the literacy levels in > the past. > > Kay >

On 2011/02/06 18:54, John Laflin wrote: > Recent comments on this refer to errors by the Ancestry transcribers. It is > important to remember they were not transcribed, but produced by OCR. It is > not easy for this software to correctly interpret the 'flowery' Victorian > handwriting and of course impossible to make judgments and interpretations > on what is written. Your premise is extremely unlikely for the bulk of the census images. They are simply too dirty and faded for OCR to be of much use. Unless that is, you think OCR stands for Overseas Correctors and Readers. OCR relies on being told what the shape of each letter looks like. There is simply too much variation in handwriting for OCR to work. The bulk of the problems, both on Ancestry and FMP, stem from the fact that the transcribers were not native English speakers. Hence the sometimes laughable mis-transcriptions, like Somalia for Somerset. The number 1 rule of any transcription process is: Write What You See! If your first language is not English, then I can easily see, from examination of the images, how some of the errors have been made. -- Regards, Mike Fry Johannesburg

Hi John The census were transcribed by humans for both Ancestry and FMP Many other directories and printed sources were OCRd but the census were not as the OCR software is still not available that could make sense of the many different styles of handwriting This came as a reply to may enquiry to Ancestry some years back And yes FMP and Ancestry use different transcriptions The most widely used transcript is the 1881 which is still used by many even though they have their own images Nivard Ovington in Cornwall (UK) > Recent comments on this refer to errors by the Ancestry transcribers. It is > important to remember they were not transcribed, but produced by OCR. It is > not easy for this software to correctly interpret the 'flowery' Victorian > handwriting and of course impossible to make judgments and interpretations > on what is written. > > Hence with my own name. Quite frequently in the original entry, the > horizontal stoke across the middle vertical stoke of the letter 'f' extends > and cuts across into the vertical stoke of the letter 'l'. Now whereas a > human subscriber would recognise this and see an 'l', to the OCR software > the 'l' has become a 't'. Hence the name in Ancestry is not Laflin, but > Laftin. This occurs quite frequently as a quickly written 'a' can be taken > as an 'o' making the entry Loflin' and a flowery L with stokes at the top > and bottom turn the Ancestry entry into Saflin. > > To my knowledge only the 1851 and 1881 census returns have human > transcriptions by FHS's and the LDS and are therefore much more reliable. > > It is also clear the Ancestry and Find my Past use different OCR software, > as an 'error' on one can be correctly interpreted on the other. > > John Laflin

Recent comments on this refer to errors by the Ancestry transcribers. It is important to remember they were not transcribed, but produced by OCR. It is not easy for this software to correctly interpret the 'flowery' Victorian handwriting and of course impossible to make judgments and interpretations on what is written. Hence with my own name. Quite frequently in the original entry, the horizontal stoke across the middle vertical stoke of the letter 'f' extends and cuts across into the vertical stoke of the letter 'l'. Now whereas a human subscriber would recognise this and see an 'l', to the OCR software the 'l' has become a 't'. Hence the name in Ancestry is not Laflin, but Laftin. This occurs quite frequently as a quickly written 'a' can be taken as an 'o' making the entry Loflin' and a flowery L with stokes at the top and bottom turn the Ancestry entry into Saflin. To my knowledge only the 1851 and 1881 census returns have human transcriptions by FHS's and the LDS and are therefore much more reliable. It is also clear the Ancestry and Find my Past use different OCR software, as an 'error' on one can be correctly interpreted on the other. John Laflin

Folks, Every week or so (or whenever the digest gets to about 20 KB), I'm forwarding to the List those posts that have been "gatewayed" from RootsWeb's SUFFOLK Board that might contain information of interest to List subscribers, and here's the current "digest" of such gatewayed posts. If you wish to respond to any of these gatewayed posts, please do so by clicking on the relevant "Message Board URL:" link and NOT by responding either to the list OR to my address as the digest poster. Board posters will not see your List response unless they are also subscribed to the List, and most are not. PLEASE also be careful about responding to any post and inadvertently re-posting the ENTIRE digest to the list! More information on RootsWeb's Boards can be found at: http://boards.RootsWeb.com/boardfaq.aspx#undefined , and the Board "home page" is at: http://boards.rootsweb.com/?o_iid=33216&o_lid=33216 . If you have any questions about the Boards or what the following is, pls contact me off-list at: mailto:SUFFOLK-admin@rootsweb.com . Thanks, Peter SUFFOLK List Admin. -------------------------------------------------- Re: CLARKE, Richard 23 Dec 1832 Walsham Le Willows Suffolk This is a Message Board Post that is gatewayed to this mailing list. Author: waverneyhopper1 Surnames: Classification: queries Message Board URL: http://boards.rootsweb.com/localities.britisles.england.sfk.general/8653.1.1.1.2/mb.ashx Message Board Post: Sorry message went before I was ready. I will need to know ASAP if you want thgis doing as I will have to ask my friend to bring the records to our meeting this Tuesday, Honor -------------------------------------------------- Re: CLARKE, Richard 23 Dec 1832 Walsham Le Willows Suffolk This is a Message Board Post that is gatewayed to this mailing list. Author: glemsue Surnames: Classification: queries Message Board URL: http://boards.rootsweb.com/localities.britisles.england.sfk.general/8653.1.1.1.2.1/mb.ashx Message Board Post: Colin, just seen your posting on the Cambridgeshire board about Richards mother being recorded as Eliza Hancock Clarke on his marriage cert. I think that would explain that perhaps his mother used the Hancock name as a middle name, it being her mothers maiden name. I am hoping this is your Richard. -------------------------------------------------- Re: CLARKE, Richard 23 Dec 1832 Walsham Le Willows Suffolk This is a Message Board Post that is gatewayed to this mailing list. Author: colinclarke1945 Surnames: Classification: queries Message Board URL: http://boards.rootsweb.com/localities.britisles.england.sfk.general/8653.1.1.1.2.2/mb.ashx Message Board Post: Sorry, I don't understand this message ... -------------------------------------------------- Re: CLARKE, Richard 23 Dec 1832 Walsham Le Willows Suffolk This is a Message Board Post that is gatewayed to this mailing list. Author: colinclarke1945 Surnames: CLARKE CLARK HANCOCK HANDCOCK HART Classification: queries Message Board URL: http://boards.rootsweb.com/localities.britisles.england.sfk.general/8653.1.1.1.2.1.1/mb.ashx Message Board Post: Sorry, this "Eliza Hancock Clarke" is a misunderstanding (probably due to the way I wrote it). It is Eliza HANCOCK. By the way, on the certified copy of Richard's death cert. all the details were the same as in other documents and records etc., except HANCOCK was spelt HANDCOCK - probably just poor spelling I think as everywhere else it is HANCOCK, and the place of birth is noted as "Town Unknown, KENT, England". This is the only time Kent is shown in any records I have - including immigration and marriage papers, and the Bio. written by Richard himself in his entry in "Australian Men of Mark" (a paid subscription 'who's who' bio of 7 volumes published in 1887-1889.) I'm pretty sure Kent is not an issue - I think it was an error by the informant regarding the death. A few years back I did a huge search in Kent and found nothing anywhere as close as where I am in Cambridge results so far. Richard must have had a reasonable education as a young man. He could read and write, and he paid his way to Australia by age 25. He was also able to get from Moreton Bay (Brisbane) down to Sydney, and after only about 3 years in Sydney (as a cabinet maker it seems) he headed west, inland. After a couple more years, working on a very large cattle property, he was able to purchase acreage for himself. When he died in 1912, he left behind a very good reputation in the district and an estate well over a thousand pounds; a successful conclusion for anyone faced with farming in a new country and the vagaries of the harsh climate. Colin -------------------------------------------------- Re: CLARKE, Richard 23 Dec 1832 Walsham Le Willows Suffolk This is a Message Board Post that is gatewayed to this mailing list. Author: Robesure Surnames: Classification: queries Message Board URL: http://boards.rootsweb.com/localities.britisles.england.sfk.general/8653.1.1.1.2.1.1.1/mb.ashx Message Board Post: Sorry but I was away yesterday and I see that you continued to post on this forum and the Cambridgeshire forum and as expected the information you received is virtually the same as that I had already given, although it was interesting that Sue followed the Alfred Hart/Clark line. What you really need to know to confirm whether this is a possible line of enquiry is what it said about Eliza Clark on the marriage certificate in 1839. The only way to find this out is either to purchase the certificate or to find someone who has access to the parish records where the marriage took place. Possibly Fulbourn but not definitely. I suggested that you contact the Cambridge FHS as the most likely chance of finding someone with that access, but you seem reluctant to do so. In that case you MUST purchase the certificate. Admitted that should it not turn out to be your ancestor you may consider it a waste of money but at least you will know that this line of enquiry is dead. If it is correct then you have the certificate which is an essential purchase for anyone who is seriously researching theit ancestors. I normally advise people to purchase the certificate online from the GRO at a cost of �9.25, for which you will need the GRO reference which someone else has given you. In this case I would suggest that you purchase online direct from Cambridge Registrars as if the original document is in good condition you may get a photocopy of that complete with your ancestors handwriting (providing they could write). I see from looking at the site that you have to pay an extra �1 for postage, but probably a small price to pay. Go to http://www2.cambridgeshire.gov.uk/db/ridmars.nsf/search?OpenForm -------------------------------------------------- Re: Melton Lunatic Asylum - Suffolk - death certificate deciphering! This is a Message Board Post that is gatewayed to this mailing list. Author: Lindacalvert11 Surnames: Classification: queries Message Board URL: http://boards.rootsweb.com/localities.britisles.england.sfk.general/8652.1/mb.ashx Message Board Post: Hi I also have a d.cert for an ancestor who died aged 65 in 1855 in Warwickshire, his cause of death is given as 'General Decay 6 months certified' I'd assumed he'd had rapid decline over that period, presumably being seen by a doctor but that the doctor was unable to give a definitive diagnosis, I suppose without the diagnostic aids we have today there are various types of cancer that could be the culprit. Sorry not to be of any help but just thought you might like to hear of another instance. Linda -------------------------------------------------- Re: CLARKE, Richard 23 Dec 1832 Walsham Le Willows Suffolk This is a Message Board Post that is gatewayed to this mailing list. Author: colinclarke1945 Surnames: CLARKE CLARK HANCOCK HANDCOCK HART Classification: queries Message Board URL: http://boards.rootsweb.com/localities.britisles.england.sfk.general/8653.1.1.1.2.1.1.1.1/mb.ashx Message Board Post: Hello: Many thanks for the latest post. Yes, I was also torn between this and other matters on Sunday ! However, based on your earlier advice, I had already ordered online with the GRO (PM Saturday actually) for the 1939 Marriage Certificate. No problems doing that ... I am registered with GRO, and probably have paid for a new building by now. Of course, it will take at least 10-12 days for that document to wend its way over 'the pond' to me in sunny South Carolina. About Cambridge FHS. Absolutely no problem getting anything they may have, either. Actually, I have been corresponding with CFHS since 1986, and I was just today re-reading a handwritten (pre-internet) reply by Mrs Gill Rushworth, then Editor of the CFHS Journal (where I had entries in those days). I had also corresponded with a Mrs Hurst. Between those two kind people, they searched the Census, Boyds Index, transcripts for Fulbourn All Saints, and other churches close by, Layngs, and Poor Law Minute Books. I was also advised to check the village of Cambridge in Gloucestorshire, 'just in case', and I did a lot of searching there. There was even a railway and he wrote he was a railway worker. Of course, wherever you look, you find Clarkes, and I even found an Eiiza Hancock who was spending time in prison for petty theft ! But no real leads. Today, I have reviewed several other records in my files. For example, I compared the photocopy from the church register for Richard's marriage 26 Nov 1863, which has more information than the official NSW marriage certificate. Right next to where he signed (in his own hand) is written 'Cambridgeshire' as place of birth, and of course, John Clarke (Labourer) and Eliza Hancock as parents. Even if John Clarke is an invention or a wild guess by him, I have no doubt that we are looking in the right area for Richard's birthplace. Notwithstanding all the above, I will retry the CFHS again, because quite likely a lot of new material has come available to them over the years, and I will also pay the few quid to see if they have a copy of the original for Eliza and James Hart. Also, so that it is 'on the record' here in case it is useful for others who come upon this thread, I will make a separate post here, with the exact words that Richard supplied for his entry in "Australian Men of Mark" 1887. Of course, he may have fabricated it all, but it's the best I have. Again, many thanks, and I will plow on here in this present line of attack. I hope you will keep your eyes open also. Cheers, Colin -------------------------------------------------- James Goodrich This is a Message Board Post that is gatewayed to this mailing list. Author: groundweed Surnames: Goodrich Classification: queries Message Board URL: http://boards.rootsweb.com/localities.britisles.england.sfk.general/8654/mb.ashx Message Board Post: I have just received my GGGrandfathers marriage cert. It states he was a widower.His 2nd marriage to Elizabeth Hogger was 31st Dec 1850 Sudbury. How can I find who his 1st wife was? Can anyone help. -------------------------------------------------- Re: CLARKE, Richard 23 Dec 1832 Walsham Le Willows Suffolk This is a Message Board Post that is gatewayed to this mailing list. Author: colinclarke1945 Surnames: CLARKE CLARK HANCOCK HANDCOCK HART Classification: queries Message Board URL: http://boards.rootsweb.com/localities.britisles.england.sfk.general/8653.1.1.1.2.1.1.1.1.1/mb.ashx Message Board Post: What follows is the transcript from the book (one of 7 volumes) published in 1887-1889 in Australia "Australian Men of Mark". Note that there is one typo error where 1861 is written instead of 1831. In view of the rest of the text and other records, 1861 is an error (typo or transcription). Quote: Clarke, Richard, was born in Cambridge, England, in 1861(1831) and there received his education. For two years he worked as a farm hand, and for the succeeding eight years was employed on the railways, and engaged afterwards in various occupations until 1857, when he came out to Brisbane. Here he was employed in farm work, droving, and fulfilling fencing contracts. Eventually he settled on his present flourishing farm, which comprises 120 acres, all cleared and fenced. Mr. Clarke owns several head of horse and valuable cattle, and has all the latest modern machinery. In 1863, he married Miss Delaney, and has three daughters and two sons. He is an advocate of free-trade. End of quote. A couple of notes. I have his record of arrival Feb 1857 in Moreton Bay (modern day Brisbane) which then was still part of New South Wales. It is not clear when or if he departed Brisbane for Sydney by coastal shipping; there is anecdotal evidence from another side of the family that suggests he went to Sydney first, where he met his future wife, Catherine, and from Sydney as part of a family group he moved to inland Mudgee area (where Gold was discovered at Guntawang) close by where he eventually settled. Although, from the way this book paragraph is written by him, it is possible he went directly to the Mudgee district overland from Brisbane (540 miles 880km - no mean feat in 1850/1860) being drawn there by Gold fever. However it happened, he ended up working on a prominent property "Guntawang", where he married Catherine Delaney in 1863. His own property at Stony Creek which he purchased in two parcels was 24 miles 40km from Guntawang. Finally, given the information above, a possible (note, possible) timeline for Richard is: b1831 Farmhand 1843-44 Railways 1845-1852 Various other 1853-1856 Departed UK, Nov 1856 on "Parsee". Arrived AUS Moretone Bay 8 Feb 1857 Worked in ? 1857-1860 Settled in Mudgee District 1861 Worked at 'Guntawang" 1861-1865 Married 1863 c 1863 Moved onto own farm I hoped that there may have been some records of workers on railways around Cambridge (certainly those who stayed 8 years) but I have had no luck with that to date. And finally, given that Richard was an educated man, I wonder would 12 years or so (1831-1843) been about right to get a workable education, in that era? There's a lot above, but there may be someone else looking at the thread who can pick up and run with something. :-) (and tell me). -------------------------------------------------- Re: Albert Studd This is a Message Board Post that is gatewayed to this mailing list. Author: heatherghiandoni Surnames: Studd Smith Classification: queries Message Board URL: http://boards.rootsweb.com/localities.britisles.england.sfk.general/3596.1.1.3.1.1.2/mb.ashx Message Board Post: I finally found Albert Studd as Albert SMITH. When he joined the army he took his mother's maiden name STUDD. His mother was Eleanor hermon Studd and father Harry Smith. Heather -------------------------------------------------- Re: parish records lookups This is a Message Board Post that is gatewayed to this mailing list. Author: colinclarke1945 Surnames: CLARKE CLARK HANCOCK HANDCOCK HART Classification: queries Message Board URL: http://boards.rootsweb.com/localities.britisles.england.sfk.general/8609.21/mb.ashx Message Board Post: Hello Kate: Do you have any details for : CLARKE, Richard, born or baptism 23 Dec 1832, Walsham Le Willows, Suffolk Father poss John Mother poss Eliza Thanks, Colin -------------------------------------------------- Re: parish records lookups This is a Message Board Post that is gatewayed to this mailing list. Author: LisaSyrette Surnames: syrett, east Classification: queries Message Board URL: http://boards.rootsweb.com/localities.britisles.england.sfk.general/8609.19.2.2/mb.ashx Message Board Post: Hi Kate Would be interested if you could confirm any details on the parents. What I (think) I have is Thomas Syrett no dob or dod married Lucy East n Lindsey, Suffolk on 20 oct 1808. Lucy DOB 11/3/1790 in Kersey, parents perhaps Mary and John Any confirmation or further info you could find would be very much appreciated. Thanks Lisa -------------------------------------------------- Re: James Goodrich This is a Message Board Post that is gatewayed to this mailing list. Author: Robesure Surnames: Classification: queries Message Board URL: http://boards.rootsweb.com/localities.britisles.england.sfk.general/8654.1/mb.ashx Message Board Post: I see that in 1851 James and Elizabeth were living in Nayland and that he was a Saddler. In 1841 a James Goodrich was a Harness Maker, living in Court Street Nayland, also in the household was a Catherine 20 Housekeeper and James 3. I would think that it is highly likely to be the same James Goodrich. Relationships are not shown in 1841 but the assumption would be that this is a wife and child. Ages also for those over 15 were rounded down to 5 years below., so Catherine would be between 20 and 24. Additionally in the same house is a Charles Godbowl 13, Apprentice and an Ann Hynard 60, nurse. We do not know what Ann Hynard's relationship is, was she possibly a Mother in Law or doing her job as a nurse if Catherine Goodrich was about to give birth to another child? I cannot see any marriage of a James Goodrich in the area after registration began in 1837 to give us Catherine's maiden name, therefore it will be necessary to search local parish registers to trace a marriage. Oddly though I cannot see a death registered for a Catherine Goodrich in the Suffolk area. I therefore think that my assumption that Catherine Goodrich is the wife of James is wrong, she could be his sister, looking after the household and that Ann Hynard is employed to look after James junior. I think therefore that the best way to trace James' first wife is to purchase James junior's birth certificate. This is probably the JAMES GOODRICK registered in Sudbury, Sep 1837, volume 12, page 307. -------------------------------------------------- Re: James Goodrich This is a Message Board Post that is gatewayed to this mailing list. Author: groundweed Surnames: Goodrich Classification: queries Message Board URL: http://boards.rootsweb.com/localities.britisles.england.sfk.general/8654.1.1/mb.ashx Message Board Post: Thank you Robesure I see what you mean Cathering could well be James's sister. I know his father was Thomas Goodrich aslo sadler. His mother Ann? but as to other brothers/sisters I do not know? Thank you for your help. -------------------------------------------------- hayward This is a Message Board Post that is gatewayed to this mailing list. Author: kathleendaley60 Surnames: hayward Classification: queries Message Board URL: http://boards.rootsweb.com/localities.britisles.england.sfk.general/8655/mb.ashx Message Board Post: could you help with a look up for Edward Hayward d.o.b.24/03/1822 mendlesham Suffolk d.o.d 15/08/1897 pettaugh father William Hayward ..mother Elizabeth don't have maiden name Charlotte jeffiers d.o.b 12/01/1826 eye d.o.d 18th march 1897 framsden father Robert jeffies mother Charlotte don't have maid name mother Charlotte looking for the maid name of both mothers and any brother and sister or any info you have thank you Kathy -------------------------------------------------- Re: Melton Lunatic Asylum - Suffolk - death certificate deciphering! This is a Message Board Post that is gatewayed to this mailing list. Author: mlightvt Surnames: Thorndike Classification: queries Message Board URL: http://boards.rootsweb.com/localities.britisles.england.sfk.general/8652.1.1/mb.ashx Message Board Post: Hi Linda, Thank you so much for weighing in!! Your response is appreciated, and helpful to validate my theory. :) Take care!! -------------------------------------------------- Re: Richardson Family From Hadleigh Area This is a Message Board Post that is gatewayed to this mailing list. Author: rodrichardson666 Surnames: Richardson Classification: queries Message Board URL: http://boards.rootsweb.com/localities.britisles.england.sfk.general/769.2/mb.ashx Message Board Post: Hello Leonie, It's some years since you posted your message but only just started looking into my family tree hopefully you'll be able to help. Looks like Grimsey Richardson (1776-1860) was my 3rd greatgrandfather via his son James. I'd appreciate any info and assistance. Look forward to hearing from you. Rod Richardson -------------------------------------------------- Re: Richardson Family From Hadleigh Area This is a Message Board Post that is gatewayed to this mailing list. Author: vaughanyoung Surnames: Richardson, Cousins Classification: queries Message Board URL: http://boards.rootsweb.com/localities.britisles.england.sfk.general/769.3/mb.ashx Message Board Post: Hello, I have Richardson ancestors from around the Hadleigh area, my mother was a Richardson from Edwardstone but further back I can trace Richardson relatives to Polstead and Whatfield and one born in Hadleigh too. I'm back as far as mid 1700's. I also have Cousins' in my family, same as you. Would be interested to compare information. Would also be keen to attend a Family Gathering - I'm sure my Mum would be interested too. Debra Young -------------------------------------------------- Re: Richardson Family From Hadleigh Area This is a Message Board Post that is gatewayed to this mailing list. Author: glemsue Surnames: Classification: queries Message Board URL: http://boards.rootsweb.com/localities.britisles.england.sfk.general/769.3.1/mb.ashx Message Board Post: If you've come across a Lydia Cousins born c1756 I would be interested to know. Thanks. -------------------------------------------------- Re: Richardson Family From Hadleigh Area This is a Message Board Post that is gatewayed to this mailing list. Author: rodrichardson666 Surnames: Richardson Classification: queries Message Board URL: http://boards.rootsweb.com/localities.britisles.england.sfk.general/769.3.2/mb.ashx Message Board Post: Hi Debra, thanks for the reply. I only started researching a couple of weeks back but was pleasantly surprised to find there were quite a few tree's in the Public Member Tree's which had a lot of my family in. I can see the link with the Cousins' from Grimsey Richardson back in the late 1700's but I haven't got any info on the Cousins side. I'm happy to share my tree with you & your Mum if you would like. I'm a bit of a novice but think I need an e mail address to send an invite? My e mail address is rodrichardson666@yahoo.co.uk. I was fascinated to see that there was a long line of Richardson's living around the south suffolk area. Do you & your Mum still live around there ? My grandfather William Edward Richardson moved away from the area around the time of first world war and lived in Mortlake near Richmond, Surrey. I was born and brought up in L.B. of Ealing and now live in L.B. of Hillingdon. I'd be interested to find out what part of the Richardson's your Mu! m came from. I look forward to hearing back from you. Rod Richardson -------------------------------------------------- Middleton family This is a Message Board Post that is gatewayed to this mailing list. Author: johnsteggles Surnames: Middleton.........Rose Classification: queries Message Board URL: http://boards.rootsweb.com/localities.britisles.england.sfk.general/8657/mb.ashx Message Board Post: am trying to trace details of the Middleton family who ran the Middleton Laundry in Surbiton Surrey in the 1940's 1950's,particularly any info on Alice Mary Middleton who married Charles Henry George Rose. Their daughter Winnie was my mother. Thanks in advance for any info. -------------------------------------------------- Thomas French b.1838 This is a Message Board Post that is gatewayed to this mailing list. Author: froggy461 Surnames: Classification: queries Message Board URL: http://boards.rootsweb.com/localities.britisles.england.sfk.general/8658/mb.ashx Message Board Post: Thomas French b.1838 Shoreditch, London. Is on 1851 census aged 13 living in Ipswich, Suffolk with parents Samuel and Rhoda French. Have lost track of him. Can anyone possibly help to trace him. Kind regards, -------------------------------------------------- Re: Thomas French b.1838 This is a Message Board Post that is gatewayed to this mailing list. Author: Lindacalvert11 Surnames: Classification: queries Message Board URL: http://boards.rootsweb.com/localities.britisles.england.sfk.general/8658.1/mb.ashx Message Board Post: There are a lot of Thomas Frenches on the censuses, do you have any information that could help narrow them down, i.e. do you know what his occupation was in his later years, whether he married and his wife's name, any children? best wishes Linda --------------------------------------------------

Do you have some examples of these errors ? If the location of birth is incorrect, do you mean to what you know it to be or to what is on the enumerators page? It is not clear if the errors you suggest are actually errors or what you believe to be true? Obviously the census reflects what the householder put on his/her schedule and the enumerators interpretation of that as he transcribed the schedules , then the persons interpretation of whoever transcribed it for Ancestry As far as emailing Ancestry is concerned its much easier to open a spare Ancestry window and use that so you can swap between the two Perhaps if we see some of the obvious errors you suggest we might get a better feel for what you are complaining about I have yet to find any transcription of anything at any time that was perfect If you want some comical transcription errors take a look at the 1911, that is assuming you can actually find who you are looking for Nivard Ovington in Cornwall (UK) > Thanks for the reply Nivard. I am well aware of the "do it yourself" > items provided by Ancestry for the names etc and have used that facility > numerous times but its all the other types of errors not covered by DIY. > Such as: The page with the image is for a parish in Sussex and not > Suffolk > The location of birth is incorrect > The Census location is incorrect > The Parish name on the image differs from that on the > associated data page > The image shows a couple with 3 children, but the > associated data page shows only the couple > The image shows a couple with 4 children, but the > associated data page shows only the husband. > The problem is when one is going through a tedious search and notes the > errors of this type, it is not easy to break away to email and inform > Ancestry that they should look at Image #xyz because there are *obvious > errors. *To inform them of errors in *their *data, it usually means a > loss of 10-15 mins minimum each occurence and for no personal advantage > in that the specific data involved may not be part of one's tree. I > just wondered if others felt as frustrated as I. > > Phil White

Thanks for the reply Nivard. I am well aware of the "do it yourself" items provided by Ancestry for the names etc and have used that facility numerous times but its all the other types of errors not covered by DIY. Such as: The page with the image is for a parish in Sussex and not Suffolk The location of birth is incorrect The Census location is incorrect The Parish name on the image differs from that on the associated data page The image shows a couple with 3 children, but the associated data page shows only the couple The image shows a couple with 4 children, but the associated data page shows only the husband. The problem is when one is going through a tedious search and notes the errors of this type, it is not easy to break away to email and inform Ancestry that they should look at Image #xyz because there are *obvious errors. *To inform them of errors in *their *data, it usually means a loss of 10-15 mins minimum each occurence and for no personal advantage in that the specific data involved may not be part of one's tree. I just wondered if others felt as frustrated as I. Phil White

Hi Phil There are certain names that are more prone to error than others I think if you asked the majority of people even today they would recognise OSBORN or OSBOURN but may think ORSBORN and variations were misspellings Given the poor handwriting of many people particularly in the earlier census its not surprising the enumerators had a hard time making out what they had actually written, exacerbated by the short time they had to transcribe and send back their returns They may be fairly obvious to you as you know what you are looking for but the transcribers who did the work would not have been As to informing Ancestry of errors ? *You don't* you do it yourself, it could not be simpler and will add to the searchable index in around two weeks after input On the transcribed part of the name found with errors, select Add Alternative Information Then select the field you want to alter If its a surname, entering the first name will when entered prompt if you want to also do the same for others in the same household, therefore you only need to enter once Its very easy and also has the benefit of noting who has done that correction so future researchers may make contact with you when they find it Nivard Ovington in Cornwall (UK) > Hi Folks, I am struggling through the 1851 Census via an Ancestry.com > subscription loooking at all the O*sbo*rn* variations and I have never > found so many transcribers errors before on any other name search. Has > anyone had a similar experience. Most of the errors are fairly obvious > but in the past I have made an effort to inform Ancestry but they dont > make it simple and quick so I am not doing it anymore, I would > appreciate comments Phil White

I agree with Nivard. It is especially hopeful that when you do make the corrections, someone connected to that line will try to contact you.. Gail ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to SUFFOLK-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Hi Folks, I am struggling through the 1851 Census via an Ancestry.com subscription loooking at all the O*sbo*rn* variations and I have never found so many transcribers errors before on any other name search. Has anyone had a similar experience. Most of the errors are fairly obvious but in the past I have made an effort to inform Ancestry but they dont make it simple and quick so I am not doing it anymore, I would appreciate comments Phil White

Peter Knott <peter.knott@btinternet.com> wrote: > Thank you too Phil for your equally sound suggestion. > It might be appropriate to now make an enquiry at the appropriate Suffolk > Record Office. > Peter Knott > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Phil White" <pwgrandmapa@comcast.net> > To: <suffolk@rootsweb.com> > Sent: Wednesday, February 02, 2011 10:53 PM > Subject: [SFK-UK] Marriage of George >> I have seen this type of "place" where the IGI source was the Bishops >> Transcripts for Suffolk, which indicates you have to access those >> Phil White >> ------------------------------- Peter If you use the film number of 989614 detailed on that entry and then search for its contents at http://www.familysearch.org/eng/library/fhlcatalog/supermainframeset.asp?display=generalfilmsearch&columns=*,0,0 you will see that there is a link to Bishop's transcripts for the Archdeaconry of Sudbury, 1560-1853 I think that you will need to examine the film to see if there is any more detail but this can be a long and laborious exercise! Good luck Brian

Thank you too Phil for your equally sound suggestion. It might be appropriate to now make an enquiry at the appropriate Suffolk Record Office. Peter Knott ----- Original Message ----- From: "Phil White" <pwgrandmapa@comcast.net> To: <suffolk@rootsweb.com> Sent: Wednesday, February 02, 2011 10:53 PM Subject: [SFK-UK] Marriage of George >I have seen this type of "place" where the IGI source was the Bishops > Transcripts for Suffolk, which indicates you have to access those > Phil White > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > SUFFOLK-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message >

Thank you Dudley for your sound suggestion. I had not thought of that. I have discovered that the Allegations for Marriage Licences issued at Sudbury can be seen on line (at archive.org) in the form of a scan of a manuscript prepared by the Harleian Society. Sadly there does not appear to be any record there in respect of my George/Catherine marriage or licence. Thanks again for your interest. Peter Knott ----- Original Message ----- From: "Dudley Diaper" <dudley@fivers.plus.com> To: <suffolk@rootsweb.com> Sent: Wednesday, February 02, 2011 5:30 PM Subject: Re: [SFK-UK] Marriage of George Skinner & Catherine Clarke 1776 >I think (and others will know far, far better than I) that it's a marriage > by licence, which was granted by an archdeaconry or similar, rather than > by > an individual parish. > > Dudley > > -------------------------------------------------- > From: "Peter Knott" <peter.knott@btinternet.com> > Sent: Wednesday, February 02, 2011 5:07 PM > To: <suffolk@rootsweb.com> > Subject: [SFK-UK] Marriage of George Skinner & Catherine Clarke 1776 > >> The new FamilySearch site has a marriage of the above couple with the >> Marriage Place stated to be 'Archdeaconry of Suffolk'. >> I am accustomed to seeing a named parish designated as place and have not >> encountered this before. >> Is anyone able to shed any light please? Clearly the parish name would be >> ideal! >> >> Peter Knott >> >> >> >> ------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to >> SUFFOLK-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 > SUFFOLK-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message >

I have seen this type of "place" where the IGI source was the Bishops Transcripts for Suffolk, which indicates you have to access those Phil White

I think (and others will know far, far better than I) that it's a marriage by licence, which was granted by an archdeaconry or similar, rather than by an individual parish. Dudley -------------------------------------------------- From: "Peter Knott" <peter.knott@btinternet.com> Sent: Wednesday, February 02, 2011 5:07 PM To: <suffolk@rootsweb.com> Subject: [SFK-UK] Marriage of George Skinner & Catherine Clarke 1776 > The new FamilySearch site has a marriage of the above couple with the > Marriage Place stated to be 'Archdeaconry of Suffolk'. > I am accustomed to seeing a named parish designated as place and have not > encountered this before. > Is anyone able to shed any light please? Clearly the parish name would be > ideal! > > Peter Knott > > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > SUFFOLK-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message >

The new FamilySearch site has a marriage of the above couple with the Marriage Place stated to be 'Archdeaconry of Suffolk'. I am accustomed to seeing a named parish designated as place and have not encountered this before. Is anyone able to shed any light please? Clearly the parish name would be ideal! Peter Knott

>From Evening Mail ( London, England ), December 19, 1796 - December 21, 1796. BANKRUPT. R. BAILEY , Wisbech St. Peter's, Cambridge, baker.

I have a marriage for Henry LILLYSTONE to Elizabeth BARDFIELD 26th February 1788 in Wetheringsett. I am hoping to get some confirmation of this marriage from records but especially hoping that the register supplies some kind of personal information regarding the couple. No harm in hoping!! Many thanks Marj.