10
Armed Forces Resources / Re: Identification of Uniform
« on: Saturday 15 May 21 08:55 BST (UK) »
Thank you Tony. That is very helpful
Sandra
Sandra
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.
11
Armed Forces Resources / Identification of Uniform
« on: Thursday 13 May 21 23:07 BST (UK) »
Can anyone help with details of this uniform.
Thank you
Thank you
12
Nottinghamshire / Re: Lord Middleton and the Creswells
« on: Friday 07 May 21 16:38 BST (UK) »
Thank you for the advice Carole. Melicent Creswell was my third great grandmother. She married Thomas May in Nottingham in 1828. I have no connection as far as I know to Middleton. I also thought Melicent or her mother may have worked for Lord Middleton. I have been unable to find a baptism for Melicent in Nottinghamshire and I have no idea who her parents were.
Sandra
Sandra
13
Nottinghamshire / Lord Middleton and the Creswells
« on: Friday 07 May 21 09:08 BST (UK) »
This is a long shot but I am hoping someone may be able to shed light on my query.
I have a photo copy of a piece of paper with notes about my family tree. The note was written by a second cousin 2 x removed (1899-1996). I believe the notes were written around 1920. Some of the writing is ineligible. What I have been able to read is "Creswell something attached to Creswells family rightly Lord Middleton" Melicent Creswell (1810-1847) was her great grandmothers maiden name.
Google searches for Middleton/Creswell have proved negative and also an extensive FindMyPast newspaper search negative.
Thank you
Sandra
I have a photo copy of a piece of paper with notes about my family tree. The note was written by a second cousin 2 x removed (1899-1996). I believe the notes were written around 1920. Some of the writing is ineligible. What I have been able to read is "Creswell something attached to Creswells family rightly Lord Middleton" Melicent Creswell (1810-1847) was her great grandmothers maiden name.
Google searches for Middleton/Creswell have proved negative and also an extensive FindMyPast newspaper search negative.
Thank you
Sandra
14
Nottinghamshire / Re: Death registered but not birth
« on: Thursday 28 January 21 14:04 GMT (UK) »
Thank you all very much for your informative replies and the research done. I wrongly thought a birth had to be registered from 1837. The information given will help with with other queries I have.
Interestingly I have an ancestor who was baptised at St Nicholas Nottingham in 1897 aged 59. The Free Reg transcription has her birth date as 1838 and again I have not found a birth entry. As yet I have not found an event to coincide with the baptism which would have caused her to be baptised late in life.
Sandra
Interestingly I have an ancestor who was baptised at St Nicholas Nottingham in 1897 aged 59. The Free Reg transcription has her birth date as 1838 and again I have not found a birth entry. As yet I have not found an event to coincide with the baptism which would have caused her to be baptised late in life.
Sandra
15
Nottinghamshire / Death registered but not birth
« on: Tuesday 26 January 21 16:29 GMT (UK) »
I have a copy of the burial register for Nottingham General Cemetery. Thomas Cresswell aged four months buried 19 July 1846, son of Robert and Ann Cresswell, father a dyer, address Canaan Street.
Died 12 July 1846.
Mothers maiden name is Huff. I have searched the GRO indexes and cannot find a birth entry. I have searched Ancestry and FindMyPast and cannot find a baptism.
Does anyone know if its possible that the birth was not registered ?
Thank you
Died 12 July 1846.
Mothers maiden name is Huff. I have searched the GRO indexes and cannot find a birth entry. I have searched Ancestry and FindMyPast and cannot find a baptism.
Does anyone know if its possible that the birth was not registered ?
Thank you
16
Nottinghamshire / Re: Removal Order Nottingham St Mary
« on: Sunday 02 August 20 09:10 BST (UK) »
Thank you so much for this knowledgeable reply. I am very grateful
Sandra
Sandra
17
Nottinghamshire / Removal Order Nottingham St Mary
« on: Saturday 01 August 20 17:49 BST (UK) »
Can anyone please help me with the following regarding my third great grandfather Thomas May and his family regarding a removal order on 17 January 1834 from St Marys Nottingham to Whiston in Yorkshire. The order was contested by the Whiston overseers and the following was printed in the Nottingham Journal on 11 April 1834 :
"This was an appeal against the order of removal of Thomas May from the parish of St Mary, in this town to the parish of Whiston in the county of York-Mr Oakley appeared for the appellants and Mr Hurst for the respondents- The circumstances were briefly stated by Mr Hurst; by which it appeared it was admitted by the appellants that the pauper had been apprenticed and served forty days at Whiston. The only question submitted for the consideration of the Court was, whether the indenture was a valid one. Mr Oakley contended it was not, as notice of the intended binding had not been approved agreeably to the Act of the 56th of George III. The court after hearing Mr Hurst confirmed the order subject to a case to be heard in the Court of Kings Bench"
I don't understand what this means
"the intended binding had not been proved agreeably to the Act of the 56th George III"
and was there to be another hearing
Any help will be much appreciated
Sandra
"This was an appeal against the order of removal of Thomas May from the parish of St Mary, in this town to the parish of Whiston in the county of York-Mr Oakley appeared for the appellants and Mr Hurst for the respondents- The circumstances were briefly stated by Mr Hurst; by which it appeared it was admitted by the appellants that the pauper had been apprenticed and served forty days at Whiston. The only question submitted for the consideration of the Court was, whether the indenture was a valid one. Mr Oakley contended it was not, as notice of the intended binding had not been approved agreeably to the Act of the 56th of George III. The court after hearing Mr Hurst confirmed the order subject to a case to be heard in the Court of Kings Bench"
I don't understand what this means
"the intended binding had not been proved agreeably to the Act of the 56th George III"
and was there to be another hearing
Any help will be much appreciated
Sandra
18
World War One / Re: John Dodd Pension Index card
« on: Thursday 28 May 20 16:48 BST (UK) »
Thank you Jim for both of your replies. I obviously misread the wording on John Dodd.