Hello list I was in contact with Gareth earlier this year, on the subject of ribbon-makers from Nuneaton in my EVERITT ancestry. For the record: ggmother Elizabeth Alice EVERITT b&d Nuneaton (1876-99) m William PIGGOTT (1867-1923) of Stamford Elizabeth's brother and sister: Thomas George (b1879 nr Stockport), Bertha Kate (b1882 Nuneaton) Elizabeth's parents: George EVERITT (b1847 Nuneaton, d?) and Sarah CROFTS (b Chilvers Coton c1845, d after 1901) George's sister: Elizabeth b Nuneaton (1845-1931) unmarried George's parents: John EVERITT (b&d Nuneaton, 1819-1848) and Catherine SAUNDERS (b&d Nuneaton, 1824-1900) John's siblings: Henry (1818-19), Charles (1821-23), Jane (b1824), William (1825-31), Henry (1829-81), James (b1831), George (1834-36) John's parents: Henry EVERITT (b ?Exhall, d Nuneaton, 1795-1875) and Elizabeth Keen (b Burton Hastings, Warwicks, 1792-1865) Henry's siblings: John (b1785), Henry (1791-3), William (b&d 1793) Henry's parents: John EVERITT (1758-1821) and Ann ALEXANDER (1758-1832) - gravestone in Nuneaton St Nicolas churchyard. John was the brother of Gareth's 3xgt grandfather Joseph. As with Gareth, I have relied heavily on the IGI for most of the pre-1800 ancestry, but am fairly confident of accuracy. John Riley Bourne, Lincs ----- Original Message ---- Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2007 02:24:44 +0200 From: "Gareth" <everitt@xs4all.nl> Subject: Re: [WAR] [EVERITT-UK] Everitts in Warwickshire To: <everitt-uk@rootsweb.com> Cc: WARWICK@rootsweb.com, s.everitt@ntlworld.com Message-ID: <000a01c7e909$d5841890$0100000a@D3Q5PK2J> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=original Hi Steve My " lot " also come from Nuneaton, I think we mailed a few years ago but didn't have ( then ) any the same. I am a bit further as presumably are you, so I thought I would post the tree so far. There is me b Kennington 1954 Dad b Upham 1927 All born in Coventry -- Selina 1861, Sarah 1862, Ada 1869,Agnes 1872 William ( Grandfather ) 1873, Maud 1876 and James b 1880 London. Parents - William EVERITT and Maria KEENE. William from Nuneaton Maria from Coventry All born Nuneaton -- Sarah 1829, Ann 1831, William ( gr grandfather ) 1833, James 1837, Jane 1839, Maria 1842, Sarah 1847. Parents Joseph EVERITT and Maria FORD both from Nuneaton Born Nuneaton Joseph 1805 ( gr gr G )no siblings found as yet Parents Joseph EVERITT and Jane Jeffery both from Nuneaton Born Nuneaton John 1758, Ann 1762, Mary 1764, Thomas 1766, Joseph 1769 ( gr gr gr G ) Parents Joseph EVERITT and Sarah RAISON both from Nuneaton Born Nuneaton Joseph 1732 ( gr gr gr gr G ) no siblings as yet Parents John EVERITT and ??? Born Nuneaton John and Henry both 1709 Parents Henry EVERITT c 1680 and ??? Everything after 1800 confirmed in parish records, BMD, IGI, certificates etc. Before 1800 from IGI and other researchers of the same family - must plan a week in England to do some more research. On the above obviously much more info dates, husbands, wives etc etc by any connections drop me a line Cheers for now Gareth ----- Original Message ----- From: "s.everitt" <s.everitt@ntlworld.com> To: <everitt-uk@rootsweb.com> Sent: Friday, August 24, 2007 3:16 PM Subject: [EVERITT-UK] Everitts in Warwickshire > Hi my name is Steve Everitt and i am researching Everits in Warwickshire > especially around the Nuneaton ,Atherstone area.Is there anyone else > looking at this .Look for forward to hearing from you > > steve

<<< I have relied heavily on the IGI for most of the pre-1800 ancestry, but am fairly confident of accuracy>>>> Hello Researchers. A word of caution. Always check the original whenever you can! The main problem with using the IGI alone is that you miss any burials. If you have the NBI and it covers the years you need, you may be able to confirm that people did not die as infants- that is if the age at burial was recorded. This is one of the reasons I am concentrating on the Burial records for FreeREG (when I get time) However, nothing beats trawling the PRs films- you get much more insight into the records. For example , you may come across a "dodgy" surname and realise that the person who wrote up the registers at this time period was barely literate and doing his best! ( I have seen marriage records where the couple had signed their names but the clerk had mis-spelt them - He also had atrocious writing). You may note a change of Incumbent - so realise why half a dozen children from one family are suddenly herded into church to be baptised on the same day ! You may note that name of a witness to a marriage that has puzzled you for ages was actually the churchwarden and witnessed a few dozen more marriages and is no relation to your lines at all! I must say that the IGI records from the "controlled extractions" are really very good, but I have found errors in them probably due to difficult handwriting -or faded pages . Any index will contain errors - some due to how the person has interpreted the original , others from typos and human error. ( It is interesting to note how a porrly written census record may be interpreted in several ways by different people- and who is to say at this stage which version is correct?) I rarely look at "Patron Submissions" or LDS member's contributions. on the IGI. Many of these seem to verge on fantasy. One trap for the unwary is to use the IGI as though it is a complete Index. Warwickshire is well covered for certain years but there are many gaps and omissions. You really should not add a name to your tree solely from the records found in the IGI without verification or evidence that Mr X from 40 miles away is your chap, based solely on finding a name and age that look right! Always check the original whenever you can! Good hunting Wendy Warwickshire FreeREG & 1841 & 1861 FreeCEN Coord www.hunimex.com/warwick

Wendy: > > I rarely look at "Patron Submissions" or LDS member's contributions. on > the IGI. > Many of these seem to verge on fantasy. > The patron submitted entries are only as good as the submitter, and obviously these vary widely. And many entries do appear to verge on fantasy, simply because of the LDS rule that a missing birth should be assumed to be 25 years before marriage for a man and 21 years for a woman. These are obviously nonsense. But you're definitely missing out if you ignore all patron entries. They sometimes cover gaps in the LDS controlled extraction programme. They also sometimes give cross references known from family records which are very hard to discover from parish registers - for example quoting both parents of a christening, with mother's maiden name; or the death of a married woman recorded under her maiden name. The advice about checking with the original where possible is particularly necessary for patron submitted entries, but don't ignore them - there are some real nuggets of gold there. Best wishes Paul Prescott