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 - Aulus

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 ... 162
1
Handwriting Deciphering & Recognition / Re: Army discharge 1858
« on: Saturday 15 July 23 18:57 BST (UK)  »
Thank you both!

Amentia it is.

Not a term I'd heard before.  Must bear it mind if I'm ever on Countdown.

2
Handwriting Deciphering & Recognition / Completed: Army discharge 1858
« on: Saturday 15 July 23 18:42 BST (UK)  »
Can anyone work out in consequence of what this says Private Timothy Holden was discharged in 1858 from the 84th Regiment of Foot?



It's clearly to do with him being unfit for service due to being (in the language used later in the document) an imbecile.  (He died in Lancaster Asylum in 1865.)

But I can't work out the underlined word Au..enti.. ? ? ?

3
Surrey / Re: Lost link to Chapel of Dulwich College baptisms
« on: Sunday 12 February 23 18:57 GMT (UK)  »
Thanks! 

I must have been looking at a different record for some barmy reason.

Unfortunately, I'm looking for an 1804 baptism*, which appears to be outside of what Ancestry hold.


* Joseph Thorback s.o. Wm & Eliz bapt 1804 Dulwich College Chapel according to the Pallots Index.

4
Surrey / Re: Lost link to Chapel of Dulwich College baptisms
« on: Sunday 12 February 23 18:42 GMT (UK)  »
Have Ancestry removed the Dulwich College baptisms from their records now?  I can't find them, even following the instructions above.

Dulwich College Chapel doesn't appear as a parish under Southwark or Lambeth boroughs for me, and searching the whole collection with just Dulwich College under keyword returns nothing.




5
Family History Programs, Tree Organisation, Presentation / Android gedcom viewer?
« on: Monday 30 January 23 17:03 GMT (UK)  »
Hello everyone,

For years, I've been using Family Bee as a simple gedcom viewer on my Android 'phones. (My main family history programme is Family Historian, and I just periodically copied the gedcom that creates to my 'phone.)

But having just upgraded to a new Android 'phone, it seems that Family Bee is no longer available. :(

I liked Family Bee as it was uncomplicated and very fast. I know I can access Ancestry/FindMyPast on my 'phone, but it's nice to have something quick and simple. Plus I also keep a bit more info, particularly on living individuals, on my offline tree.

Does anyone have a recommendation for a replacement for Family Bee?

Thanks

6
Census and Resource Discussion / Re: 1921 Census, Citing Source
« on: Sunday 30 October 22 19:21 GMT (UK)  »
Excellent. Thanks for the reply. 

That's really useful.

7
Census and Resource Discussion / Re: 1921 Census, Citing Source
« on: Sunday 30 October 22 13:30 GMT (UK)  »
Just came to Rootschat to ask the very same question, now I've upgraded my FindMyPast subscription.

For previous censuses (and the 1939 register), FindMyPast (and Ancestry in a slightly less committed fashion) have included a full reference, that's nice and easy to copy and paste into one's preferred family tree software.

E.g.
1901: RG13/2579; Fol. 13; p. 18
1911: RG14PN16407 RG78PN1017 RD359 SD2 ED6 SN245
1939: Ref: RG101/1345C/028/3 Letter Code: CMRC

but on the first 1921 entry that I've looked at, I've got the fields previously mentioned by manukarik, plus
Archive series: RG 15
Piece number: 23338
Schedule number: 165
Schedule type code: E
District reference:    RD 512 RS 3 ED 8

Replacing the %2F characters in FindMyPast's URL with the / that it stands for, I get what's presumably FindMyPast's own reference to this schedule:
GBC/1921/RG15/23338/0331/01

RG15/23338 is self evident, but that 0331 doesn't appear on the transcript, so presumably not part of the TNA reference, so would only work on FindMyPast to drill down to a particular schedule.

I would guess that the a reference RG15/23338/165 would be sufficient to point to a particular schedule. Or would I also need to include the district references too?

How are other rootschatters referring to 1921 census schedules?




8
London and Middlesex / Re: Can anyone see what happens to Arthur & Elizabeth Boreham after 1891?
« on: Tuesday 26 July 22 10:30 BST (UK)  »
Thanks to that marriage, I've found Elizabeth in 1939 at 126 Bancroft Rd, Stepney, with her married daughter, Mona Maria Elizabeth Jessie and son-in-law.

(I should have said that my interest is in Elizabeth Ettridge, as it's the Ettridges who are my blood relatives.)


Also now spotted the likely death of Arthur Boreham, Q4 1894 Mile End.

9
London and Middlesex / Re: Can anyone see what happens to Arthur & Elizabeth Boreham after 1891?
« on: Monday 25 July 22 20:30 BST (UK)  »
Quote from: jonw65 on Monday 25 July 22 18:32 BST (UK)
Quote from: Aulus on Monday 25 July 22 17:35 BST (UK)
I wonder if Elizabeth remarried.

6 July 1902, St. Andrew, Haverstock Hill
William Edwin Holman, 29, Bachelor, Postman
+
Elizabeth Boreham, 33, Widow, father Edward Ettridge (deceased), Fishmonger
Residence for both 123 Malden Road.
Witnesses George Smith, Florence Holman

Brilliant find!  Thanks very much. That is really helpful.

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 ... 162