Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - Melbell

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 ... 45
Wales / Re: Owen/John
« on: Saturday 08 December 18 10:10 GMT (UK)  »
Thanks for your replies.  I did look this up online before asking here and there was some suggestion that the names were somehow linked, but I think you are right.


Wales / Owen/John
« on: Friday 07 December 18 17:45 GMT (UK)  »
Is the Christian name Owen likely to be used interchangeably with John in 18th/19th Century Wales?  Or am I barking up the wrong tree here?

Advice gratefully received,

The Lighter Side / Re: New program starting Monday 3rd Dec - My Family Secrets Revealed
« on: Tuesday 04 December 18 10:29 GMT (UK)  »
I agree with the consensus here.  As soon as I saw the familiar green leaves my heart dropped.  I think this is a barely-disguised money spinner - jumping on the trendy FH band wagon.

I'm going to give it a miss.


The Common Room / Re: New marriage license records at Findmypast
« on: Friday 30 November 18 16:08 GMT (UK)  »
Wish they'd spell Licences properly though.

Melbell  :'(

The Common Room / Re: Birth registration 17 years late?
« on: Wednesday 28 November 18 14:17 GMT (UK)  »
Well I have learnt something today after researching for donkeys years, I never knew  the children had to be re-registered and legitimised my nieces were registered in their mothers  marriage name (to be) anyway , if they were in her maiden name I could understand that, I also think that not many do re-register their children

Thank you for clarifying that point even though I was not the originator

Louisa Maud

Registrars arranging a couple's marriage will advise about re-registration of children and hand out the appropriate forms, but for religious marriages this is unlikely to happen, so the procedure gets missed. 


The Common Room / Re: BARNETT/GUNTER - Surname Puzzle in Peasmarsh
« on: Wednesday 07 November 18 10:48 GMT (UK)  »
Hi All

I've had this post moved in the hope that some of you will help me out.  It's not really a Sussex problem, much more general - about the confusion of the surnames.

Thanks in advance

For what it's worth, I agree with groom: FindMyPast is a good site and I have always found it more user-friendly than Ancestry.  But I am perservering with Ancestry and getting to know its querks, and therefore getting more good results.  All the sites are different.  The Gene also has its peculiarities but again you have to get used to it and 'manipulate' it to get what you want.


The Common Room / BARNETT/GUNTER - Surname Puzzle in Peasmarsh
« on: Sunday 21 October 18 16:40 BST (UK)  »
Dear Sussex Rootschatters

I'd welcome your thoughts about the following conundrum please.  Basically, am I justified in thinking that these people are all part of one happy family?

All the following records are taken from the SFHG Sussex Marriage Index and the Data Archive, but I have not looked at the actual registers.

9 October 1780 St. Mary Udimore - John Barnet GONTER (sic) married Hannah REEVES botp

Baptism in Udimore
14 October 1783 Elizabeth BARNET/Elizabeth GUNTER d. of John GUNTER & Hannah BARNET

Burials in Udimore none relevant

Baptisms in Peasmarsh
21 November 1784 William son of John & Hannah BARNET
29 January 1786 John son of John Gunter BARNET & Hannah BARNET
2 May 1790 Sarah GUNTER daughter of John GUNTER & Hannah Barnet GUNTER
14 August 1791 Hannah GUNTER daughter of John GUNTER & Hannah Barnet GUNTER
1 December 1805 Mahala Neeves BARNETT baseborn child of Sarah BARNETT

Marriages in Peasmarsh
2 June 1805 Elizabeth Barnett GUNTER m. William HOOK
12 June 1813 Hannah BARNETT m. Richard HOOK, widower

Burials in Peasmarsh
12 December 1829 Hannah BARNETT aged 76 (therefore born 1752/3)
5 December 1831 John BARNETT aged 74 (therefore born 1756/7)
No GUNTER burials

Apart from her baptism there is no other record of a Sarah GUNTER in Peasmarsh.

I'd be grateful to know what you think.

The Common Room / Re: Ancestry - information added to my family tree not by me
« on: Sunday 21 October 18 12:10 BST (UK)  »
What strikes me about all this is that these trees are never really 'Private' but open to all sorts of hacking and abuse however you try to protect them.  Ancestry (or whoever) are the real owners of 'your' information once you give it to them. 

Just glad I never have.


Pages: [1] 2 3 4 ... 45