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 - Sloe Gin

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 ... 246
The Lighter Side / Re: On-line family tree
« on: Sunday 17 March 19 19:35 GMT (UK)  »


I can see from the marriage record that Thomas married Ann bentford 1698 easy Ilsley but can find no baptism of Ann so maybe she came from outside the county.

That marriage was at Compton, not East Ilsley.  No other records there for Bentford, and no baptisms there to the couple.

The marriage is after the first two baptisms to Thomas & Anne Bolton in East Ilsley, so make of that what you will  ;)

The Lighter Side / Re: On-line family tree
« on: Sunday 17 March 19 17:15 GMT (UK)  »
It was perfectly clear, and I still don't understand your outrage.  It's just an example.  Would you be equally offended if they had entered "A.N. Other"?

The Lighter Side / Re: On-line family tree
« on: Saturday 16 March 19 19:02 GMT (UK)  »
I'm with Erato here.  Why should they know whether you're using your birth surname or not?
Nothing to see here, move on.

The Common Room / Re: Ordering documents from Kew
« on: Friday 15 March 19 11:45 GMT (UK)  »
Horsleydown86, are you saying the £8.40 comes off the end cost? When I read the fees page, it gave the impression otherwise. Hence my dismay.
I have to disagree about the fee being reasonable. These are archivists who are paid to look after the documents and to respond to enquiries. If the fee is deducted from the total cost then perhaps it is more reasonable. If it is not, then I stand by my remarks of highway robbery.
For people from afar, with no chance of going in person, it is unreasonable.
And where do you think the money for their wages comes from?  And the money for all the other overheads? 
It costs a lot to provide these services, and it seems fair to me that some of the cost is borne by people who actually use them.

The Common Room / Re: Hopefully a helpful suggestion
« on: Thursday 07 March 19 00:49 GMT (UK)  »
An honest person would post again conceding that they had been wrong

Quite right!

This has happened to me. In a few cases its been clear that the person concerned, having realised they'd made some sort of error, has gone back and completely altered the text of their reply. I'd have more regard for them if they'd admitted that their reply was incorrect rather than doing a furtive edit.

Thanks, Jen, you get it.
I'd like to make it clear that I was not referring to anyone posting on Rootschat.  It was a person on another forum (and not a family history forum).

The Common Room / Re: Hopefully a helpful suggestion
« on: Wednesday 06 March 19 17:00 GMT (UK)  »
I am not sure it is deliberate dishonesty,perhaps the poster did not notice something even when they read through their posts before posting.
Also when you read through you sometimes see how your comments could be misconstrued and then things can get a bit ,er difficult. ::)
To avoid that I alter as soon as I can so plead guilty .
But a valid point , Mart.

Take it from me, the individual I spoke of was being deliberately deceitful in order to save her face.  It also made those who had responded look foolish. 
An honest person would post again conceding that they had been wrong or bowing to someone with greater knowledge, but not this individual. 

The Common Room / Re: Hopefully a helpful suggestion
« on: Monday 04 March 19 16:44 GMT (UK)  »
There was a woman on another forum that I used to frequent who was very .... forthright with her opinions.  She was a condescending know-it-all type, but she was also sometimes wrong.  She would of course never admit to being wrong, that sort never do.
She was a past master at going back to her post and making alterations to it, so that the context of any responses was lost, and the replies then seemed to make little sense.

I soon learned never to reply to her without quoting the full text of her post, so that she couldn't change what she'd written without revealing her dishonesty.

The Common Room / Re: 1841 Census household order
« on: Sunday 03 March 19 17:04 GMT (UK)  »
I suppose there's no surviving example of an 1841 household schedule?

Some surviving Shropshire 1841 schedules were found and studied by Donald Davis, and there is a fascinating article about them, "The householders’ schedules in the 1841 census"

Brilliant!  Thank you.  That answers the OP's question.
Notice they were told to begin with the head of the family.
Also they could give the exact ages "if the person prefers it". 

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 ... 246