Genealogy Chat

Keep reviewing your old notes and anything else ''old'' around the house........I have just been looking in a box of old letters, which I have looked in maybe dozens of times before over the years. Today I found in it a pebble from the beach on which was ''carved'' (scratched?) the word ''Cliffurd'' - presumably this was produced by my g-g-uncle Clifford who was later killed in WW1. The spelling error is poignant as I already knew that two of his siblings were dyslexic - looks like he may have been too??.........It's really spooky though - why was the pebble never there before??? Happy Hunting - Merry

They say the old ones are the best! I was looking through some old notes yesterday when I realised I'd somehow failed to add in some info I already had - either that or it was lost to a software crash! Christine

MMM - just nudged a thread of mine entitled 'do you believe in fate' that I put on a couple of weeks ago - along the same sort of line!!!!!! Trudy

Ooh Lyla, you can come and search my stuff if you like!! Mum keeps giving me more - I will need another spare room soon!! Have several trunks-full already.......Aaaggghhhhh!! Merry

Lyla - Can't you break into his house and steal the boxes - he won't notice if he never goes into his loft..... I could bring our ''white van'' over to put them in....don't let the neighbours see though, because they will have the boys in blue coming after us ...... Telling them it's boxes of crap won't help!! Merry

Yes, and it's rather frightening, isn't it, this seeing things that weren't there when you looked the first time. Last week I looked again at my g-g-g-grandparents on the 1861 census. Surname Taylor and in their 60s so no chance of marriage certificates and with such a common name, no prospect of picking the 'right' one out off the IGI. Their daughter, my g-g-grandmother, born in 1827, so no cert there either. So why, when I found them on the 1861 the first time, did I not notice that they had a 14 year old daughter still living with them? Born, of course, after registration came in. Found the birth entry, sent for the cert, got it today, yippee, now know g-g-g granny's maiden name - and it is fairly unusual so have got her birth and marriage off the IGI together with the names of both her parents, including her mother's maiden name. Why did I not see this before? I am beginning to think that Ancestry are sneaking new names in just to keep us on our toes. Glad to know it is not just me (thought it might be my age). Tina

Tina - I like the idea of Ancestry keeping a pussy-cat on her toes!! Lyla - Hmmm rather a long way - could we arrange for your uncle to be abducted by aliens for a couple of days - then go in with huge scanner and copy everything?? Do you have a laptop? Merry

havent found a marriage cert for a William Smith and Sarah Ann Tinkler in there by any chance have you???? maureen

Will begin knitting stocking later today! (or could do a fetching balaclava??) Merry

When I started to research my Skillings family in Edgefield, Norfolk, the records were still in the church. While I pored over the registers, the vicar had one eye on me and the other on his watch. Although I had made an appointment and made sure I left a donation, I was clearly a time waster. Under those circumstances, I did not make as many notes as I might have done. I found Edmund Skillings' baptism in 1840. He was illegitimate. I did not find his mother Louisa's subsequent marriage. At a later date, most of the registers were deposited, with the exception of the post 1837 marriages (book still in use!). Never mind, I noted all Skillings references from everything that WAS deposited, and bided my time. I took the GRO reference for the marriage when I extracted all Skillings bmd (the hard way, using the volumes and fiche in pre internet days). But there was no point obtaining the certificate, as that register would be deposited one day. Last week, I went up to Norfolk. At long, long last, the register has been deposited......... and yes, you've guessed it, the marriage isn't there! I looked at the banns book. No trace of the banns. My NOTES show no trace of the banns. Both Louisa and future husband should have been living in Edgefield. Certainly, his first wife was buried there in the same year. Louisa's second illegitimate son was born and baptised there in the same year. Suddenly the whiff of scandal turns into a positive stench. I have ordered my very first certificate online and there is an envelope with a Southport postmark awaiting me at home! But how could I have been so stupid as not to have ordered that certificate years ago? Is this one of the reasons a Geat Aunt burned all the family documents as soon as she learnt I was interested in family history?!

I wonder what he was trying to hide?? Sounds a bit sordid to me - could his papers be in your uncles loft?? Merry

My dad is like that old box of things LOL, hes 86 and goes over the same stories time and time again but just now and then information comes out. One sunday took the file down to show him and he noticed an old photograph which I had scanned, he said thats not my Uncle Hugh thats Grandad Nelson b1861, well my mouth touched the floor, he gave me a few more facts and then when I came home I search Ancestry.com and there is the all the Nelson family. Yeah its certainly worth keeping old things .. Dads too. Regards Yvonne

Well, today, its working exactly the opposite way with me. I have spent the last five weeks combing two Parish Regs for my Green family. I have them ALL now, back to 1566 with one or two small queries. Extremely peased with myself, and knowing that you cannot improve on perfection, nevertheless last night I decided to check my extractions against Hugh Wallis Batch numbers. Bah! I had missed one - a baptism of Daniel Green, 16 June 1721. What's more, he was in my notes as 'Find bap of Daniel Green, born before 1725.' So today, I stomped off to look at the PR again, mainly to see how I could possibly have missed this entry, perfect researcher that I am. He's not there. Not on 16th, 10th, 6th, 1st June, or Jan come to that. Or anywhere between 1715 - 1725. No Paniels, Baniels, no Davids, Bavids, Pavids etc. No one called Daniel baptised between 1715-1730. No Greens baptised who are not accounted for.Nothing in the margins, bottom of page, top of page, beginning of reg, end of reg. OK, so the Evil Transcriber made this entry up - but why?Did he/she have a personal interest in this man and just put him exactly where he ought to be? I know he lived - he's my 6 x GGF. I am utterly baffled but nervously wondering why my deceased ancestors are obligingly providing me with what I want to know, even though it doesnt exist! Can I hide in your Uncle's attic please? Olde Crone

Olde Crone: Do you know if the IGI entries are from the BT's or the PR's re your missing Daniel???? Very naughty of the transcriber to ''make up'' an entry! If this Daniel is your rellie, maybe you are related to the transcriber and he/she wanted desparately to have a baptism recorded to make sense of his/her own tree???!!! Merry

The entries were transcribed from the PRs. But I had the same thought as you (but later!) - wonder if this came from the BTs? Trouble is, I cant locate the BTs AS YET...grrr.And I havent a clue how you would go about tracking down a Transcriber.... No, that cant be right either - the Hugh Wallis Batch Number led me into the Parish Register Transcriptions and I have seen the PR with my own eyes - all have the same reference number - hope that makes sense.Nobody mentions Bishops Transcripts at all. All other 116 events were exactly right. Olde Crone (feeling very haunted)

Hmmmm.......Sounds v spooky then.....must be the rellie trying to contact you from beyond the grave?? Are the Greens connected to the Rathbeaunes?? Merry