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 - suelaw1954

Pages: 1 ... 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 ... 20
46
London and Middlesex / Missing Huguenot records on "The Genealogist"
« on: Saturday 08 October 11 09:20 BST (UK)  »
Hi,
I've been slowly tracing my London/Middlesex Huguenot ancestors. Initially I used the Huguenot Society transcriptions on CD, but lately I've been trying to obtain digital copies of the original entries via the Non-conformist records on "The Genealogist".

Mostly I've been able to find them. Sometimes when I couldn't find an entry, I'd assume a mistranscription and look for an adjacent entry and this usually worked.

Over the last few weeks I've been working on a family based in the Artillery area of Spitalfields and there seems to be a large chunk of the Artillery records missing around 1722-1723.

I've tried putting in a common given name plus the piece number (RG4 4593), and no results are returned.

Has anyone else come across this problem?

Sue  ???

47
Suffolk Completed Lookup Requests / Re: Baptism Lookup SHIP Haughley PRs c1700
« on: Thursday 29 September 11 20:59 BST (UK)  »
Thanks very much for your time. At least I can cross Haughley off the search list.  ???

Sue  8)

48
Suffolk Completed Lookup Requests / *COMPLETED* Baptism Lookup SHIP Haughley PRs c1700
« on: Monday 26 September 11 10:58 BST (UK)  »
I was wondering if anyone could possibly look up a baptism for me in the PRs of Haughley.

My 6xg grandfather was born in Mickfield. His first marriage to Sarah Ship took place in 1723/4 in Haughley, so it seems as if that might be where Sarah was born.

From the marriage date I assume the baptism would take place between 1695 and 1705.

Thanks for bothering to read this,

Sue in Australia  8)

49
London & Middlesex Lookup Requests / Re: ***LMA/Ancestry "Missing" Parishes***
« on: Sunday 11 September 11 07:11 BST (UK)  »
Another oddity (or oversight) in the Ancestry indexing/uploading:
Christ Church Spitalfields Marriages 1729-54

According to the LMA catalogue CC Spitalfields ran a separate register of marriages from foundation (1729) to 1761. (P93/CTC1/013 Register of marriages Jul 1729-Sep 1761). When Hardwicke's Act came into force (Mar 1754) they didn't start a new register, they just changed from one line entries to handwriteen Hardwicke entries.

The last 8 pages of this register have been indexed and the images uploaded by Ancestry in the London England Marriages & Banns 1754-1921 database. The pages from 1729 to 1754 seem to have been overlooked in the London, England, Baptisms, Marriages and Burials, 1538-1812 Section. Oooops.

Is there anyway of letting them know?

Sue

50
England / Re: Proving that banns had been read
« on: Monday 29 August 11 10:31 BST (UK)  »
How about before 1823?

Sue  8)

51
England / Proving that banns had been read
« on: Monday 29 August 11 07:21 BST (UK)  »
Hi,
I recently came across an incomplete marriage entry which had been crossed through with the comment to the effect of "banns not read in groom's parish". I've also tracked down marriage entries by finding a reference to the non-resident partner's parish in the banns. It set me wondering.

Was there any specified procedure by which a cleric made sure both sets of banns had been read before performing the ceremony? Did the non-resident partner have to bring a note from his home parish? Has anything like this survived?

Merely curious,

Sue  8)

52
Suffolk Completed Lookup Requests / Re: Marriage Lookup - William PEGG
« on: Monday 29 August 11 04:25 BST (UK)  »
Hi Alan,
Just looked up Boyd's on British Origins and the marriage isn't listed there. Pallot's (on Ancestry) only goes back to 1780.

The entries in IGI without parishes are from BTs.

Sue

53
Suffolk Completed Lookup Requests / Re: Baptism Lookups- Pakefield. HOULT (HOLT) & BALES
« on: Monday 29 August 11 04:09 BST (UK)  »
By an accident of church structure, Pakefield was part of the Archdeaconry of Norfolk at the time when registers were lodged with County Councils, so the Parish Registers are available online at FamilySearch:
https://www.familysearch.org/search/image/show#uri=https%3A%2F%2Fapi.familysearch.org%2Frecords%2Fwaypoint%2F652644

However when Bishops transcripts were being lodged annually, Pakefield was part of the Archdeaconry of Suffolk, so all the BTs are at Suffolk Record Office.

For the full complicated story see:
http://www.origins.org.uk/genuki/NFK/norfolk/church/adminareas.shtml

Happy ancestor hunting

Sue  8)

54
Family History Beginners Board / Re: Soundex
« on: Tuesday 05 July 11 02:24 BST (UK)  »
You need to be a bit careful with computer generated soundex codes. The rules are very simplistic and don't recognise things like vowel modifiers (e.g. "r" after "o" before a consonant) leading to some weird results.

My mother's surname has 2 common spellings: Spall or Sporle. Pronounciation is identical but the automatically generated code for Spall is S140 while the code for Sporle is S164 and there is no overlap in the resulting name lists. This means I always have to do 2 searches in a database with soundex.

The rules seem to be fairly simple, so I aim to do my coding by hand and commonsense in future.

Sue :-\

Pages: 1 ... 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 ... 20