Jackie Cotterill wrote: > Still happens today. Many elderly people class benefits as charity. Hallo That is so sad. A pension is something they have earned. I know my grandmother wouldn't have survived without hers. Connie in London

Robert Holmes wrote: > > very interesting replies. Clearly the opportunities for identity theft > were already being used. Presumably, you could acquire somebody else's > birth cert or bribe a person to prove who you were. My grandfather's > army records show that he was born any year between 1873 and 1882. He > appears in only one census 1911. The ages which appear in the census, > his marriage certificate, his army records ( more than one )and death > certificate all vary. An example: in the 1911 census he is five years > younger than when he married! Hallo I think you are applying modern concepts to the past. It will give you a distorted view of the past. A professional genealogist and lecturer on the subject has often said "the past is different world". That is true. Today we are regularly asked for our date of birth. Not so in the past. It surprises me how often our ancestors did know how old they were. I doubt most of our ancestors even knew they could apply for a copy of their own certificate, let alone anyone else's. They would have been unlikely to have been able to afford one. There was an element who did masquerade as someone else then just as they do now, but I would suggest identity theft as we know it, and presumably as you mean, was unheard of then. I think it is fair to say that the majority of researchers have at least one person in the family tree who have managed not to be in one or more censuses. There could be many reasons for that. I think it is also fair to say the majority of researchers have examples of ages being inconsistent from one census to the next. A great great uncle claimed at his marriage he was much older than he really was because his wife was considerably older than him. Her daughter was closer to his age than she was. The daughter later ran off with the great great uncle's married cousin and the pair fled to America together. Men lied about their age just as much as women did. Ages on death certificates are dependent on how well the informant knew the deceased as well as how distressed they were. They are known to be the least reliable of certificates. Any information given is only as good as the informant or as the informant wished it to be. Connie in London

Perhaps your grandfather never knew his exact birth date. This was quite common. My grandmother celebrated her 60th birthday in 1950 with a party. Wondering why she did not receive a pension she then found out that she was actually born in 1892. As she did not have a birth certificate, it was always assumed that she was born in 1892. Birth Certificates issued at the time were not like the large birth certificates issued now. They were on flimsy bits of paper, which were easily lost or destroyed. These were free, but the large birth certificate you had to pay for. With regards to ages on censuses, these should also be taken with a pinch of salt. It depended on the person who was giving the information. Before the 1911 census this could have been a child, distant relative or anybody that was 'at home' when the enumerator came. Even in 1911 husbands probably guessed at their wife's age. Who would go and check by looking at a birth certificate? I've just checked with my daughter who got married four years ago and she said that they didn't have to take any birth certificates, etc. to prove who they were with them when they went to see the Vicar. So even now, it is dependent on people giving verbal information. Regards Jackie Cotterill Birmingham & Midland Society for Genealogy & Heraldry 5 Sanderling Court Spennells Kidderminster Worcs, DY10 4TS Tel/Fax: 01562 743912 www: bmsgh.org -----Original Message----- From: warwick-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:warwick-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Robert Holmes Sent: 26 July 2012 09:44 To: warwick@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [WAR] WARWICK Digest, Vol 7, Issue 117 very interesting replies. Clearly the opportunities for identity theft were already being used. Presumably, you could acquire somebody else's birth cert or bribe a person to prove who you were. My grandfather's army records show that he was born any year between 1873 and 1882. He appears in only one census 1911. The ages which appear in the census, his marriage certificate, his army records ( more than one )and death certificate all vary. An example: in the 1911 census he is five years younger than when he married! Bob Holmes On 26/07/2012 08:01, warwick-request@rootsweb.com wrote: > > Today's Topics: > > 1. 1874 and beyond (Robert Holmes) > 2. Re: 1874 and beyond (Nivard Ovington) > 3. Re: 1874 and beyond (ramaix) > 4. Re: 1874 and beyond (Bob Douglas) > 5. Re: 1874 and beyond (Jan Rockett) > 6. Re: 1874 and beyond (Dennis Corbett .) > 7. Re: 1874 and beyond (Connie) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2012 13:31:54 +0100 > From: Robert Holmes <holmes@holmesr923.plus.com> > Subject: [WAR] 1874 and beyond > To: warwick@rootsweb.com > Message-ID: <500FE73A.8030500@holmesr923.plus.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed > > I read quite recently that about 1874 it became the duty of parents to > report a birth rather than the registar going in search of birth. My > grandfather was born around 1873 and may therefore have been one of > the > 30 percent of unreported births. Question is how did they get a > pension assuming they lived to 65? Was a birth cert required ; could > they register retrospectively etc > > > Bob Holmes in tropical Axbridge > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2012 14:36:46 +0100 > From: Nivard Ovington <ovington1@sky.com> > Subject: Re: [WAR] 1874 and beyond > To: warwick@rootsweb.com > Message-ID: <500FF66E.6050002@sky.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed > > Hi Bob > > The powers that be used other means to prove the birth date claimed > > Census in some cases or baptism, but also signed declarations, Army > records etc > > If you think about it, if there were retrospective birth registration > they would still have to prove it in the same way > > Apart from the obvious missing the registration, was he born to > married parents or even to those parents, there was no official > adoption system in England until 1927 > > Nivard Ovington in Cornwall (UK) > > > On 25/07/2012 13:31, Robert Holmes wrote: >> I read quite recently that about 1874 it became the duty of parents >> to report a birth rather than the registar going in search of birth. >> My grandfather was born around 1873 and may therefore have been one >> of the >> 30 percent of unreported births. Question is how did they get a >> pension assuming they lived to 65? Was a birth cert required ; could >> they register retrospectively etc >> >> >> Bob Holmes in tropical Axbridge > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 3 > Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2012 15:59:04 +0200 (CEST) > From: ramaix <ramaix@orange.fr> > Subject: Re: [WAR] 1874 and beyond > To: warwick@rootsweb.com, Robert Holmes <holmes@holmesr923.plus.com> > Message-ID: <669174714.14357.1343224744973.JavaMail.www@wwinf1f22> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 > > > It's obvious from the frequency of wrong ages on marriage and death certificates that until relatively recently birth certificates were not required to be produced when registering those events. Many young men also claimed to be older than they were when joining the army or navy, so they couldn't have been required to present proof or age either. Lots more things were taken on trust in those days, and even in living memory. It should also be said that pension entitlements for most people were very minimal, so a few errors would have been peanuts compared with today's benefit fraud. > > MAR in France. > > > > >> Message du 25/07/12 14:33 >> De : "Robert Holmes" >> A : warwick@rootsweb.com >> Copie ? : >> Objet : [WAR] 1874 and beyond >> >> I read quite recently that about 1874 it became the duty of parents >> to report a birth rather than the registar going in search of birth. >> My grandfather was born around 1873 and may therefore have been one >> of the >> 30 percent of unreported births. Question is how did they get a >> pension assuming they lived to 65? Was a birth cert required ; could >> they register retrospectively etc >> >> >> Bob Holmes in tropical Axbridge >> ------------------------------- >> List archives are at >> http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/index/WARWICK >> >> ------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to >> WARWICK-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the >> quotes in the subject and the body of the message >> > ------------------------------ > > Message: 4 > Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2012 22:46:04 +0100 > From: "Bob Douglas" <bob@cotswan.com> > Subject: Re: [WAR] 1874 and beyond > To: <warwick@rootsweb.com> > Message-ID: <E129AD9BB33D4C07AF461CE665F60281@NEW> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > > He may have been able to get a certified copy of baptism > > Bob > > -----Original Message----- > From: warwick-bounces@rootsweb.com > [mailto:warwick-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Robert Holmes > Sent: 25 July 2012 13:32 > To: warwick@rootsweb.com > Subject: [WAR] 1874 and beyond > > I read quite recently that about 1874 it became the duty of parents to > report a birth rather than the registar going in search of birth. My > grandfather was born around 1873 and may therefore have been one of > the > 30 percent of unreported births. Question is how did they get a > pension assuming they lived to 65? Was a birth cert required ; could > they register retrospectively etc > > > Bob Holmes in tropical Axbridge > ------------------------------- > List archives are at > http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/index/WARWICK > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > WARWICK-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 5 > Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2012 23:12:16 +0100 > From: "Jan Rockett" <jan.rockett@ntlworld.com> > Subject: Re: [WAR] 1874 and beyond > To: <warwick@rootsweb.com> > Message-ID: <EAAB170D2D1341EAA93789ADC37120CB@JanPC> > Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; > reply-type=original > > Pensions came in 1 January 1909 and a man had to be 70. lived here for > 20 years and be a British subject and it was means tested. > Here is a table > he pension was paid as follows: > ?21 p/a Rate of Pension 5s p/w. (25p) > ?21 to ?23 12s 6d p/a Rate of Pension 4s p/w. (20p) > ?23 12s 6d to ?26 5s p/a Rate of Pension 3s p/w. (15p) > ?26 5s to ?28 17s 6b p/a Rate of Pension 2s p/w. (10p) > ?28 17s 6b to ?31 10s p/a Rate of Pension 1s p/w. (5p) > > National insurance came a few years later. They sent forms out and > presumably you had to prove your work record. > > Are you sure he wasnt registered? > > > Jan > -----Original Message----- > From: Bob Douglas > Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2012 10:46 PM > To: warwick@rootsweb.com > Subject: Re: [WAR] 1874 and beyond > > He may have been able to get a certified copy of baptism > > Bob > > -----Original Message----- > From: warwick-bounces@rootsweb.com > [mailto:warwick-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Robert Holmes > Sent: 25 July 2012 13:32 > To: warwick@rootsweb.com > Subject: [WAR] 1874 and beyond > > I read quite recently that about 1874 it became the duty of parents to > report a birth rather than the registar going in search of birth. My > grandfather was born around 1873 and may therefore have been one of > the > 30 percent of unreported births. Question is how did they get a > pension assuming they lived to 65? Was a birth cert required ; could > they register retrospectively etc > > > Bob Holmes in tropical Axbridge > ------------------------------- > List archives are at > http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/index/WARWICK > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > WARWICK-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > ------------------------------- > List archives are at > http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/index/WARWICK > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > WARWICK-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 6 > Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2012 15:49:11 +0000 > From: "Dennis Corbett ." <dennis@denniscorbett.com> > Subject: Re: [WAR] 1874 and beyond > To: <warwick@rootsweb.com> > Message-ID: <CC35C4C3.AC5A%dennis@denniscorbett.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" > > My grandfather was born in 1870 and never registered. Just prior to WW! > His former schoolmaster wrote a letter to the authorities explaining > how ill health had prevented his mother from registering the birth > within the prescribed period. Included in the letter was a handwritten > transcript of the baptism entry from the church record. The letter, > which I have, is accompanied by a second one from the schoolmaster to > my grandfather explaining that he cannot register in retrospect but > that the one provided will provide him with protection from the > authorities should they decide to call him up as being of service age - which at 44 he wasn't! > > Dennis > > ------------------------------------ > > > On 25/07/2012 12:31, "Robert Holmes" <holmes@holmesr923.plus.com> wrote: > >> I read quite recently that about 1874 it became the duty of parents >> to report a birth rather than the registar going in search of birth. >> My grandfather was born around 1873 and may therefore have been one >> of the >> 30 percent of unreported births. Question is how did they get a >> pension assuming they lived to 65? Was a birth cert required ; could >> they register retrospectively etc >> >> >> Bob Holmes in tropical Axbridge >> ------------------------------- >> List archives are at >> http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/index/WARWICK >> >> ------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to >> WARWICK-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the >> quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 7 > Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2012 01:08:55 +0100 > From: Connie <connie.sparrer@gmail.com> > Subject: Re: [WAR] 1874 and beyond > To: warwick@rootsweb.com > Message-ID: <50108A97.5080002@gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed > > Jan Rockett wrote: >> Pensions came in 1 January 1909 and a man had to be 70. lived here >> for 20 years and be a British subject and it was means tested. > Hallo > > I heard that many of those entitled to a pension refused to claim it > as they "didn't want charity". > > Connie in London > > > ------------------------------ > > To contact the WARWICK list administrator, send an email to > WARWICK-admin@rootsweb.com. > > To post a message to the WARWICK mailing list, send an email to WARWICK@rootsweb.com. > > __________________________________________________________ > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to WARWICK-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 WARWICK Digest, Vol 7, Issue 117 > *************************************** > ------------------------------- List archives are at http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/index/WARWICK ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to WARWICK-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

very interesting replies. Clearly the opportunities for identity theft were already being used. Presumably, you could acquire somebody else's birth cert or bribe a person to prove who you were. My grandfather's army records show that he was born any year between 1873 and 1882. He appears in only one census 1911. The ages which appear in the census, his marriage certificate, his army records ( more than one )and death certificate all vary. An example: in the 1911 census he is five years younger than when he married! Bob Holmes On 26/07/2012 08:01, warwick-request@rootsweb.com wrote: > > Today's Topics: > > 1. 1874 and beyond (Robert Holmes) > 2. Re: 1874 and beyond (Nivard Ovington) > 3. Re: 1874 and beyond (ramaix) > 4. Re: 1874 and beyond (Bob Douglas) > 5. Re: 1874 and beyond (Jan Rockett) > 6. Re: 1874 and beyond (Dennis Corbett .) > 7. Re: 1874 and beyond (Connie) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2012 13:31:54 +0100 > From: Robert Holmes <holmes@holmesr923.plus.com> > Subject: [WAR] 1874 and beyond > To: warwick@rootsweb.com > Message-ID: <500FE73A.8030500@holmesr923.plus.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed > > I read quite recently that about 1874 it became the duty of parents to > report a birth rather than the registar going in search of birth. My > grandfather was born around 1873 and may therefore have been one of the > 30 percent of unreported births. Question is how did they get a pension > assuming they lived to 65? Was a birth cert required ; could they > register retrospectively etc > > > Bob Holmes in tropical Axbridge > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2012 14:36:46 +0100 > From: Nivard Ovington <ovington1@sky.com> > Subject: Re: [WAR] 1874 and beyond > To: warwick@rootsweb.com > Message-ID: <500FF66E.6050002@sky.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed > > Hi Bob > > The powers that be used other means to prove the birth date claimed > > Census in some cases or baptism, but also signed declarations, Army > records etc > > If you think about it, if there were retrospective birth registration > they would still have to prove it in the same way > > Apart from the obvious missing the registration, was he born to married > parents or even to those parents, there was no official adoption system > in England until 1927 > > Nivard Ovington in Cornwall (UK) > > > On 25/07/2012 13:31, Robert Holmes wrote: >> I read quite recently that about 1874 it became the duty of parents to >> report a birth rather than the registar going in search of birth. My >> grandfather was born around 1873 and may therefore have been one of the >> 30 percent of unreported births. Question is how did they get a pension >> assuming they lived to 65? Was a birth cert required ; could they >> register retrospectively etc >> >> >> Bob Holmes in tropical Axbridge > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 3 > Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2012 15:59:04 +0200 (CEST) > From: ramaix <ramaix@orange.fr> > Subject: Re: [WAR] 1874 and beyond > To: warwick@rootsweb.com, Robert Holmes <holmes@holmesr923.plus.com> > Message-ID: <669174714.14357.1343224744973.JavaMail.www@wwinf1f22> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 > > > It's obvious from the frequency of wrong ages on marriage and death certificates that until relatively recently birth certificates were not required to be produced when registering those events. Many young men also claimed to be older than they were when joining the army or navy, so they couldn't have been required to present proof or age either. Lots more things were taken on trust in those days, and even in living memory. It should also be said that pension entitlements for most people were very minimal, so a few errors would have been peanuts compared with today's benefit fraud. > > MAR in France. > > > > >> Message du 25/07/12 14:33 >> De : "Robert Holmes" >> A : warwick@rootsweb.com >> Copie ? : >> Objet : [WAR] 1874 and beyond >> >> I read quite recently that about 1874 it became the duty of parents to >> report a birth rather than the registar going in search of birth. My >> grandfather was born around 1873 and may therefore have been one of the >> 30 percent of unreported births. Question is how did they get a pension >> assuming they lived to 65? Was a birth cert required ; could they >> register retrospectively etc >> >> >> Bob Holmes in tropical Axbridge >> ------------------------------- >> List archives are at http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/index/WARWICK >> >> ------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to WARWICK-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message >> > ------------------------------ > > Message: 4 > Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2012 22:46:04 +0100 > From: "Bob Douglas" <bob@cotswan.com> > Subject: Re: [WAR] 1874 and beyond > To: <warwick@rootsweb.com> > Message-ID: <E129AD9BB33D4C07AF461CE665F60281@NEW> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > > He may have been able to get a certified copy of baptism > > Bob > > -----Original Message----- > From: warwick-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:warwick-bounces@rootsweb.com] On > Behalf Of Robert Holmes > Sent: 25 July 2012 13:32 > To: warwick@rootsweb.com > Subject: [WAR] 1874 and beyond > > I read quite recently that about 1874 it became the duty of parents to > report a birth rather than the registar going in search of birth. My > grandfather was born around 1873 and may therefore have been one of the > 30 percent of unreported births. Question is how did they get a pension > assuming they lived to 65? Was a birth cert required ; could they > register retrospectively etc > > > Bob Holmes in tropical Axbridge > ------------------------------- > List archives are at http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/index/WARWICK > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > WARWICK-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes > in the subject and the body of the message > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 5 > Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2012 23:12:16 +0100 > From: "Jan Rockett" <jan.rockett@ntlworld.com> > Subject: Re: [WAR] 1874 and beyond > To: <warwick@rootsweb.com> > Message-ID: <EAAB170D2D1341EAA93789ADC37120CB@JanPC> > Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; > reply-type=original > > Pensions came in 1 January 1909 and a man had to be 70. lived here for 20 > years and be a British subject > and it was means tested. > Here is a table > he pension was paid as follows: > ?21 p/a Rate of Pension 5s p/w. (25p) > ?21 to ?23 12s 6d p/a Rate of Pension 4s p/w. (20p) > ?23 12s 6d to ?26 5s p/a Rate of Pension 3s p/w. (15p) > ?26 5s to ?28 17s 6b p/a Rate of Pension 2s p/w. (10p) > ?28 17s 6b to ?31 10s p/a Rate of Pension 1s p/w. (5p) > > National insurance came a few years later. They sent forms out and > presumably you had to prove your work record. > > Are you sure he wasnt registered? > > > Jan > -----Original Message----- > From: Bob Douglas > Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2012 10:46 PM > To: warwick@rootsweb.com > Subject: Re: [WAR] 1874 and beyond > > He may have been able to get a certified copy of baptism > > Bob > > -----Original Message----- > From: warwick-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:warwick-bounces@rootsweb.com] On > Behalf Of Robert Holmes > Sent: 25 July 2012 13:32 > To: warwick@rootsweb.com > Subject: [WAR] 1874 and beyond > > I read quite recently that about 1874 it became the duty of parents to > report a birth rather than the registar going in search of birth. My > grandfather was born around 1873 and may therefore have been one of the > 30 percent of unreported births. Question is how did they get a pension > assuming they lived to 65? Was a birth cert required ; could they > register retrospectively etc > > > Bob Holmes in tropical Axbridge > ------------------------------- > List archives are at http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/index/WARWICK > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > WARWICK-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes > in the subject and the body of the message > > ------------------------------- > List archives are at http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/index/WARWICK > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > WARWICK-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes > in the subject and the body of the message > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 6 > Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2012 15:49:11 +0000 > From: "Dennis Corbett ." <dennis@denniscorbett.com> > Subject: Re: [WAR] 1874 and beyond > To: <warwick@rootsweb.com> > Message-ID: <CC35C4C3.AC5A%dennis@denniscorbett.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" > > My grandfather was born in 1870 and never registered. Just prior to WW! > His former schoolmaster wrote a letter to the authorities explaining how > ill health had prevented his mother from registering the birth within the > prescribed period. Included in the letter was a handwritten transcript of > the baptism entry from the church record. The letter, which I have, is > accompanied by a second one from the schoolmaster to my grandfather > explaining that he cannot register in retrospect but that the one provided > will provide him with protection from the authorities should they decide > to call him up as being of service age - which at 44 he wasn't! > > Dennis > > ------------------------------------ > > > On 25/07/2012 12:31, "Robert Holmes" <holmes@holmesr923.plus.com> wrote: > >> I read quite recently that about 1874 it became the duty of parents to >> report a birth rather than the registar going in search of birth. My >> grandfather was born around 1873 and may therefore have been one of the >> 30 percent of unreported births. Question is how did they get a pension >> assuming they lived to 65? Was a birth cert required ; could they >> register retrospectively etc >> >> >> Bob Holmes in tropical Axbridge >> ------------------------------- >> List archives are at >> http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/index/WARWICK >> >> ------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to >> WARWICK-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the >> quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 7 > Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2012 01:08:55 +0100 > From: Connie <connie.sparrer@gmail.com> > Subject: Re: [WAR] 1874 and beyond > To: warwick@rootsweb.com > Message-ID: <50108A97.5080002@gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed > > Jan Rockett wrote: >> Pensions came in 1 January 1909 and a man had to be 70. lived here for 20 >> years and be a British subject >> and it was means tested. > Hallo > > I heard that many of those entitled to a pension refused to claim it > as they "didn't want charity". > > Connie in London > > > ------------------------------ > > To contact the WARWICK list administrator, send an email to > WARWICK-admin@rootsweb.com. > > To post a message to the WARWICK mailing list, send an email to WARWICK@rootsweb.com. > > __________________________________________________________ > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to WARWICK-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 WARWICK Digest, Vol 7, Issue 117 > *************************************** >

Still happens today. Many elderly people class benefits as charity. Jackie -----Original Message----- From: warwick-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:warwick-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Connie Sent: 26 July 2012 01:09 To: warwick@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [WAR] 1874 and beyond Jan Rockett wrote: > Pensions came in 1 January 1909 and a man had to be 70. lived here for > 20 years and be a British subject and it was means tested. Hallo I heard that many of those entitled to a pension refused to claim it as they "didn't want charity". Connie in London ------------------------------- List archives are at http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/index/WARWICK ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to WARWICK-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Jan Rockett wrote: > Pensions came in 1 January 1909 and a man had to be 70. lived here for 20 > years and be a British subject > and it was means tested. Hallo I heard that many of those entitled to a pension refused to claim it as they "didn't want charity". Connie in London

Pensions came in 1 January 1909 and a man had to be 70. lived here for 20 years and be a British subject and it was means tested. Here is a table he pension was paid as follows: £21 p/a Rate of Pension 5s p/w. (25p) £21 to £23 12s 6d p/a Rate of Pension 4s p/w. (20p) £23 12s 6d to £26 5s p/a Rate of Pension 3s p/w. (15p) £26 5s to £28 17s 6b p/a Rate of Pension 2s p/w. (10p) £28 17s 6b to £31 10s p/a Rate of Pension 1s p/w. (5p) National insurance came a few years later. They sent forms out and presumably you had to prove your work record. Are you sure he wasnt registered? Jan -----Original Message----- From: Bob Douglas Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2012 10:46 PM To: warwick@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [WAR] 1874 and beyond He may have been able to get a certified copy of baptism Bob -----Original Message----- From: warwick-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:warwick-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Robert Holmes Sent: 25 July 2012 13:32 To: warwick@rootsweb.com Subject: [WAR] 1874 and beyond I read quite recently that about 1874 it became the duty of parents to report a birth rather than the registar going in search of birth. My grandfather was born around 1873 and may therefore have been one of the 30 percent of unreported births. Question is how did they get a pension assuming they lived to 65? Was a birth cert required ; could they register retrospectively etc Bob Holmes in tropical Axbridge ------------------------------- List archives are at http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/index/WARWICK ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to WARWICK-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message ------------------------------- List archives are at http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/index/WARWICK ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to WARWICK-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

He may have been able to get a certified copy of baptism Bob -----Original Message----- From: warwick-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:warwick-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Robert Holmes Sent: 25 July 2012 13:32 To: warwick@rootsweb.com Subject: [WAR] 1874 and beyond I read quite recently that about 1874 it became the duty of parents to report a birth rather than the registar going in search of birth. My grandfather was born around 1873 and may therefore have been one of the 30 percent of unreported births. Question is how did they get a pension assuming they lived to 65? Was a birth cert required ; could they register retrospectively etc Bob Holmes in tropical Axbridge ------------------------------- List archives are at http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/index/WARWICK ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to WARWICK-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

It's obvious from the frequency of wrong ages on marriage and death certificates that until relatively recently birth certificates were not required to be produced when registering those events. Many young men also claimed to be older than they were when joining the army or navy, so they couldn't have been required to present proof or age either. Lots more things were taken on trust in those days, and even in living memory. It should also be said that pension entitlements for most people were very minimal, so a few errors would have been peanuts compared with today's benefit fraud. MAR in France. > Message du 25/07/12 14:33 > De : "Robert Holmes" > A : warwick@rootsweb.com > Copie à : > Objet : [WAR] 1874 and beyond > > I read quite recently that about 1874 it became the duty of parents to > report a birth rather than the registar going in search of birth. My > grandfather was born around 1873 and may therefore have been one of the > 30 percent of unreported births. Question is how did they get a pension > assuming they lived to 65? Was a birth cert required ; could they > register retrospectively etc > > > Bob Holmes in tropical Axbridge > ------------------------------- > List archives are at http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/index/WARWICK > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to WARWICK-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message >

My grandfather was born in 1870 and never registered. Just prior to WW! His former schoolmaster wrote a letter to the authorities explaining how ill health had prevented his mother from registering the birth within the prescribed period. Included in the letter was a handwritten transcript of the baptism entry from the church record. The letter, which I have, is accompanied by a second one from the schoolmaster to my grandfather explaining that he cannot register in retrospect but that the one provided will provide him with protection from the authorities should they decide to call him up as being of service age - which at 44 he wasn't! Dennis ------------------------------------ On 25/07/2012 12:31, "Robert Holmes" <holmes@holmesr923.plus.com> wrote: >I read quite recently that about 1874 it became the duty of parents to >report a birth rather than the registar going in search of birth. My >grandfather was born around 1873 and may therefore have been one of the >30 percent of unreported births. Question is how did they get a pension >assuming they lived to 65? Was a birth cert required ; could they >register retrospectively etc > > >Bob Holmes in tropical Axbridge >------------------------------- >List archives are at >http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/index/WARWICK > >------------------------------- >To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to >WARWICK-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the >quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Hi Bob The powers that be used other means to prove the birth date claimed Census in some cases or baptism, but also signed declarations, Army records etc If you think about it, if there were retrospective birth registration they would still have to prove it in the same way Apart from the obvious missing the registration, was he born to married parents or even to those parents, there was no official adoption system in England until 1927 Nivard Ovington in Cornwall (UK) On 25/07/2012 13:31, Robert Holmes wrote: > I read quite recently that about 1874 it became the duty of parents to > report a birth rather than the registar going in search of birth. My > grandfather was born around 1873 and may therefore have been one of the > 30 percent of unreported births. Question is how did they get a pension > assuming they lived to 65? Was a birth cert required ; could they > register retrospectively etc > > > Bob Holmes in tropical Axbridge

I read quite recently that about 1874 it became the duty of parents to report a birth rather than the registar going in search of birth. My grandfather was born around 1873 and may therefore have been one of the 30 percent of unreported births. Question is how did they get a pension assuming they lived to 65? Was a birth cert required ; could they register retrospectively etc Bob Holmes in tropical Axbridge

Janet, WOW! You have certainly givem me a lot to dig into. Before the army records were available on line, I had a researcher get me copies of the records for Henry, and my great-grandfather. So I had all Henry's army info. I too could not understand why I could not find Henry in the 1851 census. Out of the country with his parents in a foreign posting???? Many unanswered questions, but you have certainly given me much to think about and research. My cousin, Ross Craddock will be very pleased that there is a possiblily of finding his grandfathers info. Thank you so much for your help. George M. McCaig

George, Have you found the Military record on Findmypast of a Henry CRADDOCK born c1841 in Birmingham. If this is your Henry, it is 9 pages long and gives quite a bit of detail. He would appear to be the Henry CRADDOCK in the 1881 census Benenden, Kent who is married to an Agnes, who is aged 23 and born in Scotland, together with children Eliza M and Henry A, both born in Sunderland, Durham. It looks as if the CRADDOCK family in Smethwick in the 1841 census may have originated in Inkberrow, Worcestershire. There is a (presumably) daughter Jane born c1821 (1841 ages should be rounded down to the nearest 5 years) not in the county and IGI Family Search has a baptism on 24 December 1820 at Inkberrow, parents John & Mary together with several siblings amongst whom is a Henry baptised 20 June 1813. So far so good. Also on Findmypast is the Military record of a Henry CRADDOCK born c1813 at Hinkborough (presumably Inkberrow), Worcester, Worcestershire - could this be a record confirming the suspicion you referred to re Henry snr?? Now this could be interesting. 1861 census of Plumstead Kent (RG9/410, folio 135, page 7) shows a Henry CRADDOCK, aged 48, unmarried, Carpenter, born Inkborough, Worcestershire (Ancestry have transcribed it as Sudborough) visiting the household of a John ALLBURY and family. Again another snippet of information that ties in with the information you already have. Could wife Mary have died after the birth of Henry jnr and as his father was serving in the Army abroad, Henry jnr stayed with his grandparents, but then why can't I find Henry jnr in the 1851 census as he himself did not enlist in the Army until 1859. I can't find Henry snr in subsequent census records to the 1861 census, but there is a death registration in the June qtr 1863 at Birmingham reg district for a Henry CRADDOCK which may be relevant as Henry jnr gives his birthplace as Birmingham. 1840/41 is very early on in registration terms, so it could be that Henry jnr's birth was not registered and as his possible father was still in the Army he may not have been baptised at around the time of his birth. I'm not sure that this is providing you with any definitive information, but may give you some other avenues to explore. Janet I have been having great difficulty in locating the birth records of my grandmother's first husband. In all records he declared his birthplace to be Birmingham. Reading several posts I found that I should search Staffordshire, and Worcestershire, in addition to Warwickshire as many people born in the area of Birmingham give that as their birthplace for convenience. In searching Sraffordshire I found what I believe to be the individual I am researching His name was Henry CRADDOCK, born about 1841. I found a Henry, age 5 months on the 1841 census, which was taken June 7, 1841, in the Hamlet of Smethwick, Harbourne Parish. He does not appear to be living with his parents who are reported to be Henry CRADDOCK and Mary WESTWOOD, but with possible grandparents (or great-grandparents) John CRADDOCK and spouse Mary, aged 65 years. How would I locate the marriage records for Henry & Mary. There is the suspicion that he may have been in the army, and was later a carpenter. I have not found anything on the LDS site so far.

Nivard, Thank you very much for your advise, and clarifying the census listing for me. The copy I have is very dificult to read, had to do some research to figure out the name of the Hamlet being Smethwick. It would appear they were all born in England, but in a different county from where they were residing at the time of the census. With the proximity of the three counties I guess I have my work cut out for me. The sole surviving Canadian grandson of the Henry Craddock, plus other grandchildren in the U.S. have been looking for years for info. I am descendant of the second marriage of my grandmotther, and have documented her line to a 1795 Marriage in Old Cumnock, Ayrshire. But the Craddock line has been difficult. His age has always been recorded as being born about 1840-41. He enlisted in the 2nd Warwick Regiment of Militia January 27, 1859, was released March 22, 1859 to enlist in the 2nd Balltalina, 20th Regiment of Foot in Plymouth, Devonshire. Embarked for Bombay November 15, 1860, and transferred to the 106th Bengal Light Infantry November 1, 1864. My great-grandfather was the regimental tailor for the 106th so that is how he met my grandmother. They married after the regiment returned to England. I guess I should search in the Devonshire records as possibly the family came from there, being the reason he enlisted in a Devon regiment. I really appreciate all the suggestions you have made, and will follow up on them. George M. McCaig

Hi George Civil registration started in England and Wales in mid 1837 but up to approx 1850 many births went unregistered for various reasons Events were registered locally and those were then passed back quarterly to the General Records Office who then compiled an index for them , one for births, marriages and deaths You can check that index on freebmd http://www.freebmd.org.uk/ In the early years (before 1874) the onus was on the registrar to seek out the events in his area, there was no penalty for not registering and as I said many birth events were missed Checking freebmd there does not appear to be an event for your Henry , that might mean he was registered but the registration was not passed to the GRO or he might be registered under another name (were his parents married?) Its estimated as many as one third of births were not registered and yours may be one of them I am afraid I would take issue with your statement that Henry and household were born in the County enumerated though Look at the last but one column, where born in County they have a Y for Yes on some entries but the CRADDOCK household has No (where it should state N but the enumerator seems to have qualified that) The household is as follows IMHO Source Citation: Class: HO107; Piece: 980; Book: 7; Civil Parish: Harborne; County: Staffordshire; Enumeration District: 7; Folio: 11; Page: 15; Line: 6 Hamlet of Smethwick Parish of Harbourne Rolf street Hannah MOSLEY 45 N John CRADDOCK 65 N Jome? CRADDOCK 22 N (female) Mary CRADDOCK 65 N Henry CRADDOCK 5months N Hannah MOSLEY may be related or may simply be the head of household or property owner occupier and the CRADDOCKs were boarders Ages were rounded down to the nearest five above 15 years of age so John CRADDOCK could be 69 down to 65 if the enumerator did his job right (he clearly didn't with the age 22) I would very much recommend viewing some of the tutorials on familysearch on research in England & Wales , they are very good and put things in context https://familysearch.org/learningcenter/home.html For example Principle Sources for British Research - Pre 1837 Records of Births, Marriages and Deaths Researching in the British Isles Do also be aware that English/Welsh civil records contain less detail than the Scottish ones but on the other hand start earlier and the Parish records on the whole contain more detail than the Scottish OPRs Do you have more on the Henry and Mary you seek the marriage for? years etc , if you found them in another census please post the census reference and details Nivard Ovington in Cornwall (UK) On 17/07/2012 16:36, George McCaig wrote: > Greetings all, > > > > I have been having great difficulty in locating the birth records of my grandmother's first husband. In all records he declared his birthplace to be Birmingham. Reading several posts I found that I should search Staffordshire, and Worcestershire, in addition to Warwickshire as many people born in the area of Birmingham give that as their birthplace for convenience. > > > > In searching Sraffordshire I found what I believe to be the individual I am researching His name was Henry CRADDOCK, born about 1841. I found a Henry, age 5 months on the 1841 census, which was taken June 7, 1841, in the Hamlet of Smethwick, Harbourne Parish. He does not appear to be living with his parents who are reported to be Henry CRADDOCK and Mary WESTWOOD, but with possible grandparents (or great-grandparents) John CRADDOCK and spouse Mary, aged 65 years. > > > > Nearly all my research has been in Scotland which records I am very familiar. However I know nothing about English records and sources. > > Question (s): How would I locate his birth record. The census is recorded as born in the same county? > > How would I locate the marriage records for Henry & Mary. There is the suspicion that he may have been in the army, and was later a carpenter. I have not found anything on the LDS site so far. > > > > Any guidance will be greatly appreciated. > > > > George M. McCaig, > > Burlington, Ontario

Greetings all, I have been having great difficulty in locating the birth records of my grandmother's first husband. In all records he declared his birthplace to be Birmingham. Reading several posts I found that I should search Staffordshire, and Worcestershire, in addition to Warwickshire as many people born in the area of Birmingham give that as their birthplace for convenience. In searching Sraffordshire I found what I believe to be the individual I am researching His name was Henry CRADDOCK, born about 1841. I found a Henry, age 5 months on the 1841 census, which was taken June 7, 1841, in the Hamlet of Smethwick, Harbourne Parish. He does not appear to be living with his parents who are reported to be Henry CRADDOCK and Mary WESTWOOD, but with possible grandparents (or great-grandparents) John CRADDOCK and spouse Mary, aged 65 years. Nearly all my research has been in Scotland which records I am very familiar. However I know nothing about English records and sources. Question (s): How would I locate his birth record. The census is recorded as born in the same county? How would I locate the marriage records for Henry & Mary. There is the suspicion that he may have been in the army, and was later a carpenter. I have not found anything on the LDS site so far. Any guidance will be greatly appreciated. George M. McCaig, Burlington, Ontario

True, this is a new listing, but more than 90% of them link to PPP pages without going through the front end - I have filed a complaint to Google I will try to block this site accessing the data without passing through the main indexes ! If it continues to have broken links without a way of contacting the owner, I believe it will rapidly fall out of use. Happy Hunting Pickard ----- Original Message ----- From: "Connie" <connie.sparrer@gmail.com> To: <warwick@rootsweb.com> Sent: Wednesday, July 11, 2012 7:44 PM Subject: Re: [WAR] Warwickshire Ancestry website > Tony Knight wrote: >> This seems heavily commercial with lots of click throughs earning money >> for >> the webmaster. >> Strange that Tillie has posted similar to at least 5 lists? > > Hallo > > The simple thing is not to click on the ads but to ignore them. They are > click throughs and they do not earn anything for the webmaster but they > can earn money for the advertisers. > > Just go to the links listed in blue. Some of them are broken. At least > one is new and not yet up and running. > > I see nothing strange about someone bringing a resource to the attention > of a list. > > I have seen this resource on other lists but not posted by Tillie. > > Connie in London > >

Jean wrote: > Hi Connie, > > I receive the Warwickshire list but don't know how to put my own > question on it. I am seeking Russell's and Ann Golaspy in the mid > to late 1700s. Replied off list

Neil Grantham wrote: > Does one really need consent for adding a link to another website? > > Surely, you are getting free advertising of your website. > > Search Engines use 'Spiders' to build their search Engine > Databases, and certainly don't ask your permission to add your > website. If you have a website that is informational based, for the > good of others, what's the problem? Hallo No site really needs consent to add a link to another, but it is polite do ask. The main point of my mail to Carol Eales was that her transcipts had NOT been lifted at all. It was merely a link to the site where her transcripts are. If the FreeAncestry site can highlight new or different resources for researchers, then I, for one, do not see it as a problem for anyone. Connie in London