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 - StanleysChesterton

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 ... 70
Handwriting Deciphering & Recognition / Re: A shorthand puzzle
« on: Saturday 17 March 18 16:18 GMT (UK)  »
I learnt and taught shorthand 30-35 years ago (Pitman 2000) .... and this all looks "very similar", but, as others have said, there are many variations and people will develop their own bits and bobs over time depending on things they usually write.

Also, let's not forget, they spoke differently back then.

If it were, say, a business letter of the 1980s, we'd expect to be looking for "Dear Sirs, Thank you for your letter of ....." and similar, whereas 100 years ago they really did go "all round Will's aunts" to speak in an over-gushing and flowery manner :)

When trying to unravel the shorthand of others you rely a lot on "guesswork" to gather the gist and then back fill and rework what you first saw/thought... so without context etc it's nigh on impossible unless somebody looking happens to be au fait with that subject/industry/location and spot for themselves a "tasty clue" :)

World War One / Re: Where to find a map of lookout posts in WW2
« on: Tuesday 06 February 18 23:08 GMT (UK)  »
The Internet is a wonderful place, nerds can gather :)

The Common Room / Re: Help! with relative using different names
« on: Monday 05 February 18 18:29 GMT (UK)  »
The three names in the same column are all three of his full forenames.
His surname is his mother's surname, Beevers.

He was always Beevers, you've just "misread" it by seeing Garforth and thinking "that looks like a surname, so that must be his 2 forenames and 1 surname, when it's his 3 forenames.

The Common Room / Re: People increasing their age as they approach 100!?
« on: Monday 05 February 18 17:01 GMT (UK)  »
Every time I read about any centenarian in days gone past I always check their death entry, then try to find their birth .... just to check.

I had one in my distant tree that did that and was lying!  There's even a photographic postcard of him that was taken/sold at the time due to his waxing lyrical about his age. 

Right, just looked it up.  It was a chap called Isaac Morgan.
Baptised 1820
Two older siblings baptised in 1813 and 1815.

1841 Census, aged 20-24.

1871 Census, aged 51. Written by his older brother, with whom he was lodging.
1881 Census, aged 58.
1891 Census, aged 71.
1901 Census, aged 81.
1911 Census, aged 103.

1911 Newspapers: Declaring himself 103 at Chapel le Frith Workhouse in March 1911
1912 Died at an alleged 104 in Derbyshire, reported in Derbyshire Times on 3 February 1912.

FreeBMD has him down as 104.

I figure he can't have been baptised once older than an infant because the family were settled and two older brothers had already been dragged into the church in 1813 and 1815, so the family had plenty of time to have dragged him in there sooner than the 1820 they did it.

I therefore suggest.... he died aged 92.

He clearly saw more and more centenarians getting a few free beers and visitors after 1901, so decided to oomph up his age some :)

Armed Forces / Re: Reasons for disappearing after army desertion
« on: Monday 05 February 18 16:56 GMT (UK)  »
They did one of these on the telly, Who Do You Think You Are, Alan Carr.

He'd deserted, moved away a little bit, reinvented himself - and they couldn't undesert, so had to remain hidden.... you'd still be arrested/jailed years later for desertion and it'd cause no end of problems without any means to support a family and possibly the family would then have to immediately move out as locals who lost somebody might target them for violence/disharmony. 

Once you've got away with it, you've already got established with your new name, so don't rock the boat.

Alan Carr episode:

The Common Room / Re: Suffragette Collection
« on: Sunday 04 February 18 18:35 GMT (UK)  »
I see what you see.

I suspect this is another instance where (in my opinion) they've "skimped" and are simply directing you to the National Archives where you might be able to get more.

The image is the book where her name was written down, the transcription is a description of her and advises you that the/any record is held at the National Archive, for which, no doubt, there's a charge :)

Ancestral Family Tree DNA Testing / Re: DNA Why I urge caution
« on: Sunday 04 February 18 17:41 GMT (UK)  »
I've not done it.  Maybe one day, but it's still a tad pricey for me :)

As I see it - it's a chance to have your name in the hat....

If others who have their name in the hat have a connection, it'll flag up a "clue" as to how you could change your thinking and change what you're researching to find the elusive link.

I see it as something you can pay for today if you want ... and expect 10-15 years of waiting/researching to be able to nail it .... and even then some will be unnailable.

Family History Beginners Board / Re: Marriage & Bigamy
« on: Sunday 04 February 18 11:45 GMT (UK)  »
I have "all sorts" in my tree.  Lots of illegitimate births - it was almost compulsory :)

I've a bigamy where the man knew his wife was still alive - she turned up in court to prove it.

Another bigamy where they separated (through the courts on grounds of cruelty) and the wife reinvented herself as a WW1 widow to marry "a proper catch, an RAF top officer and Wing Commander" - but he got suspicious and found her husband was still alive, so he got the divorce courts to nullify their wedding.

I've one I suspect, where an illegitimate lad married in his own village under his birth name - then he and his wife appear in different counties, she remarried under her birth name and he married his half-brother's wife's sister using his "adopted name" of his half-brother (two brothers married two sisters, although years apart/not a double wedding).  Nobody suspected a thing, I'm probably the first to discover this... and it's something I'd need to spend more time on "proving".

My gt-grandmother just started using her bf's surname - even though they'd both been widowed long before they met.  They were certainly at the same address as head/lodger for 20 years in the censuses before being referred to in the newspapers (eviction case) where her widowed name was given and "also known as Mrs ...." the lodger's surname.

I've always been surprised that there is no "look up" list of divorces easily available to the public.  You'd just need the names/dates at its most basic.... to give you a clue. 

Handwriting Deciphering & Recognition / Re: "Mary wife of James F..."
« on: Wednesday 31 January 18 12:14 GMT (UK)  »
I read it as two five pounds.... not a name, but the amount of money to be received.
The relationship of the receiver having already been determined, there was no need at this point for a surname.

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 ... 70