RootsChat.Com

Dear Moderators

Could someone please explain why your forum will NOT accept a perfectly legitimate email address? 

This is not the first time that the programme software that British forum websites use has refused to accept  @gmail.com email addresses, a situation that is, quite frankly, ludicrous.  Email addresses ending with  @gmail.com are legitimate addresses; they are part of the Google business.  Presumably y'all have heard of Google?  You would never know it, however.

Luckily I have access to my spouse's email address, an @yahoo.com one, which, inexplicably, is acceptable.  However, I want to bring all my contact/website mail under my own email address but cannot do so because of this completely inexplicable web programme behaviour.

I have tried on previous occasions, with similar fora, to contact the software creators to absolutely no avail.  Their attitude would seem to be that the responsibility for the establishment of protocols lies with the website owners. 

I should truly appreciate some kind of feedback on this.

Sincerely,
Anne

Hello Joanne,

We certainly do have the same family.  We both share the same great-great-grandparents: William Handley (1838-1878) and Mary Lockett (off hand can't remember birth year but she died in 1907).  I have a fair amount of information on my tree and have the birth and marriage certificates for these two family members.  I should be more than willing to share. 

Are you a member of any of genealogical websites?  Perhaps we could use the personal message service on here and I could give you my email address and tell you where my tree is (I'm not sure just how much one can reveal on an open posting).

Let me try and see if I can send a personal message to you, using your user name. 


All the best for now,
Anne

Hi Sherbertrose,

I fully sympathize with your situation, having met with it many times in my own family! 

Unfortunately from our point of view, the reality is that not everyone baptised their children, then as now.  The reasons behind our inability to find specific baptismal records were manifold and included disinterest, an inability or unwillingness to pay the fee, poor record keeping on the part of the parish clerks, the refusal of the minister/clerk to record a baptism because the fee was not paid.  Often, if the child was the first born to a couple and they lived outside their family's parish, the infant would taken back to either the mother's or father's parish for baptism. 

None of this helps you find what you seek, but may help to explain why you can't uncover Grace Glover's parents.

Did Grace and her husband have children?  If so do you know whether or not any were named for his parents and siblings?  If some were, then you might be able to extrapolate that one or two were also named for Grace's parents at least.  That might give you a clue as to where to look.  Do you have any access to Pudsey's parish registers?  Perhaps you might find other Glover children who were born and baptised around the same time (give or take ten years or so) with names involved similar to those of Grace and John's children.   None of this allows you to know for certain who Grace's parents might have been, but such evidence would be suggestive.

Perhaps Grace's parents were non-conformists around the time that she would have been baptised.

Were any elderly Glovers still around in 1841 dwelling in Pudsey?  Depending upon when in their life-cycle Grace's parents had her they might only have been in their 60s at the time of that census.  Were there any other Glovers in Pudsey in 1841 or later, more or less of Grace's age?  Could there be naming clues among any such persons? 

I hope that some of this helps.

Best wishes,
Anne

THANK YOU Philip! 

Hi!

I wonder if anyone has access to St Cuthbert's churchyard or burial register and would be willing to check on the burial of the following person?

Mary Greenfield nee Marshall born about 1800, wife of Isaac Greenfield, died around 1828-1829. 

I'm really sorry that I cannot be more specific about her death year; she may even have died in 1827 shortly after she gave birth to their last child, Robert, but I do not think so.  Isaac did not remarry until 1830 and he surely would not have lingered so long with a small baby to feed and care for besides other young children needing care.

I have a Mary Greenfield burial for 8 February 1829 but that record gives as Mary's age at the time of her death as 21; not likely to be my great-great- great-grandmother Mary Greenfield when she and Isaac married in 1821. 

Any help most appreciated. 

Regards as ever,
Anne