RootsChat.Com

Just for future reference, if you click the subscribe button on the top of the website you will only be offered 1 or 6 month subscriptions.

To purchase the full 12 month subs for all membership plans (if you dont use the aforementioned discount link) you need to go to your 'Account Settings' and can then scroll down and all 1, 6 and 12 month subscriptions can be purchased from there.

If you cancel your subscription they now have an option to pay AUD$7.95/month to just keep access to the records you have saved in your tree. Whilst it means you cant view new records with that amount, it does allow you to view any certificates or other records you have saved to your tree.

The value of the paper and ink originals is that they are known to be both durable, and sustainable.

This is not true in the slightest. There are millions of documents that have been destroyed simply due to time. A mere look at parish records should show that ink fades and pages rot after a mere 200 years. Then there is simply the fact that a will (or any document) folded will eventually tear and that piece will be missing.

This is also the reason why probate and wills were copied into volumes separate to their originals so as to preserve the information due to the originals not being durable. PCC and all the Registers of wills recorded in every county are examples of this copying, many wills of which are no longer to be found in their original state and only exist now in probate and will registers - albeit distorted as they are transcribed over and over with errors, something a digital image wont have.

As to sustainability, I'm not sure about this one either. Whilst not only wills at this location but the UK National Archives has over 200 kilometres of shelving with over 1 kilometre of shelving being added every year. That doesn't sound very sustainable to me, not to mention the money it takes to conserve, store and secure documents, etc. Money that can be better spent in other areas.

There is no similar assurance for the digital versions, rather the reverse.

Actually digital versions are highly durable as their storage has a light footprint and can be preserved in multiple locations. It is a snapshot in time of the document in its known best condition and can be saved on multiple servers so if one is destroyed there is always many many backups.

I am sure I am not alone in wishing that in 1731 digitalisation was possible to save the Dorset Records that were destroyed due to the fire of Blandford Forum, or more recently the Irish records in 1922 of which most genealogical Irish records have been destroyed, including near all wills. Not to mention the countless documents destroyed during war, etc.

Data formats, digital storage media and the entire digital infrastructure become obsolete at pace. As I already pointed out, it is pretty certain that you won't be able to read current data in 50 years, let alone 200. The data will have to be constantly "curated" over the years, so I very much doubt that this saves money in the long run.

History is against you in this argument.

The LDS started microfilming genealogy records (parish registers etc) as early as 1939 - 84 years ago. All of those records are still accessible as microfiche, still readable, and far better off that the documents they preserved, many of which the originals are now lost or destroyed - including many wills.

In addition, such records are easily transferred to other newer mediums with very little curation required. The LDS for example have begun transferring microfilm to digital of which they expected to take 100 years to do and did it in 15 and through this process ensure that it is readable as time goes on in whatever format changes may take.

We also have the technology now to not only take a duplicate copy, but infra-red and even see details hidden by the naked eye. Preserving such documents digitally FAR out ways the negatives, including the destruction of the documents.

Sure a physical copy is nice. To see that original ink or know you are holding a piece of history that your ancestors may have held, but space is limited especially in our growing world and if a sacrifice is to be made, I'm glad they are talking about digitalisation and not simply destroying them like so many other countries do.

Thank you very much, I had seen the Spickernell surname in the will, but totally missed the family connection. So it looks as if that settles it about Isaac - one and the same. And confirms where another of my DNA matches links to me.
Yes I  had Thomas and Mary Scott's marriage. My only concern was that I found a John Stickland baptised a few months before their marriage s/o Thomas. Maybe his second marriage.

Not a problem at all.

As to the question regarding John Stickland s/o Thomas, the only John born to a Thomas Stickland in Christchurch I can find is a John born 31 Aug 1779 and baptised 9 Jan 1780 which would be after their marriage of 1774.

There is a John Stickland baptised 18 Jun 1775 and born to a John Stickland however. That said the registers are a little messy so perhaps I have missed the one you found.

Probably seen this as well though thought I would mention it just in case. There is also a marriage of an Isaac Sticlen to an Elizabeth Randle in 9 Oct 1741 Christchurch which may be worth looking into for Thomas's father considering he named a child Isaac.

As suggested I am not convinced that my partner having a DNA test would have the answer.  Any suggestions please.

You would be surprised at the results a DNA test can give. Whilst it may take a little time for it to propagate a result that is worth looking into, it is your best bet especially when looking for a biological parent that you are unsure if it is correct or not. Many people have had success if finding biological parents of ancestors using DNA even to find out who they thought were biological weren't.

Additionally, there are few records available for 1954 that would show you whether the said person was living where you think as they are not released yet, and even if there were, wouldn't necessarily show if your partner is related to him or not, hence why a DNA test is the best route to take.

That said, where did you get the information regarding him living in Coventry Road, Birmingham? I ask, as looking at the 1939 census (the closest released record bar directories to the date you provide and available on Ancestry), it shows a William Wright living in Coventry, Warwickshire, England (not Coventry Road), born 1916 and had an occupation of Aero-Carburettor Fitter. This is another candidate further to the one Antony mentioned earlier.

Now, I am in no way suggesting that this is the person you are looking for as there are inconstancies to the record and your details i.e. born 4 years later, not living in Coventry Road but Coventry and also there are many types of 'fitters', but perhaps may be someone to look into and perhaps if you do get a DNA test, someone to keep a look at for in the results.

Just keep in mind however, that even if you do look into the above mentioned person or any other possibility, there is no guarantee it is the biological father unless you can find an actual record stating your partner is related or a DNA test can prove it.