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.

Topics - GeoffE

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4
Lincolnshire Resources & Offers / Link: Lincolnshire memories and dialect
« on: Saturday 14 June 08 19:15 BST (UK)  »

I came across this site accidentally; I was wondering if the word that my grandfather used for "Starling" - starnil - was dialect or illiteracy.  It is dialect.

"Nah Then"

Free Photo Restoration & Date Old Photographs / Just a date please..
« on: Wednesday 30 April 08 13:40 BST (UK)  »
No restoration required thanks.


Down / COMPLETED- TURLEY marriages
« on: Thursday 24 April 08 12:14 BST (UK)  »
I have just discovered that a marriage which has eluded me for years (both parties were resident in England for almost  all of their lives) took place in county Down, as did that of her father.  I wonder if anyone could add some detail please ;:

1897 John COAN to Agnes TURLEY

1868 Michael TURLEY to Catherine

The Lighter Side / The Impertinence of The Census Paper
« on: Tuesday 04 March 08 14:47 GMT (UK)  »
Originally from the WHITEHAVEN NEWS Thursday 2nd MARCH 1871 ... but I lifted it from here,com_smf/Itemid,28/topic,500.0

   The duties of the public to be performed on the evening of Sunday, 2nd April, will, it is feared, prove somewhat arduous to Paterfamilias; but, it must be confessed that every possible help will have been given him in his task.  The schedule which lies before us, and of which a copy will be left in every house, is as clear as anything of the kind well can be.  But then the puzzling nature of the queries to be answered!

First, there is, of course, the name and surname of each individual of the family.  That we will suppose will not be very hard, though there will, perhaps, be a little searching of the memory in the case of Totty and Baby and Sissy, whose baptismal appellations have long been merged in their pet names; and when Mr. Wittitterley’s page Billy has been always addressed before visitors as Alphouse, it will be rather painful to describe him as Wm. Stubbs.  But these questions are trivial compared to those in the second column.

The occupier or lodger is actually called on to state whether he or she be “head of the family,” or what relation he or she bears to that dignitary.  Strange to say, the difficulty is aggravated by the insertion of the words “or wife,” as if it were quite impossible to be both one and the other.  We rather think we know a few families in which the conjunction “and” might here be happily substituted.

Next comes a column in which every person is to be described according to condition, viz, married or unmarried, widow or widower, or young child.

After this, a narrow column willed be filled with M’s for males and F’s for females; and then comes the tug of war—“Age last birthday.”

 Sweetly is the fatal column - scene of many a destined battle, and, we fear, of not a few eventual fibs – headed by the meek observation that the age of children under a year old should be marked in months.  One comic journal has described the least popular of Mr. Lowe’s imposts as an “Incommodious Tax,” and another has spoken of these schedules as “Incensing Papers.”

That the Registrar General is to be permitted to ask any gentle-man who, still on the near side of sixty, flatters himself he produces a juvenile effect in Pall Mall, precisely how many years it is since he entered this world of woe; that the lady whose hair is still so amazingly black and her skin so beautifully fresh, should be compelled to state facts tending to throw a haze of scepticism about those natural adornments - is it not altogether unbearable tyranny and intrusion into the profoundest sanctities of the British hearth and home?

Worse than either, perhaps, is the case of the old servants who managed to brush themselves up so amazingly on entering their present service that somehow sixty did not look much above forty, and who are now summoned to “master’s study” to be solemnly asked “How old are you?”  It is all too cruel and shocking.

And yet - may we venture on a bit of advice in earnest - it is not worth telling a lie about.  Nothing is so that ever we could discover, but certainly of all lies the most foolish is that which endeavours to barter the respect due to age for the admiration paid to youth, and which only contrives to lose both the one and the other.

The three remaining columns of the census schedules are to be filled with the rank, profession, or occupation of each person, with the place of birth, and with the circumstances (if any) of special infirmity, such as blindness, deafness, idiotcy, or lunacy.  Numbering the people is a huge work, truly. but one which is of infinite service to the nation, and which we trust, therefore, all the members of the nation will facilitate to the best of their power, giving no needless trouble to the officer charged with its execution, and, above all, abstaining from falsifying any of the returns, and so in-validating the accuracy of the whole.
- Echo.

The Common Room / Helpful hint
« on: Monday 11 February 08 09:53 GMT (UK)  »
I came across this in another place - it seems useful to me.

I imagine quite a lot of listers will already know this but on the
off-chance that not everyone does, here's a useful little tip for when
you are searching at the FreeBMD website for the entries of births, marriages
and deaths of relatives, etc. This is particularly useful for those running
one-name studies but it can also work for ordinary family historians if
they want to identify possible relatives with an unusual surname where it
was used as a middle name, i.e. possibly the name of a mother or
grandparent, etc.

If you enter nothing at all in the surname field but enter in the first
name field a surname with a + sign in front of it, this produces entries in
which the name was used either as a forename or a middle name. To give you
an example.....

Entering just "Stockdill" in the first name field produces only ONE
entry,for a child called Stockdill Middlebrook registered in 1896 at
But if I enter "+Stockdill" in the first name field, nothing in the
surnamefield and choose All Types, this produces NINE other entries for
births,marriages and deaths where Stockdill was given as a middle name. I can
then identify all of these as being either relatives of mine or linked
to my one-name study.

Antrim Completed Look up Requests / STUART/STRANGE marriage
« on: Wednesday 06 February 08 15:14 GMT (UK)  »
According to the IGI, George STUART married Agnes STRANGE 3 Jan 1848 in Ireland.

The (free) search on Emerald Ancestors site tells me that it was somewhere in Antrim.

Does anyone have access to any more info please?

Lincolnshire Lookup Requests / Lost WATLEYs - can't find 'em in censuses
« on: Saturday 12 January 08 22:48 GMT (UK)  »
Marriage 3 Feb 1829 at Tydd St Mary
John Hammond WATLY to Elizabeth GOTT

Children, bap same place
1830 Elizabeth Hamond WATLEY
1834 John Hammond WATLEY
1837 Harriet WATLEY

Lincolnshire Lookup Requests / Marriage lookup please
« on: Saturday 03 November 07 18:27 GMT (UK)  »
Could someone please tell me where John EVERIT married Frances DREWRY (wid) in 1771 please - I have it as Kirton in Holland, but it says John EVERIT of Kirton, Frances DREWRY otp, so I would think I have it wrong.

It would have been in Holland East or Holland West.

Thanks :)

Cumberland / A few loose ends ...
« on: Tuesday 30 October 07 15:20 GMT (UK)  »
One of my problem families -

Jonathan DENWOOD bap 31 Dec 1800 Cockermouth (mother Sarah), buried 6 Oct 1834 Cockermouth

before he died (perhaps) he married  Mary ??

Sarah DENWOOD 1830 Wigton - 1833 Cockermouth
Jonathan DENWOOD 1832 Wigton - 1891 Wigton
Mary 1834 Cockermouth (bap the same day as her father's burial)

By 1841 Mary may have married again (or not)

Queen St, Carlisle (St Mary)
Mary SCOTT 40 Lab
Jonathan 10
Robert 8m
plus a ROOK lodger

in the house of John ROOK and family in Wigton was

Was Robert SCOTT the one bap at Carlisle, Holy Trinity 14 March 1841, son of Joseph (a Weaver) and Mary SCOTT (address given as Queen St)?  Who was Joseph SCOTT?  What became of him?  I never found a marriage for them ...

New St, Wigton
Mary DENWOOD 51 Wigton
Jonathan 19 Wigton
Mary 16 Cockermouth
Robert 10 Carlisle

EDIT:  I had never looked for daughter Mary until this morning.  It turns out that she married almost 300 miles away in Ross on Wye, Herefordshire in 1860.  Curiously, I went to Ross on Wye yesterday morning.

New St, Wigton
Mary SCOTT 58 Wigton
Robert 18 Carlisle

New St, Wigton
Mary DENWOOD 70 Wigton
plus 3 of Jonathan's children from his first marriage.

Mary DENWOOD 81 Wigton
plus several grandchildren

Was Mary originally called ROOK?  There were two of them baptised only a week apart at Wigton! 
Did she marry Jonathan?  Was it a NonCom wedding?  Their son Jonathan married - twice - at Gretna.

Did she marry Joe SCOTT?

I think eventually I may have to ask Carlisle for one of these
Births Mar 1841 
Scott    Robert         Carlisle    25   76
Scott    Robert         Carlisle    25   77

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4