RootsChat.Com
England (Counties as in 1851-1901) => Yorkshire (West Riding) => England => Yorkshire (West Riding) Lookup Requests => Topic started by: sephardictyke on Saturday 20 August 22 20:15 BST (UK)
-
Hi all
On Nov 2 Elizabeth Cryer married William Calverley at Rothwell nr Leeds.
I / we are looking for a breakthrough on Elizabeths family. We have nothing else at present.
Some investigation suggests that Cryer may not have been her birth name and that William above was not her first husband. So far the most likely possibility is as follows.
William Cryer married Elizabeth Gott on June 21 1586 at Kildwick, nr Leeds. A William Cryer died and was buried July 21 1598.
Benjamin Gott 1762- did very well in Leeds during the industrial revolution and this sort of thing tends to drown out previous family history in internet searches so it may be the same family, but so far we have no way of confirming that
Can anyone help us here please?
Thank you.
-
Hi,
Think you have posted in the wrong place, so may be best to ask a moderator to move you to get the best answers to your query. :)
It says - How to Use RootsChat (Please don't post requests here)
Good Luck
Sandra
-
I didnt.
I clicked the new topic button which I thought was fairly logical.
Someone needs to clean out this site then start again from scratch. It really is a dogs dinner. It has the " I put this thing together and use and manage it day to day, and (because of that) it is easy " written all over it. Instead of which whoever owns this thing should be asking themself " If I come on here for the first time or occasionally (like me) how will I find it?? And if they cant answer the question they should be asking people (like me for instance) who can.
Mass market products win or lose basis their accessibility and ease of operation. Dishwasher or a website, makes no difference.
This thing is a great idea, it really is, but it is dated, clunky and way over complicated and it is a real pain to use.
Thank you
-
There is a "New Topic" button on every board within RootsChat! ;)
First navigate the board, or sub-board, that best fits.
THEN hit "New Topic".
-
So why is there a new topic button on every page.
Even on a page where is not applicable ??
-
From a quick analysis of where you're up to, I think there's a danger of jumping to conclusions and leaping across gaps without any evidence. You also seem not to have given us all the information you have. In more detail:
On Nov 2 Elizabeth Cryer married William Calverley at Rothwell nr Leeds.
I / we are looking for a breakthrough on Elizabeths family. We have nothing else at present.
Some investigation suggests that Cryer may not have been her birth name and that William above was not her first husband. So far the most likely possibility is as follows.
William Cryer married Elizabeth Gott on June 21 1586 at Kildwick, nr Leeds. A William Cryer died and was buried July 21 1598.
You refer to "some investigation", without going into details. If we knew what that was, we could either avoid going over ground you've already covered, or offer opinions on how much confidence could be placed on that investigation, or both.
Your subject line mentions Cryers of Grantham, but your message has nothing about Grantham.
Cryer is a surname found fairly commonly in the Keighley/Skipton area (as is Gott), but both are more widespread than that. I note that the Rothwell registers (in printed transcript form) have a number of Cryer entries in the first half of the 17th century, but apparently none earlier than the marriage of Elizabeth to William Calverley (in 1600 - you didn't give the year). So there were clearly other Cryers around as well as Elizabeth, and if you can trace their origins you might find something on Elizabeth too.
EDIT: See my next reply for a comment on the 1598 burial.
Benjamin Gott 1762- did very well in Leeds during the industrial revolution and this sort of thing tends to drown out previous family history in internet searches so it may be the same family, but so far we have no way of confirming that
Can anyone help us here please?
Work backwards from Benjamin and see where you get to. But as Elizabeth is quite a common name, there's no guarantee that any that you stumble upon will be the right one.
As with any family, you need to be prepared to look beyond parish registers. Marriage licences and wills often provide evidence of relationships; if you're lucky you might also find a memorial that gives a bit more information than a simple burial entry.
Lastly, I wasn't very impressed by your criticism of this site. It has developed over many years to become a vast store of family history knowledge and advice - all available for nothing. It depends on the goodwill of its members, who, although they offer help freely, don't like to feel unappreciated. In that spirit, you might wish to revisit some of your own earlier queries, where you have not acknowledged the help you have been given. You can find them by clicking on your user name, then Show Posts on the left.
-
William Cryer married Elizabeth Gott on June 21 1586 at Kildwick, nr Leeds. A William Cryer died and was buried July 21 1598.
Further to my earlier reply, the burial in Kildwick on 21 July 1598 was for the wife of William Cryer of Silsden. (A William Cryer aged about 96 was buried in December 1600, but I've no idea whether this was the same one.)
-
- Im not jumping to conclusions nor am I leaping across gaps which is why I posted as I did.
- I have already done a lot of work on this and this is a very condensed "most likely" as things stand
- If you want all the evidence I have then I will post an 8 page Lincolnshire genealogist report which noone will bother to read. I could add a Joseph Foster Calverley pedigree that goes back to King Stephen if you like too...see how many people want to read that.
- "Going over ground covered". I have also posted in the style I have because I do not expect anyone to do my work for me. Why should they? They have their own stuff to deal with. Im just trying to trigger a memory from someones own family investigations
- I have spent the past 2 weeks trawling through the registers of some 8 parishes including Rothwell and this is where I am at now. I can practically recite both volumes of Rothwell to you by heart. The Calverleys were there for hundreds of years.
- I did not give the year of the Calverley / Cryer marriage because it is irrelevant. The question here here is was Elizabeth married previously and if so what was her maiden name? William has nothing to do with this. I only mention him for context. Otherwise it just muddles the issue.
- Benjamin Gott. Another reason for my post is that `working backwards` as you put it is not the same as working forwards. All you tend to end up with is a great long list of people with the same family name. Most times it is impossible to tell even how many lines there are. You need a fixed point somewhere and that is what is currently lacking.
- Beyond parish registers? I know. I have been at this family tree stuff for 10 years. There is nothing in the Calverley Charters at the B Museum etc etc. I have been in this situation before several times with other family lines and if all else fails you go fishing on the internet.
- I have never used a pay website. It has never been necessary. Internetarchive, family search, parliament on line, public collections and a host of other sources have stood me well for years.
Heres another example of why Im not interested in paysites. A friend checked for a parent of Elizabeth on ancestry. Over 200 family sites gave her Father as a Homer Cryer (Homer here married Rhoda West in Louisiana in 1815...)
Likewise (and I am working from memory here as I am afraid I will lose all the above if I go searching my threads on this site) If I recall correctly someone has recently suggested on my Cryer thread that, was it William, could have married someone of 90+ years. Have I got that right? I didnt really know what to say to that so so far I have not responded
Again working from memory
- Ibbetson thread some 5 years ago I provided a large amount of info. Cant remember anyone thanking me for that. Didnt bother me. Richard Doig was perfectly pleasant, then it went to email so you have no idea how it panned out.
- Wilford just became a thread
- A few weeks back I offered to send someone a tree on their Nathaniel Calverley thread and I received no response. Big deal.
But I dont think my`supposed`lack of manners on your site has anything to do with your comments to that end. You are just slapping me back.
As I understand it this is not a business so technically I am not a customer however I am sure you can square the circle when I say that in my business some of the best ideas for new products adjustments and improvements come from robust criticisms from our customers. We do not have a mindset where we take umbrage and become defensive when someone has a go at us. We embrace it. These are the people who buy and use what we supply. They are the reason we exist as an entity. Its not a case of oh weve been around for 30 years and we had a good profit last year so what can anybody tell us that we dont know already.
You do not like criticsm, which goes a long way to explaining why this site is the way it is.
Just because you dont like what someone says doesnt make their point invalid.
-
sephardictyke: Have you tried looking at http://www.wharfegen.org.uk/
Certainly got plenty of Cryer/Calverley named people listed.
[All the records listed are a transcription of actual records]
Brian
Even the Gotts of Kildwick!
-
Sephardictyke - you asked for help with a problem in your research and I offered it. As a newcomer to your particular family I am - probably unwisely - going to offer you a further critique of some of what you assert, since you seem not to have taken it on board. It's up to you what you do with it, but I shan't be adding any more to this thread.
- I did not give the year of the Calverley / Cryer marriage because it is irrelevant. The question here here is was Elizabeth married previously and if so what was her maiden name? William has nothing to do with this. I only mention him for context. Otherwise it just muddles the issue.
You initially suggested that "the most likely possibility" for Elizabeth Cryer was that she was née Gott, and widow of William Cryer who was buried in Kildwick in 1598. To re-iterate the points I made:
(a) Since there are others named Cryer in Rothwell, isn't it more likely that Elizabeth is related to them, rather than coming from over 20 miles away?
(b) If you nevertheless want to pursue the idea of a Kildwick connection, Elizabeth cannot be the widow of a William Cryer who was buried there in 1598, because that burial was for William Cryer's wife. (If you had read the printed copy of the register at the Internet Archive carefully, you would have known this.)
(c) There was a burial of a William Cryer in Kildwick in December 1600. However, you can't claim Elizabeth as his widow either, because the marriage in Rothwell to William Calverley was in November 1600. (This makes the year of her marriage extremely relevant, not irrelevant as you claim.)
Unless you can prove that Elizabeth Cryer was originally a Gott, the question of a link between her and Benjamin Gott in Leeds in 1762 doesn't arise.
(d) You also haven't explained how Grantham comes into it. Some might find this helpful or interesting.
Finally, I don't have anything to do with running RootsChat, but it has given me much enjoyment over the years and I feel a great deal of goodwill towards it. Newcomers and infrequent users might have valid points to make, but just charging in and saying things like "Someone needs to clean out this site then start again from scratch. It really is a dogs dinner" isn't going to go down too well.
-
I was not asking for help in my research. I have already explained that you very clearly in my previous email. Once more, when all the work I and a professional genealogist have done - neither of us are beginners - do you understand?? the most likely scanario is the KIldwick.
I boiled the whole thing down precisely in an attempt to avoid all the muddle headed ------- that you have thrown at me these past 2 emails. One thing I have found over the last 10 years following my family lines is that the amateur genealogist world is infested with know know-alls who assume that everyone they speak operates on the same level as they do, or 10 levels below.
a) No it is NOT more likely. I have been through that one ad nauseam and I am not going to spend the next 30 minutes explaining that one to you.
b) You made that mistake as well as my genealogist. Uxor is latin for wife. We actually agree on something
c) Yes. Thank you I am well aware that November comes before December. I learned that some time back in junior school
I do not give a fig whether Elizabeth was related to Benjamin Gott. Its just that BG was a famous guy, so there is more of a likelyhood that there might be a family tree lurking somewhere. That is the only reason BG is or could be remotely relevant. Incidently there is a suggestion that Elizabeth may have been a Gott but it does not come from parish registers.
To spell it out in very very simple terms,
- I want to find out whether Elizabeth was previously married
- The reason for that is because I want to find out what her maiden name was
- The reason for that is because I want to find who her parents were
- We, after lots and lots of study have determined that, for now, Kildwick is the most likely spot to look.
- Part of the reason is that we have done the maths in and around Grantham and we have done the maths in and around Rothwell and have come up empty handed. Nothing fits so we have determined that, for now, the most likely possibility is that Cryer was not her maiden name and until that comes up as nil we will pursue it.
-
Can anyone help us here please?
Thank you.
I was not asking for help in my research. I have already explained that you very clearly in my previous email. Once more, when all the work I and a professional genealogist have done - neither of us are beginners - do you understand?? the most likely scanario is the KIldwick.
Make your mind up AND don't be SO RUDE!
-
Oh God just get a life will you.
And while you are at it close my account because I, unsurprisingly, cannot find a way to delete my own from here.
-
I've got a life, thank you AND I've had it for 80 years! :-X
Now, please, do us all a favour and DISAPPEAR 8)
-
Just GO.............
-
I have to confess that I didn't understand what your aim was in your original post either. Am I to be shouted at, ridiculed and generally abused? That is generally the case when one is a moderator. Ah well......
One of our guidelines here:
https://www.rootschat.com/help/posting_guide.php
is
RootsChat discourages flaming. What is flaming? Flaming is treating others rudely online. Sometimes you might offend someone unintentionally, or they may offend you. Do not attack back, report it to a moderator who will deal with the situation. To contain the heat, the best response usually is no response at all.
What a pity that you chose to ignore that and showed such little respect for people who tried to engage with you to offer suggestions on the problem.
This topic is topic is now locked.
sephardictyke - if you wish to continue using the forum, please abide by the guidance that you agreed to when you originally registered with the site. Thank you.