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 - Sloe Gin

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 ... 277
1
The worst are the baptisms where only the father is named, and the mother not even mentioned.

2
The Common Room / Re: 1921
« on: Thursday 02 December 21 19:34 GMT (UK)  »
https://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/about/news/regional-hubs-to-offer-free-online-access-to-1921-census/

I'm just wondering whether we have misinterpreted the above  :-\  It only mentions free access via FindMyPast, but NOT that the records themselves will be obtainable without charge.

Quote
The census will be available online via our commercial partner Findmypast and will be free to access in this way at The National Archives, in Kew.
In addition, visitors to the Manchester Central Library and the National Library of Wales will be able to access the 1921 Census of England and Wales via the Findmypast website for free following its publication next year.

It seems clear enough.  Findmypast is the platform via which the digital images are viewable.  They will also be downloadable so that people can take copies of any images they want.  That's how the 1911 census was made available and this will be the same.  Obviously you pay for photocopies as is usual.

It's no different really from free access in libraries to the library editions of Ancestry and FindMyPast.  But on a smaller scale to allow FindMyPast to recover their costs while TNA fulfils its obligations to the public.

3
The Common Room / Re: 1921
« on: Thursday 02 December 21 01:45 GMT (UK)  »
My apologies for this, but I am absolutely disgusted by this move.

So we, who have paid a subscription for x amount of years, are once again penalised and having to pay extra for 1921 information.  Whilst others, who possibly have never paid for any subscription for any information, will be able to access 1921 information for free, gratis and for nothing.   :-X :-X

Perhaps I should change my views and NOT help anyone at all.

Everybody will have to pay, no matter what they may have subscribed to, if they want to view the 1921 census at home, or wherever they choose to use their devices.

The 1921 census and the digital images of it are the property of the National Archives.  It is a national resource, which is why TNA will make it available to the public free of charge.  That includes you, if you are prepared to make the effort.  You are not being "penalised". 

4
The Common Room / Re: Find My Past 25% Off
« on: Monday 22 November 21 22:30 GMT (UK)  »
What's even better is that you can also opt for a single month - something they don't always make easy to find.  25% discount also applies. 

5
Berkshire / Re: Mills East Ilsley
« on: Tuesday 09 November 21 17:41 GMT (UK)  »
James had a brother called William born 1769 East Ilsley who married Mary Prior there in 1797. Maybe James married his brothers wife ?

I think she is the Mary Mills who was buried on 5 December 1805.  William & Mary's last child William was born on 29 November, baptised on the same day as Mary's funeral, and was buried on 16 December.

I do think we are looking for a Maria, not a Mary.  I know these are variations of the same name, but she is consistently Maria in the EIPR and it's not a Catholic register.

6
Berkshire / Re: Mills East Ilsley
« on: Tuesday 09 November 21 16:08 GMT (UK)  »
The plot thickens ....  ;D
I hadn't looked any further into the Bookers, but Denchworth sounds about right as I have Hannah Booker née Haines buried there in 1796.  Her elder sister Sarah Haines is my direct ancestor, so the Bookers are twigs.

I haven't seen the Hannah Booker baptism*, but yes, 23 and 28 could easily be confused. Plus there's the general vagueness about ages in earlier times.

*Actually I've got the Phillimore transcription for Denchworth somewhere, will have a look.  Another rabbithole!  ::)

7
Berkshire / Re: Mills East Ilsley
« on: Tuesday 09 November 21 15:16 GMT (UK)  »
Yes, I have GG grandparents who married late and out of their parish as the bride was a widow marrying her brother-in-law.  They had already had one child pre-marriage.

As for Hannah Booker, the only entries for her in EIPR are her marriage and burial.
Speculation:  she may have been the daughter of John Booker of Uffington and Hannah Haines of East Ilsley who married in EI in 1773.  Hannah's age at death indicates a birth c1773.

8
Berkshire / Re: Mills East Ilsley
« on: Tuesday 09 November 21 14:58 GMT (UK)  »
It may help for us to know the occupation of James Mills, which should be given on the last four baptism records.
James is consistently described as a labourer.

If James was a labourer and both he and Maria were born in Berkshire, then they were most likely married somewhere locally.  I would forget about Fleet Street.  You may need to have some marriage registers searched, 1800 - 1808:  try Blewbury, Compton, West Ilsley, Beedon, Hampstead Norris.
I've checked all those, and more.
 
There's no plausible marriage in anywhere currently covered by the Berkshire Marriage Index, which is why I suggested to Moses to ask OFHS to check their marriage index.  They have indexed some of the old North Berks parishes which BFHS have not yet included.  It could even be in Oxford.

9
Berkshire / Re: Mills East Ilsley
« on: Monday 08 November 21 15:23 GMT (UK)  »
Did you ask the Oxfordshire FHS to check for anything likely in their marriages index?  There's nothing in the Berks FHS index, but it's a long way from complete.

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 ... 277