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 - california dreamin

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 ... 144
1
The Common Room / Re: Birth registration rules in 1901 UK
« on: Yesterday at 10:37 »
Quote from: Whipby on Thursday 09 May 24 22:00 BST (UK)
Thank you, everyone, for all the information - it’s so useful.

How common was it for a child’s birth to go completely unregistered in the mid 1870s?  Was that even possible?  I haven’t been able to find my ancestor even though I’ve tried everything I can think of - different spellings, sounds like, searching different years, different areas, etc.

She obviously doesn’t want to be found!

I would agree certainly possible. I'm sure I've heard that something like 5% of births were not registered. However, here is a little task for you... why not see if you can find birth registration of any siblings? This would determine what registration district these the births fell into thus reducing the area you are having to search.  Equally if you are not finding the birth registrations of any siblings (or maybe only some) you can deduce that these parents were busy/scatty/not concerned and were just 'non registerers' and then focus on searching for a baptism. 

CD

2
The Common Room / Re: Banns or Licence
« on: Tuesday 07 May 24 13:02 BST (UK)  »
I have a little book called "Marriage Laws, Rites, Records & Customs" it was written by Colin R Chapman. He has written the following:

"Lord Hardwicke's 1753 Marriage Act also placed age constraints, making it illegal for those in England under the age of 21 to get married without the consent of their parents or guardians, as was the case in continental Europe.  Incidentally in Scotland and America such parental consent remained unnecessary for a marriage to be valid.  However, the consent requirement was repealed and replaced in 1823". 

Chapman also mentions the following (that I thought was very interesting) but perhaps irrelevant to your question...  "Another marital age constraint was the restriction placed on young people serving an apprenticeship.  As the terms of many apprenticeships forbade marriage, most males under 24 until 1766 under 21 thereafter, and girls under 21, had to forfeit their apprenticeships if they married".

CD

3
The Common Room / Re: Birth registration rules in 1901 UK
« on: Tuesday 07 May 24 12:36 BST (UK)  »
I wonder if it was anything to do with collecting an old age pension.  There seemed to be compulsory and non-compulsory options. Here's an article https://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/ssb/v2n4/v2n4p14.pdf

Anyway just a thought...

CD

4
Family History Beginners Board / Re: 1960s Education Records
« on: Sunday 28 April 24 18:34 BST (UK)  »
Quote from: Norfolk Nan on Sunday 28 April 24 12:38 BST (UK)


England, London so LEA and anything that explains why someone was excluded from school (as early as infants) and the discussions and decisions that followed on.  A relative was excluded for (I think) disruptive behaviour and went to a 'special unit'.  Eventually was diagnosed as dyslexic at a time when the borough didn't recognise it and had no useful services to help so was again sent to an out of area school.  We'd like to know more, if possible.

Even if located, I'm doubtful you would be able to access these records given data protection. They are too recent.

CD

5
Family History Programs, Tree Organisation, Presentation / Re: What free Family History Tree builder software would you recommend?
« on: Saturday 27 April 24 12:03 BST (UK)  »
Try 'Legacy' it's a free download, very easy and intuitive to use.  I think there are also training videos which will help you.  I'm sometimes asked by the system if I want to pay and 'upgrade' but I've never needed to. You do not need to link to FamilySearch.

https://legacyfamilytree.com/

CD

6
Handwriting Deciphering & Recognition / Re: Conscientious objector -- charges against
« on: Tuesday 23 April 24 16:59 BST (UK)  »
Thanks for posting - very interesting.  Some years ago I was involved with a project trying to find out what tribunal records were still in existence.  It had been asked by the government in the 1920's that all tribunal records should be destroyed.  However, like many places you get disorganised employees and so there were some pockets of tribunal records still around. They make fascinating reading. We even found a 'snitch' letter.  Here is a link for some of the Disley Tribunal papers which you might find interesting.  https://www.flickr.com/search?sort=relevance&text=disley%20tribunal

CD

7
Census and Resource Discussion / Re: 1921 Census - Missing Households in Oldham
« on: Tuesday 23 April 24 13:14 BST (UK)  »
Hi Martin

Like Boo I've also tried a number of 'tricks' and come up empty handed. I wondered if the street address had been badly mangled in transcription?

I would contact Findmypast and see if there are any known issues with certain areas. You can say that Edith is listed in the Rate books at this address in May 1921 so you know she's there.  I've also checked when the Oldham wakes week was in 1921 - it was the last Saturday in August therefore they should not have been on holiday. Sometimes the 'home' return is missing as the household is away but you should pick these people up elsewhere in England or Wales. 

A real mystery for certain.

CD

8
England / Re: Adoption mid 1940s
« on: Monday 22 April 24 22:07 BST (UK)  »
Hi Lisa

I  have messaged you

CD

9
Census and Resource Discussion / Re: 1921 Census - Missing Households in Oldham
« on: Monday 22 April 24 21:41 BST (UK)  »
Edith Whiteley is listed as the occupier in the Rate books as living at 16 Medlock Street Oldham in 1921 (month May)

CD

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 ... 144