The latest SussexLink, Sussex Family History Group's e-newsletter, has now been published. See it, and previous issues, at http://www.sfhg.org.uk/sussexlink.html. Or send an e-mail to sussexlink@sfhg.org.uk to subscribe to receive it each quarter. Trevor

I've worked with all the different versions of Ancestry including Aust, UK and library versions. I certainly prefer the Old Search. I think a lot of the problems are because they don't have Advanced Search and Exact Matches as defaults, and you don't automatically get options for year ranges. What I really hate is when you go to Refine Search and they make you re-insert every criteria rather than alter a just a date range for example. It's particularly galling when you've set your Collection Priority to a specific country and they make out you're an idiot and should be looking worldwide. Peter

Maureen, Sounds like she was getting "Poor Relief". Remember there was no Social Security system in those days. You don't mention her age or if perhaps she was in a workhouse. To find out about Poor Relief just Google it. Then Google "Poor Relief Porslade" and "Parish Records Porslade" to see if any data is available. If Thomas Goodwin was indeed born 1721, he'd be 120 years only by the earliest census of 1841. So you might check you dates. Where did you get the Nottingham reference? It sounds like you have other data which you haven't disclosed. Peter

Hi Maureen, Couple of small things that might help your search (and which may just have been typos in your original email :-) !). The places you are looking for are Portslade and Lewes. There is an online parish clerk for Lewes but not for Portslade - http://www.sussex-opc.org/index.php?cy=52&n=lewes&b=index.php&k=294&t=parish Unfortunately the Sussex Record Society poor law database does not go as far as 1874. If she was in a workhouse you may be able to get records for it. This is one of the best sites on workhouses http://www.workhouses.org.uk/ hth, Anne > From: maureenfarrer71@gmail.com > Date: Tue, 2 Jul 2013 10:26:26 +1000 > To: SUSSEX-PLUS@rootsweb.com > Subject: [SXP] PARISH PAY > > Hi Listers, > > I am new to this list and was wondering if anyone could explain to me the following" I have a Barbara FARRER listed in the 1871 census in the parish of Porslade and it says "Recipient of Parish Pay" > Would there be any records and what would it tell. > > I am also looking for a Thomas GOODWIN b. 1721 in Notts. in any census, as I have found a death for a Thomas GOODWiN in Lews in June 1874 but not sure if he is mine ? > > thanks, > Maureen in Oz. > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to SUSSEX-PLUS-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Hi Listers, I am new to this list and was wondering if anyone could explain to me the following" I have a Barbara FARRER listed in the 1871 census in the parish of Porslade and it says "Recipient of Parish Pay" Would there be any records and what would it tell. I am also looking for a Thomas GOODWIN b. 1721 in Notts. in any census, as I have found a death for a Thomas GOODWiN in Lews in June 1874 but not sure if he is mine ? thanks, Maureen in Oz.

Hi Marilyn The simple fact is you don't :-) If you use New Search, select Advanced You can select various things on that screen that will apply to all records searched for Down the bottom is "Collection Priority" Select United States and tick the box for "Show only records from these collections" Now when you search for anything it only list US records On the results screen there are two tabs, "Records" (ie ranked results) and "Categories" which when selected looks more like the Old Search results page There are many fields you can use on that same initial page to restrict the search (use the Edit Search button on the left or Start a New Search) You can enter New York in the location field which brings up a drop down select from menu, so you can select one of those or just enter New York and ignore the choices Or enter New York State or whatever in the keyword field I am far from a convert but we have to face facts, they are not going to keep Old Search, so we need to at least try New Search and report its failings if any to Ancestry in their survey Nivard Ovington in Cornwall (UK) On 02/07/2013 06:19, Marilyn Tracey wrote: > I agree, Ancestry is not what it used to be. If I ask to search for > New York State why do I have to scroll through all the other states > and even the UK? >

I agree, Ancestry is not what it used to be. If I ask to search for New York State why do I have to scroll through all the other states and even the UK? Sent from my iPhone Researching: Allard, Chase, Clisdle, Crowhurst, Dressell, Farrelly, Greene, Hoag, Jewett, Jarrett, Marchant, Mills, Neumeister, Prior, Schreiber, Troppmann, Tuite On Jul 1, 2013, at 11:16 PM, "Peter R Booth" <pbo08596@bigpond.net.au> wrote: > > I've worked with all the different versions of Ancestry including Aust, > UK and library versions. > I certainly prefer the Old Search. > > I think a lot of the problems are because they don't have Advanced > Search and Exact Matches as defaults, and you don't automatically get > options for year ranges. > > What I really hate is when you go to Refine Search and they make you > re-insert every criteria rather than alter a just a date range for example. > It's particularly galling when you've set your Collection Priority to a > specific country and they make out you're an idiot and should be looking > worldwide. > > Peter > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to SUSSEX-PLUS-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Hi all Rather like the first incarnation of new familysearch, the New Search on Ancestry was absolutely useless IMHO When I heard that old search was being phased out I was like you, outraged Neither did I get their survey, their claimed 2% old search users is frankly laughable, I have since filled in the survey but it appears to be aimed at proving their theory rather than any real survey But I looked a again at New Search and after playing around with it find there have been vast improvements to it since last I tried it, rather similar to new familysearch which is a whole lot more usable than when it first appeared on the scene I am not saying it will do all we may require of Old Search but I would suggest at least trying it out before dismissing it out of hand When you first search with New Search you get a results page with two tabs, "Records" and "Categories" Records is the default and useless in my opinion So switch to categories and you get a similar returns page to old search Under each field in the search page is "Restrict to exact" and an arrow, select that and you get several more categories, these can be selected differently for each field if required It takes some getting used to but I will persevere in my testing So far I have found that it duplicates some returns in categories, annoying but not insurmountable I also found wild cards don't appear to work in some cases but I am finding my way around that I am not saying its perfect, far from it but I will keep trying it out, come the day we may have to use it so its best to be prepared don't you think Nivard Ovington in Cornwall (UK) On 01/07/2013 18:10, Linda Staunton wrote: > Thanks for that I've told them exactly what I think of new search. > > >> Hi, >> I have just read the latest Lost Cousins news;letter and it appears >> Ancestry are thinking of combining the Old Search with the New >> Search, effectively getting rid of it. They are seeking comments on >> it from users so, if like me, you find this search far superior, >> please click on the link and fill it in. >> http://ancestry.qualtrics.com/SE/?SID=SV_8ubNXU8IiQcxqVD >> >> Jacqui

Thanks for that I've told them exactly what I think of new search. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jacqui Freke" <jacqui_freke@lineone.net> To: <SUSSEX-PLUS@rootsweb.com>; <eng-cambridgeshire@rootsweb.com>; <Yorksgen@rootsweb.com>; <suffolk@rootsweb.com> Sent: Monday, July 01, 2013 9:53 AM Subject: [SXP] Questionnaire on Ancestry Old Search > Hi, > I have just read the latest Lost Cousins news;letter and it appears > Ancestry are thinking of combining the Old Search with the New > Search, effectively getting rid of it. They are seeking comments on > it from users so, if like me, you find this search far superior, > please click on the link and fill it in. > http://ancestry.qualtrics.com/SE/?SID=SV_8ubNXU8IiQcxqVD > > Jacqui > > > > > > Eudora_email_footer_should_ be_ here > > http://www.tvadblocker.co.uk > Jacqui Freke > 01865 731124 or 07929 055978 > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > SUSSEX-PLUS-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Hi Listers, I have received the marriage certificate for William HAWKINS and Susanna GODDARD - 1867 Fittleworth Sussex. Unfortunately he is not my William. If anyone would like this certificate I would be happy to send it on to you. Regards Gill in Canada

Hi, I have just read the latest Lost Cousins news;letter and it appears Ancestry are thinking of combining the Old Search with the New Search, effectively getting rid of it. They are seeking comments on it from users so, if like me, you find this search far superior, please click on the link and fill it in. http://ancestry.qualtrics.com/SE/?SID=SV_8ubNXU8IiQcxqVD Jacqui Eudora_email_footer_should_ be_ here http://www.tvadblocker.co.uk Jacqui Freke 01865 731124 or 07929 055978

Peter, Thank you very much for responding. Just to let you know that we have almost all BMD certificates for this family. To keep the post from getting too long, I just told the story, but did not advise all of the secondary sources that we had looked at in the past, i.e., Ancestry, FindMyPast, FreeBMD (covered all of the British Isles using a 15 year spread), Familysearch, several appropriate forums, GOONS - and the list goes on! Never used 'exact matches'. Of course, I was hoping that someone on the list might recognize the names or the story. Best wishes June > > From: "Peter R Booth" <pbo08596@bigpond.net.au> > Subject: Re: [SXP] Henry HART/HAYDEN b. 1853 > > June, > > Assuming you have the right person, it sounds like a typical case of > getting a girl pregnant, running away and then moving constantly to stay one > step ahead of rumours, in-laws, authorities or perhaps even creditors. Soon > the attraction wears off, and they find other partners > > Have you found registrations of the marriages or various births of > children? I wouldn't rely on just the census. > > I presume you looked at all possibilities for Henry Hart and Henry > Hayden born around 1853. I would look further afield than just one county. > > It's very easy to focus on just one "Bill Smith" when logically there > are hundreds in any time frame or location. And if you restrict search > criteria to exact matches on 1853 and Brighton, you're only looking at one > possibility. > > Peter >

Dear Listers, I am returning to this list in the hope that someone may be able to help me. A distant cousin Helene Gladys Hartree (nee Henderson) died in on the 14 th June 1978 in Teddington. I know only the bearest details of her life and was hoping that her will might lead me to those that knew more about her. She named as sole executor Albert Henry Smith, 1, Normanton House, Normanton, Bexhill on Sea, and left all her real estate and personal effects to Marjorie Smith. This couple(if couple they were), were formerly of 12, Hogarth Way, Hampton, Middlesex. Gladys did have a daughter Hilda Madeleine Wisden , who had been married to Jack Warren and Maurice Weston. However, I don't know if Gladys played much part in her daughter's upbringing, and her one surviving nephew was unaware that he had an aunt. She spent many years in India where her husband was in the army, and seems to have stayed on after his death until Independence. I therefore do not know if the Smiths were in anyway related to Gladys or if they had been kind friends and neighbours to her. Any help in clarifying who Albert Henry Smith and Marjorie were , and if they have any descendants who may know something of Gladys would be most welcome. Best wishes, Mary

Hi Robin, I would assume that there would have been costs involved in going to court so maybe it was cheaper to combine the two requests. They were getting married the next day so would have had to come back to court as soon as they could anyway. As far as why she should get the estate - perhaps he had children that he didn't want to leave the estate to on his death? When did John Moon snr die? May be he was close to death and wanted to make sure his money was distributed as he wished. Was Sarah's family connected in any way to the Moons? hth, Anne > Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2013 17:03:40 +0100 > From: robin.coates1@btinternet.com > To: SUSSEX-PLUS@rootsweb.com > Subject: [SXP] 1690. Many gives estate to fiancee. Why? > > Hello, > > In Court held on Feb 23rd 1690/91 John Moon snr > surrendered much of his estate to use of his son > John Moon jnr who immediately surrendered it to > use of Sarah Ward "whom the said John Moone > intends to take as his wife for and during the term > of her life for Jointure, and after her decease to the > use of the said John Moone junior for ever". > > John and Sarah married the following day, Feb 24th > 1690/91. > > Any thought for the reason for this rather complicated > arrangement?. Might it have been a condition set by > Sarah to marry John.?. > > Many thanks, > > Robin > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to SUSSEX-PLUS-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Robin/Anne - Would it have something to do with women's right under common law to a dower (i.e., 1/3 of the property at her husband's death). If John Sr. had left the property in his name at the time of the marriage, when he died 2/3 of the property would go to his children and 1/3 to his widow. But, since he and his son put the property in her name, she had access to all of the property until the time of her death, after which the property would revert in full to John Jr. In this way, John Jr. loses none of the property in case the widow remarried. This is just a guess. Lynne in Tucson -----Original Message----- From: Anne Capewell Sent: Saturday, June 22, 2013 6:49 AM To: sussex-plus@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [SXP] 1690. Many gives estate to fiancee. Why? Hi Robin, I would assume that there would have been costs involved in going to court so maybe it was cheaper to combine the two requests. They were getting married the next day so would have had to come back to court as soon as they could anyway. As far as why she should get the estate - perhaps he had children that he didn't want to leave the estate to on his death? When did John Moon snr die? May be he was close to death and wanted to make sure his money was distributed as he wished. Was Sarah's family connected in any way to the Moons? hth, Anne > Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2013 17:03:40 +0100 > From: robin.coates1@btinternet.com > To: SUSSEX-PLUS@rootsweb.com > Subject: [SXP] 1690. Many gives estate to fiancee. Why? > > Hello, > > In Court held on Feb 23rd 1690/91 John Moon snr > surrendered much of his estate to use of his son > John Moon jnr who immediately surrendered it to > use of Sarah Ward "whom the said John Moone > intends to take as his wife for and during the term > of her life for Jointure, and after her decease to the > use of the said John Moone junior for ever". > > John and Sarah married the following day, Feb 24th > 1690/91. > > Any thought for the reason for this rather complicated > arrangement?. Might it have been a condition set by > Sarah to marry John.?. > > Many thanks, > > Robin > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > SUSSEX-PLUS-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 SUSSEX-PLUS-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Pam, If you're not getting many replies, it's simply because you've just about run out of records. It's rather early. Litlington batches don't start until 1695. So you'd probably have to look for nearby churches that have earlier records. Check a map and then use the Hugh Wallis or Archer Software sites for available batch numbers. Hurtspierpoint has some Surgeon records, so may be an option. It looks like there were uncles or cousins named Thomas and John Surgeon that might be worth following. Both had son's named Richard. In Litlington christenings for the Richard & Susan who married 1702 are children Richard 1707, Samuel 1711, George 1714, Anne 1717 and Robert 1717. Peter

Hello, In Court held on Feb 23rd 1690/91 John Moon snr surrendered much of his estate to use of his son John Moon jnr who immediately surrendered it to use of Sarah Ward  "whom the said John Moone intends to take as his wife for and during the term of her life for Jointure, and after her decease to the use of the said John Moone junior  for ever". John and Sarah married the following day, Feb 24th 1690/91. Any thought for the reason for this rather complicated arrangement?.  Might it have been a condition set by Sarah to marry John.?. Many thanks, Robin

Greetings Listers Richard SURGEON (aka Richard SARGEANT), s/o Richard SURGEON and Susan, was possibly born about 1680 (his father possibly about 1650), maybe somewhere around Litlington in Sussex. Richard jnr married Susan SWASELING in East Dean nr Eastbourne in 1702. I would love to find baptisms for Richard SURGEON/SARGEANT snr & jnr and for Susan SWASELING; also the marriage of Richard snr, with (when identified) his wife's baptism too, plus burials for Richard jnr and his wife Susan née SWASELING. I have the burials of the older couple within 2 days of each other (9th & 11th Aug) in 1697, both at Litlington. Any help or ideas greatly appreciated. Many thanks Pam Beaudesert, Queensland, Australia

A reminder that SFHG will be at the East Worthing Baptist Church History Day, Pendine Avenue, Worthing tomorrow, Saturday 22 June, between 10am and 4pm. You will find directions on their web site at http://www.eastworthingbaptist.org.uk/find_us.html . Free on-street parking is available within time limits. SFHG's databases and searches will be available. So, if you have a research problem that you would like to discuss, do bring along the details and copies of any relevant documents and we will be pleased to try to help you find a way forward. Our motto is 'No reasonable request is ever refused'. Best wishes, Marion Woolgar Bognor Regis, West Sussex

June, Assuming you have the right person, it sounds like a typical case of getting a girl pregnant, running away and then moving constantly to stay one step ahead of rumours, in-laws, authorities or perhaps even creditors. Soon the attraction wears off, and they find other partners Have you found registrations of the marriages or various births of children? I wouldn't rely on just the census. I presume you looked at all possibilities for Henry Hart and Henry Hayden born around 1853. I would look further afield than just one county. It's very easy to focus on just one "Bill Smith" when logically there are hundreds in any time frame or location. And if you restrict search criteria to exact matches on 1853 and Brighton, you're only looking at one possibility. Peter