I've just resubscribed with an offer on Facebook saving me 25%. However perhaps in the rush to get these records out they have indexed Myton parish records as Kilnwick Percy - and Langtoft as North Grimston. Worth looking for any other misindexing if you can't find a record you think should be there. Lin On 30/09/2014 14:20, janetlovegrove via wrote: > FindMyPast has just added a number of Yorkshire Records including Bishop Transcripts. Worth having a look, as I have found a number of mine in the BTs. > > Janet > ..... > Ancestors in Yorkshire? http://www.genuki.org.uk/big/eng/YKS/index.html; > www.ryedalefamilyhistory.org; www.wharfedalefhg.org.uk; > www.yorkshireparishregisters.com; www.yorkshireroots.org.uk; > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message > >

Thank you so much for all the work you have done for the Yorksgen list and for the help you have given me. I hope I will see you if I manage to get to England in 2015. Good Luck and good wishes Sara, I'm sure you will do well. Lorna Kay Tokoroa New Zealand -------------------------------------------- On Wed, 1/10/14, JANICE WOOD via <[email protected]> wrote: Subject: [YORKSGEN] Retirement To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> Received: Wednesday, 1 October, 2014, 8:06 AM Dear Listers, It is time for me to retire as your listowner. I took over the Yorksgen list on 6th February 2003. We have had our ups and downs, but I have enjoyed my time here and will continue to read and learn. I would like to take this opportunity to introduce you to your new List Administrator. Please welcome Sara McGinlay. Sara has been my friend and colleague for many years and a member of Yorksgen probably longer than I have! I am sure I leave you in good hands. I hope you will all continue to enjoy Yorksgen, gain lots of knowledge, make lots of friends and, most of all, discover more about the lives of your ancestors. Good hunting everyone, and good luck Sara! Janice Wood ex Yorksgen List Admin ..... Ancestors in Yorkshire? http://www.genuki.org.uk/big/eng/YKS/index.html; www.ryedalefamilyhistory.org; www.wharfedalefhg.org.uk; www.yorkshireparishregisters.com; www.yorkshireroots.org.uk; ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Hi Brad I have examples in my line, with a mariner being aboard ship and recorded at home One for example is Daniel OVINGTON, who is recorded twice in 1861, as master of the William Stoveld moored at Hamburg and again at home in Middlesbrough by his wife Betsy Daniel either filled in the schedule before setting sail or Betsy misunderstood and filled his name in Nivard Ovington in Cornwall (UK) On 30/09/2014 10:42, Brad Rogers via wrote: > On Tue, 30 Sep 2014 09:08:45 +0100 > Nivard Ovington via <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hello Nivard, > >> And no doubt others > > One that's rarely mentioned is for mariners; Being recorded once at the > place they occupied on census night, and once in the list of personnel > *not* aboard the vessel they sailed on. I have one person for whom that > is the case. It's one of those rare occasions when a person can > legitimately be recorded twice - by being present at one location and > absent at another. >

Yes, I think "natural born" was surely the charitable way the clergy would express it when there was no husband in evidence. On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 9:53 AM, Nivard Ovington via <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Brad > > Although we take husband to mean a married womans other half, its not > the only definition > > I thought Lin was thinking the children were legitimate and the husband > was away or transient but thats not the case > > Nivard Ovington in Cornwall (UK) > > On 29/09/2014 20:23, Brad Rogers via wrote: > > On Mon, 29 Sep 2014 19:12:55 +0100 > > Nivard Ovington via <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Hello Nivard, > > > >> Have I missed something? > > > > > > Maybe; One of the baptisms refers to Sarah's *husband* (John) being > > absent. That is, he left home at some time in the past for reasons not > > stated. So, Sarah was having children by at least one other man. > > Furthermore, with an absence of evidence to the contrary, I'd hazard a > > guess that her maiden name was not Ripley. > > > ..... > Ancestors in Yorkshire? http://www.genuki.org.uk/big/eng/YKS/index.html; > www.ryedalefamilyhistory.org; www.wharfedalefhg.org.uk; > www.yorkshireparishregisters.com; www.yorkshireroots.org.uk; > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message > -- Nancy McLaughlin Woodend, NZ [email protected]

On Tue, 30 Sep 2014 09:08:45 +0100 Nivard Ovington via <[email protected]> wrote: Hello Nivard, >And no doubt others One that's rarely mentioned is for mariners; Being recorded once at the place they occupied on census night, and once in the list of personnel *not* aboard the vessel they sailed on. I have one person for whom that is the case. It's one of those rare occasions when a person can legitimately be recorded twice - by being present at one location and absent at another. -- Regards _ / ) "The blindingly obvious is / _)rad never immediately apparent" Just stop and take a second U & Ur Hand - P!nk

I also have a case of this on the 1911 Census with my CHAMBERS great great grandmother, Paulina (maiden name GREEN) in Hoyland Nether. Her husband John had filled her in on the form but noted that she was away visiting. She was listed again as a visitor in the household of her daughter and son in law, Beatrice and Benjamin TOWNSEND along with one of her other daughters, the widowed Paulina Maud HAGUE (who I presume was actually living with Beatrice and Benjamin as she is listed as Sister in Law rather than Visitor as Paulina was. Katie NE Wales On 30 September 2014 09:08, Nivard Ovington via <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi Marg > > It is not as uncommon as you think > > Possibilities > > Ruth was living/visiting at the Horton address and George filled in her > name and Emily's as they usually lived there (many householders > misunderstood the instructions) > > They were estranged and George entered her details to save face > > They were in the middle of a move, farmers sometimes moved when their > tenancy came up for renewal > > They operated both properties farming land at both > > And no doubt others > > I notice Ruth was on her own in 1871 as well, George is enumerated but > crossed out as presumably he was not there on the night > > George is at home with his mother, could George have inherited his > mothers home? Looks like Martha died in 1878 > > Martha left £450 in her will a not insignificant sum in those days, > lending weight to the inheritance possibility > > > Nivard Ovington in Cornwall (UK) > > On 29/09/2014 23:55, Margaret Cambridge via wrote: > > I have a family at 2 different addresses that has me a bit puzzled. > > > > The wife, Ruth STIRK, is shown as head with 3 of her children. Her > husband, George, is recorded as head at a different address but Ruth is > also in the home. All the children are theirs and daughter Emily is > recorded in each household. > > I know that people filling out the census form can think that a family > member will be in the home on census night and for some reason they are > not. But.........2 different houses with the wife in one, the husband and > wife in the other. > > > > Can anyone think of a reason. Probably very simple and I'm just not > seeing it...-)) > > > > 1881 census: 15 Ann Place, Horton, Bradford > > Ruth Stirk, head, married, 49, Housekeeper, b Halifax > > Rosina Stirk, dau, 18, Dressmaker, b Bradford > > Annie Stirk, dau, 13, b Bradford > > Emily Stirk, dau, 9, Scholar, b Bingley > > Clara Athles, boarder, Married, 21, Governess, b Bristol > > > > 1881 census: Highfield, Morton in Keighley, Yorkshire > > George Stirk, head, 52, Gardener & Farmer, b Bradford > > Ruth Stirk, wife, 50, b Halifax > > Sarah Elizabeth, dau, 21, Dress and mantle maker, b Bradford > > James Stirk, son, 16, Scholar, b Bradford > > Emily Stirk, dau, 9, Scholar, b Bingley > > > > Thanks for any thoughts..... > > > > Marg > ..... > Ancestors in Yorkshire? http://www.genuki.org.uk/big/eng/YKS/index.html; > www.ryedalefamilyhistory.org; www.wharfedalefhg.org.uk; > www.yorkshireparishregisters.com; www.yorkshireroots.org.uk; > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message >

Thank you to everyone who responded with thoughts about family being recorded twice in the census. I have on a few occasions found a child recorded at home and also in the home of a relative which is understandable. But with the husband and wife being in 2 different places each with a couple of the children was a puzzle. On further research I found that George's mother died in 1878 so maybe he was at her home in 1881 although the address is different than the one recorded at her death. George's mother, Martha, was a grocer and on a couple of census returns George is recorded as grocer's shopman and later a Grocer & Tea Dealer and later a Grocer and a couple of his sons are grocer's shopman and Grocer's Journeyman so I guess they were assisting her with the business. Stirs the brain anyway.......... Marg >From the Beautiful British Columbia Cariboo Region, Canada ----- Original Message ----- From: "Nivard Ovington via" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2014 1:08 AM Subject: Re: [YORKSGEN] Listed twice in 1881 census Hi Marg It is not as uncommon as you think Possibilities Ruth was living/visiting at the Horton address and George filled in her name and Emily's as they usually lived there (many householders misunderstood the instructions) They were estranged and George entered her details to save face They were in the middle of a move, farmers sometimes moved when their tenancy came up for renewal They operated both properties farming land at both And no doubt others I notice Ruth was on her own in 1871 as well, George is enumerated but crossed out as presumably he was not there on the night George is at home with his mother, could George have inherited his mothers home? Looks like Martha died in 1878 Martha left £450 in her will a not insignificant sum in those days, lending weight to the inheritance possibility Nivard Ovington in Cornwall (UK) On 29/09/2014 23:55, Margaret Cambridge via wrote: > I have a family at 2 different addresses that has me a bit puzzled. > > The wife, Ruth STIRK, is shown as head with 3 of her children. Her > husband, George, is recorded as head at a different address but Ruth is > also in the home. All the children are theirs and daughter Emily is > recorded in each household. > I know that people filling out the census form can think that a family > member will be in the home on census night and for some reason they are > not. But.........2 different houses with the wife in one, the husband and > wife in the other. > > Can anyone think of a reason. Probably very simple and I'm just not > seeing it...-)) > > 1881 census: 15 Ann Place, Horton, Bradford > Ruth Stirk, head, married, 49, Housekeeper, b Halifax > Rosina Stirk, dau, 18, Dressmaker, b Bradford > Annie Stirk, dau, 13, b Bradford > Emily Stirk, dau, 9, Scholar, b Bingley > Clara Athles, boarder, Married, 21, Governess, b Bristol > > 1881 census: Highfield, Morton in Keighley, Yorkshire > George Stirk, head, 52, Gardener & Farmer, b Bradford > Ruth Stirk, wife, 50, b Halifax > Sarah Elizabeth, dau, 21, Dress and mantle maker, b Bradford > James Stirk, son, 16, Scholar, b Bradford > Emily Stirk, dau, 9, Scholar, b Bingley > > Thanks for any thoughts..... > > Marg

Hi Marg It is not as uncommon as you think Possibilities Ruth was living/visiting at the Horton address and George filled in her name and Emily's as they usually lived there (many householders misunderstood the instructions) They were estranged and George entered her details to save face They were in the middle of a move, farmers sometimes moved when their tenancy came up for renewal They operated both properties farming land at both And no doubt others I notice Ruth was on her own in 1871 as well, George is enumerated but crossed out as presumably he was not there on the night George is at home with his mother, could George have inherited his mothers home? Looks like Martha died in 1878 Martha left £450 in her will a not insignificant sum in those days, lending weight to the inheritance possibility Nivard Ovington in Cornwall (UK) On 29/09/2014 23:55, Margaret Cambridge via wrote: > I have a family at 2 different addresses that has me a bit puzzled. > > The wife, Ruth STIRK, is shown as head with 3 of her children. Her husband, George, is recorded as head at a different address but Ruth is also in the home. All the children are theirs and daughter Emily is recorded in each household. > I know that people filling out the census form can think that a family member will be in the home on census night and for some reason they are not. But.........2 different houses with the wife in one, the husband and wife in the other. > > Can anyone think of a reason. Probably very simple and I'm just not seeing it...-)) > > 1881 census: 15 Ann Place, Horton, Bradford > Ruth Stirk, head, married, 49, Housekeeper, b Halifax > Rosina Stirk, dau, 18, Dressmaker, b Bradford > Annie Stirk, dau, 13, b Bradford > Emily Stirk, dau, 9, Scholar, b Bingley > Clara Athles, boarder, Married, 21, Governess, b Bristol > > 1881 census: Highfield, Morton in Keighley, Yorkshire > George Stirk, head, 52, Gardener & Farmer, b Bradford > Ruth Stirk, wife, 50, b Halifax > Sarah Elizabeth, dau, 21, Dress and mantle maker, b Bradford > James Stirk, son, 16, Scholar, b Bradford > Emily Stirk, dau, 9, Scholar, b Bingley > > Thanks for any thoughts..... > > Marg

On Tue, 30 Sep 2014 10:49:20 +1300 Nancy McLaughlin via <[email protected]> wrote: Hello Nancy, >Yes, I think "natural born" was surely the charitable way the clergy >would express it when there was no husband in evidence. Better than "base born" and *much* better than "bastard", which does turn up sometimes. -- Regards _ / ) "The blindingly obvious is / _)rad never immediately apparent" Bet you think you're king but you're really a pawn When You're Young - The Jam

On Mon, 29 Sep 2014 21:53:00 +0100 Nivard Ovington via <[email protected]> wrote: Hello Nivard, >Although we take husband to mean a married womans other half, its not >the only definition Whilst that's true, in the context of comments added to a PR, I find it quite hard to make any sense of the term husband with any definition other than that of a husband & wife relationship. Not impossible, just difficult. -- Regards _ / ) "The blindingly obvious is / _)rad never immediately apparent" Now I found you out, I don't think you're so smart Who Are You - Black Sabbath

FindMyPast has just added a number of Yorkshire Records including Bishop Transcripts. Worth having a look, as I have found a number of mine in the BTs. Janet

My gt grandfather is listed twice in the 1891 census, once with all his family and again, alone at another address some 30 miles away. I think it happened not infrequently. David......................who wishes some of his ancestors were listed even once ! In a message dated 30/09/2014 00:44:12 GMT Daylight Time, [email protected] writes: Margaret Cambridge via wrote: I have a family at 2 different addresses that has me a bit puzzled.

Very strange. As George is a farmer at Hghfield could that be a farm? George is with his mother and one of his sons on 1871 census and Ruth is with the children at another address. Margaret Cambridge via wrote: I have a family at 2 different addresses that has me a bit puzzled. The wife, Ruth STIRK, is shown as head with 3 of her children. Her husband, George, is recorded as head at a different address but Ruth is also in the home. All the children are theirs and daughter Emily is recorded in each household. I know that people filling out the census form can think that a family member will be in the home on census night and for some reason they are not. But.........2 different houses with the wife in one, the husband and wife in the other. Can anyone think of a reason. Probably very simple and I'm just not seeing it...-)) 1881 census: 15 Ann Place, Horton, Bradford Ruth Stirk, head, married, 49, Housekeeper, b Halifax Rosina Stirk, dau, 18, Dressmaker, b Bradford Annie Stirk, dau, 13, b Bradford Emily Stirk, dau, 9, Scholar, b Bingley Clara Athles, boarder, Married, 21, Governess, b Bristol 1881 census: Highfield, Morton in Keighley, Yorkshire George Stirk, head, 52, Gardener & Farmer, b Bradford Ruth Stirk, wife, 50, b Halifax Sarah Elizabeth, dau, 21, Dress and mantle maker, b Bradford James Stirk, son, 16, Scholar, b Bradford Emily Stirk, dau, 9, Scholar, b Bingley Thanks for any thoughts..... Marg >From the Beautiful British Columbia Cariboo Region, Canada ..... Ancestors in Yorkshire? http://www.genuki.org.uk/big/eng/YKS/index.html; www.ryedalefamilyhistory.org; www.wharfedalefhg.org.uk; www.yorkshireparishregisters.com; www.yorkshireroots.org.uk; ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Hi Brad Although we take husband to mean a married womans other half, its not the only definition I thought Lin was thinking the children were legitimate and the husband was away or transient but thats not the case Nivard Ovington in Cornwall (UK) On 29/09/2014 20:23, Brad Rogers via wrote: > On Mon, 29 Sep 2014 19:12:55 +0100 > Nivard Ovington via <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hello Nivard, > >> Have I missed something? > > > Maybe; One of the baptisms refers to Sarah's *husband* (John) being > absent. That is, he left home at some time in the past for reasons not > stated. So, Sarah was having children by at least one other man. > Furthermore, with an absence of evidence to the contrary, I'd hazard a > guess that her maiden name was not Ripley. >

On Mon, 29 Sep 2014 19:12:55 +0100 Nivard Ovington via <[email protected]> wrote: Hello Nivard, >Have I missed something? Maybe; One of the baptisms refers to Sarah's *husband* (John) being absent. That is, he left home at some time in the past for reasons not stated. So, Sarah was having children by at least one other man. Furthermore, with an absence of evidence to the contrary, I'd hazard a guess that her maiden name was not Ripley. -- Regards _ / ) "The blindingly obvious is / _)rad never immediately apparent" Chose to play the fool in a six piece band What A Waste - Ian Dury And The Blockheads

Hi Lin Not sure if I am missing something but the entry natural son or daughter are for illegitimate births She may have had a long term partner but it suggests they were not married Have I missed something? Nivard Ovington in Cornwall (UK) On 29/09/2014 18:48, Lin via wrote: > One of my ancestors James RIPLEY according to the IGI was the son of > Sarah so have assumed for years that she was a single woman > > I've had the chance to look at the actual registers and have found that > James was 'the natural son of Sarah' > > I then looked at previous entries and found one some 9 years earlier > for Betty 'the natural born dau of Sarah born in the absence of her > husband John'. > > I have also found two other baptisms for 'natural born children of Sarah'. > > Thank goodness for the vicar's comment in the register otherwise I would > have been none the wiser as to my ancestor's lack of moral propriety!!! > > A story there I think which I will never know. > > Lin

One of my ancestors James RIPLEY according to the IGI was the son of Sarah so have assumed for years that she was a single woman I've had the chance to look at the actual registers and have found that James was 'the natural son of Sarah' I then looked at previous entries and found one some 9 years earlier for Betty 'the natural born dau of Sarah born in the absence of her husband John'. I have also found two other baptisms for 'natural born children of Sarah'. Thank goodness for the vicar's comment in the register otherwise I would have been none the wiser as to my ancestor's lack of moral propriety!!! A story there I think which I will never know. Lin

I have a family at 2 different addresses that has me a bit puzzled. The wife, Ruth STIRK, is shown as head with 3 of her children. Her husband, George, is recorded as head at a different address but Ruth is also in the home. All the children are theirs and daughter Emily is recorded in each household. I know that people filling out the census form can think that a family member will be in the home on census night and for some reason they are not. But.........2 different houses with the wife in one, the husband and wife in the other. Can anyone think of a reason. Probably very simple and I'm just not seeing it...-)) 1881 census: 15 Ann Place, Horton, Bradford Ruth Stirk, head, married, 49, Housekeeper, b Halifax Rosina Stirk, dau, 18, Dressmaker, b Bradford Annie Stirk, dau, 13, b Bradford Emily Stirk, dau, 9, Scholar, b Bingley Clara Athles, boarder, Married, 21, Governess, b Bristol 1881 census: Highfield, Morton in Keighley, Yorkshire George Stirk, head, 52, Gardener & Farmer, b Bradford Ruth Stirk, wife, 50, b Halifax Sarah Elizabeth, dau, 21, Dress and mantle maker, b Bradford James Stirk, son, 16, Scholar, b Bradford Emily Stirk, dau, 9, Scholar, b Bingley Thanks for any thoughts..... Marg >From the Beautiful British Columbia Cariboo Region, Canada

Hi - I have exhausted my resources so I throw out this question to see if anyone just might know of Henry Watkinson John Hargreaves (yes, all one person), who was the son of Henry Watkinson (1759-1831) of Halifax. Henry, the son, was alive in 1824 and was a Shop Keeper. Maybe someone has Henry, the son, in their line. Just a shot in the dark. Thanks. Carole

Yesterday at one of our meetings at the Society of Genealogists in London, I presided for the last time as Chairman over the London Group of Yorkshire Family History Societies. After more than a decade in the chair I stepped down because of personal commitments, especially moving from Hertfordshire to join my wife permanently at our other home in Poole, Dorset, while we have major improvements and extensions carried out and spend what remains of our senior years together. Living so far away from Yorkshire in the future means I will not be quite as available or accessible to do talks and lectures, etc, in Yorkshire, though I do hope to be able to attend the big family history fair on York Racecourse again, maybe next year. I will, however, continue to operate as a genealogist with specialisation in Yorkshire research and will continue to post and take part in discussions on Yorksgen and other Rootsweb groups. I shall also continue, hopefully, to write regularly for Family Tree magazine and run my one-name study of Stockdale/Stockdill and my website on celebrity family trees at: roystockdillgenealogy.com At yesterday's meeting I extended my thanks to all members of the London Group of Yorkshire Family History Societies, and especially to Committee members past and present who have given me support over the years I have been Chairman. We are a vibrant little group of people in the London area and the south-east with Yorkshire ancestors and I hope anyone reading this who would like to join will come along to the SoG and attend one of our meetings. See: http://yorkslondongroup.tumblr.com/ My worthy successor as Chairman is my very long-standing friend and colleague, John Hanson, who is widely known throughout the genealogical world. -- Roy Stockdill Genealogical researcher, writer & lecturer Famous family trees blog: http://blog.findmypast.co.uk/tag/roy-stockdill/ Reach For The Stars blog: roystockdillgenealogy.com "There is only one thing in the world worse than being talked about, and that is not being talked about." OSCAR WILDE