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 - JohninSussex

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 ... 54
1
Surrey / Re: John William Banks 1787 East Ham - 1868 1 Melior Place, Surrey
« on: Saturday 11 November 23 22:57 GMT (UK)  »
Quote from: K Rees on Saturday 11 November 23 21:48 GMT (UK)

How to confuse amateur researchers!

Name   Samuel Cooper Banks
Sex   Male
Father's Name   John Banks
Father's Sex   Male
Mother's Name   Sarah
Mother's Sex   Female
Event Type   Christening
Event Date   13 Apr 1817
Event Place   St Mary Magdalene's Church, East Ham, Newham, London, England, United Kingdom
Event Place (Original)   Saint Mary Magdalene, Bermondsey, London, England

Can someone advise or can someone produce evidence from Parish church at East Ham that he was baptised there as well?
Keith

Where does that record come from?  Why do they have a field for "Father's sex" etc?

Given the coincidence of church names, I would suggest it is overwhelmingly likely that whatever artificial NON intelligence created that record had no interest in distinguishing between different St Mary' Magdalen churches in London.  Family Search by any chance?

2
Surrey / Re: John William Banks 1787 East Ham - 1868 1 Melior Place, Surrey
« on: Saturday 11 November 23 19:36 GMT (UK)  »
Quote from: ShaunJ on Friday 10 November 23 05:43 GMT (UK)
Providence Buildings, Mill Street, Bermondsey:

James Banks 35 Waterman
Rosina 30
James  7
Thomas 4
Ann 3
Rosina 3 months

Just a reminder that in 1841 :
"35" means anything from 35 to just under 40
"30" likewise is 30 to 34+.

3
The Common Room / Re: Missing GRO Record
« on: Tuesday 18 July 23 18:57 BST (UK)  »
Quote from: Tickettyboo on Tuesday 18 July 23 13:01 BST (UK)
Thank you to jonw65 and AntonyMMM I'd never have thought of trying a dash in the surname field.

I got nosey about this and checked 1861, by vol for death entries that use a dash. LOTS and that's just one year (see attached image, deaths only)
Boo

Births and Deaths are two different cases.
A Birth with no given name may be a child that didn't survive, or one who was registered before being given a name.
A Death with no name on the record is not necessarily a deceased infant.
It could be a dead body found in a field, a person lost at sea, a vagrant whose name nobody has ever known, or several other possibilities.

But if the register contains a surname, I can see no reason why that entry shouldn't be indexed as such.

4
The Common Room / Re: Bizarre Electoral Roll entry
« on: Friday 24 March 23 22:17 GMT (UK)  »
"Women did not have the vote " we are often told, in the 1890s.
That is true of elections to Parliament.

But certain women of substance could vote for county councillors and similar.

What you may have found is a supplementary Electoral roll listing those women who had a vote for local elections.  So your Thomas is perhaps listed in a different section of the register as he could vote for Parliament too.

Just a guess,  so (if you have images not just text) try scrolling the pages backwards until you find an introductory page or table of contents.

None of which explains the apparent inclusion of a baby.

5
The Common Room / Re: What does 'se'nnight' mean
« on: Tuesday 13 December 22 18:02 GMT (UK)  »
Quote from: AllanUK on Tuesday 13 December 22 14:13 GMT (UK)
When talking about a price of something that ends in a penny or pennies, I was always taught that a single penny would be 'a penny' and multiples would be 'pennies' -- these days it appears that the use of 'pennies' when talking plural has disappeared.

The plural of 'penny' meaning a specific coin is 'pennies'.
The plural of 'penny' meaning a unit of currency is 'pence'.
So I could buy something costing 50 pence by handing over fifty pennies.  (but the shopkeeper might get annoyed).

And I am old enough to remember sixpences (not sixpennieses)

6
Family History Beginners Board / Re: Grandmother's death confusion
« on: Tuesday 27 September 22 23:24 BST (UK)  »
Quote from: rob749 on Tuesday 27 September 22 18:54 BST (UK)

1938 is also a possibility, thought it might be Newcastle in Emlyn though, but Carmarthen's not far away.

Newcastle Emlyn was in Carmarthen registration district in 1938
https://www.ukbmd.org.uk/reg/districts/carmarthen.html

7
The Lighter Side / Re: Unusual First Names
« on: Tuesday 27 September 22 08:10 BST (UK)  »
Quote from: beyondsunrises on Tuesday 27 September 22 00:08 BST (UK)
The most unusual for me:

Mehetabella
Brewer (first name!)
Tieleman
Quinrinus
Melchisedech
Good (first name from the Puritan era)
Atlas
Willia
Jone
Gratia
Mathurin (French Huguenot)
Dudley (first name)
Turlogh
Giolla
Deopham
Cardrutt
Anisia
Laurencia
Virtue
Urian
Mabelia
Jerman
Bezallel
Zerubbabel

Dudley (first name) is not unusual at all.  When Peter Cook and Dudley Moore came on the box, I doubt if people thought "what an odd name" as we did when the first Kylie appeared along with Jason Donovan.

Jone is perfectly common in old records as a spelling of Joan.

8
The Common Room / Re: Has the wrong name been recorded?
« on: Saturday 17 September 22 14:00 BST (UK)  »
Quote from: J Buxton on Saturday 17 September 22 13:29 BST (UK)


Unfortunately this record was found in the Derbyshire Church of England Parish Registers:-

The marriage of William Newton (bachelor) residing in Stanfree to Hannah Morton (spinster) residing in Clowne was recorded on 15th January1883 at St Mary and St Laurence Church, Bolsover, Derbyshire.  Both bride and groom were recorded as being of full age.  The groom's father was William Newton and the bride's father was Joseph Morton. (Deceased).The witnesses were Charles Tempril and Elizabeth Highfield.  The groom and the first witness “made their mark”.  The marriage was registered in the first quarter of 1883 at Chesterfield (Vol 7b; page 917) .


The wording you have quoted is not the wording of any official document.  It reads like a robot used by some genealogy software to create complete sentences from an actual record found on FamilySearch or similar.  So we look for an original record, in this case here it is complete with an image
 
https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:2:77XT-KKVS?i=119&cc=1911752

So yes the groom is registered as William with a father named William and the groom made his mark so perhaps he didn't know he had been recorded as William.  But Hannah seems to have signed her own name so could probablly read enough to have spotted an error.  Most likely possibilities:
1) the vicar made a mistake and wrote William instead of the correct forename
2) the groom went by William as well as Francis, perhaps unlikely if he was christened Francis and known by that name later in life too.

There are too many matches for this to be an unrelated couple: have you checked whether there was a William Newton "residing in Stanfree"; maybe Francis had a brother named William?

9
Family History Beginners Board / Re: electoral rolls
« on: Saturday 17 September 22 13:34 BST (UK)  »
Quote from: jim1 on Saturday 17 September 22 11:44 BST (UK)
Depending on the date of the Register you're looking at
a woman under 30 wasn't eligible to vote until 1928
so won't appear until 1930.

Well I could just repeat the whole of what I wrote above:
Quote
I was going to post a simple answer to your question, but decided to read up on the Representation of the People Act 1918, which seems anything but simple.

[ ... ]

So your servant may not have had the vote unless they were a tenant of property in their own right.

(* - a woman over 21 had the same right as a man to vote in local elections but not necessarily in Parliamentary elections)

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 ... 54