RootsChat.Com

Hi. I had the same issue and contacted FTDNA about it. Net result it was reported as a "bug". I was told it would be at least 14 days before they could respond. I never did hear, but the issue has now disappeared. Oddly, a distant genetic cousin had the same issue. The common feature seems to be that we have all had our fathers tested / uploaded their DNA data and then the issue has arisen.

It's not a problem now so I'm not chasing it

Lubricated

An update to earlier posts....

Discovered that the Society of Genealogists in London were more than happy to take any certificates I didn't want!

So the wife and I scanned all the certificates we had, that's both the ones which were relevant to our trees and the ones which were not, and then gave them to S.O.G.  Just over 400 of them.

If I understood them correctly, S.O.G. have an upcoming project regarding BMD certificates. So at some future time it might be worth contacting them before purchasing from the GRO.  In the meantime it looks as though they will happily take all those unwanted certificates - I'm sure they'll even take them from non-members!

Just in case the drives holding the scans die, we've attached copies of the scans to our trees (we use Family Tree Maker) and have then backed up our trees on line to Ancestry. So our trees and data and scans won't die with us.

Minor point: A typical scan of a BMD certificate as a .jpg file creates a file about 4 Megabytes in size. One scan on it's own is not a problem but a couple of hundred starts to create a huge file when all brought together, as in linking to a tree. To overcome this we compressed the scans to approx. 1/10th their original size.  We used Microsoft Office Picture Manager but I'm sure that most image software packages could do the same. Compression doesn't destroy the image or data, and it makes a collection much more manageable.

Lubricated

I have come across two weddings ceremonies which took place between the same couple in two Anglican Churches within 11 miles and 4 months of each other.  Can anyone offer any reason as to why this happened?

For some reason I get the feeling they were probably forced to undergo the second ceremony but I cannot find any reason why. Nor can I find any logical reason why they should want to do so.

William Reed and Sophia Seaman were first married in Withyham Parish Church, Sussex, on 18 February 1833 (Register No. 258). William Reed signed, but looks childish as if practised specially for the occasion, Sophia Seaman X. Witnesses Thos. Elphick (Signed) and Harriet Cridall X.

On 25th June 1833 they married again in Buxted Parish Church, Sussex (Register No. 217). This time the bride is recorded as Sophia Seymour, both bride and groom signed with an X. Witnesses were the same Thos. Elphick (Signed) and an Esther Daws X.

By Horse and Cart there's less than 11 Miles between the Churches.

I have been studying the Seaman/Seymour name in East Sussex and have ample proof they are completely interchangeable, together with a multitude of other variants, even within the same family group. Both marriages were by Banns. Both bride and groom came from very poor agricultural labouring families. I have not found any evidence to suggest they were separate couples with identical or very similar names; I’ve only ever found the one valid Sophia Seaman or Seymour, etc.

To add to the puzzle, Ellen Seymour, daughter of Sophia Seymour a single woman, was baptised in Buxted on 2 Jun 1833. I don’t know when she was born, it might have been before the first marriage in February that year. She appears in the 1841 Census under the name of Reed but that’s not an uncommon thing. She is definitely the daughter of the Sophia who married William Reed.

From research I’ve learnt that a marriage can be treated as “voidable” and thus cancelled if contested by one party in court, and one justifiable ground is the woman being pregnant by another man at the time of the marriage.  But I’m struggling with this being the case here; first I doubt there was enough money for a court case, second I doubt there was enough time, and third why go through all that process only to get married again?

So I’m back to wondering whether the local Rector at Buxted had some influence in requiring a second marriage ceremony.  Why was the first child baptised Seymour and not Reed ? I’ve no evidence that Ellen was the child of William Reed. Is there something in the church laws at that time that might have had some impact on this state of affairs?

I’m baffled – and intrigued. Any solutions anyone?

Hello

I'm new to Rootschat and am gradually searching some of my names.  Found this old post. Apologies if you have since found this answer...

The branch under notice means the branch of the family tree being studied.

It comes from:

Transactions of the Cumberland & Westmorland Antiquarian & Archaeological Society (Founded 1866) Volume XXXIX - New Series. Editor W.T. McIntire, B.A., F.S.A. printed 1939.....

Page 35. Art. V. - The Shortridges. The records of a Cumberland family. By M Aird Jolly

"The family of Shortridge is a lowland one Scottish one, of which the branch under notice migrated southward and eventually crossed the border to settle amid the fells of Cumberland" is the introductory first paragraph.

My Grandmother was a Shortridge. Her brother was Travis Shortridge who was the pilot of the Southern Cloud passenger airplane which disappeared in Australia in the 1930s and wasn't found until the 1950s. Our lines descend from William Shortrigg and Betty Routledge who are the head of the branch discussed in the above article.

Hope this helps.