1
Leicestershire Lookup Requests / Re: Look-up wanted 1907 marriage Melton Mowbray
« on: Monday 20 February 17 23:10 GMT (UK) »
No e-mail yet received, Keith.
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.
2
Leicestershire Lookup Requests / Re: Look-up wanted 1907 marriage Melton Mowbray
« on: Monday 20 February 17 08:48 GMT (UK) »
Hi Lizzie May,
I was surprised and delighted to read your two posts this morning. Clearly, you are descendant of Charles & Annie Whitehouse and therefore an extremely distant cousin on the basis of the reasonable probabilities expressed in the notes to the tree. I was about to publish the tree in hard copy for the benefit of my family, a few cousins and posterity, but delayed doing so when I learned of the new GRO indexes. I have yet to apply these to this tree to check for extra children, verify maiden names and so on.
First of all, please reply to this post so that you have 3 posts to your name, as it will then be possible for you to receive a personal message. Alternatively or additionally send me a private e-mail: my website tells you how to do this. This will avoid clogging up the RootsChat board with stuff that is of no general interest.
Many thanks, Keith
I was surprised and delighted to read your two posts this morning. Clearly, you are descendant of Charles & Annie Whitehouse and therefore an extremely distant cousin on the basis of the reasonable probabilities expressed in the notes to the tree. I was about to publish the tree in hard copy for the benefit of my family, a few cousins and posterity, but delayed doing so when I learned of the new GRO indexes. I have yet to apply these to this tree to check for extra children, verify maiden names and so on.
First of all, please reply to this post so that you have 3 posts to your name, as it will then be possible for you to receive a personal message. Alternatively or additionally send me a private e-mail: my website tells you how to do this. This will avoid clogging up the RootsChat board with stuff that is of no general interest.
Many thanks, Keith
3
Derbyshire Lookup Requests / Ilkeston St Mary Apr to Jun 1933 marriage look-up
« on: Thursday 27 October 16 12:56 BST (UK) »
Please, is there a kind person who would extract for me the church register details of the marriage of Alfred Butler to Florence May Clower at Ilkeston St Mary April to June quarter 1933, at entry 111 (per Derbyshire Registrar's marriage Index) ? Keith
4
Northumberland / Re: North Tyneside BMD index code
« on: Sunday 23 October 16 11:21 BST (UK) »
Hi Michael,
You have quoted correctly the GRO index reference, by giving the year, quarter, Registration District, Volume (10b) and page number (410). The marriage that you seek probably took place at Wallsend Our Lady & St Columba Roman Catholic church, since this is on page 409. From what John says helpfully in his reply post, it seems likely that W43 means the same thing for page 409 as 410. The broader point here is that it must have taken place at a non-Conformist church or in a Register Office and in either case it would be recorded in the Registrar's Books, since the marriage took place before the 1898 Act came into force on 1st April 1899. That means you usually can't get access to the details except by buying a certificate. That said, a few non-Conformist churches, especially RC ones, did keep their own books as well, although not necessarily giving all the details that you would find in a certificate. Here, you might be lucky, because, according to the GENUKI website, this church has a marriage register from 1886 onwards available at the Tyne & Wear Archives. Continuing the broader point, you need to be aware of the practice of GRO clerks in arranging Anglican marriages before non-Conformist (NC) & Register Office (RO) ones. Here, Tynemouth Reg. District occupies page 271 to 435 of the GRO book and page 410 is only 9.5 percent from the end of the range, which, in the late 1800s, as here, indicates NC or RO. You can find more about how to "mine" marriages from church registers from the papers on the subject on my website at www.users.waitrose.com/~whitehousefhc. The papers relate to other areas, but the same principles apply to all areas. It would be helpful to me and others if you would go to the T & W archives (if you live in the area) and report back here on the range of marriages at this church in that quarter of 1891 (Jan to March), giving the dates and parties of the first and last in the quarter, because the number of marriages indicated by John's reply as belonging to the W43 code would be most unusual for one RC church, esp. as the 1st quarter is usually quiet - maybe Easter was early that year. Good luck ! Keith
You have quoted correctly the GRO index reference, by giving the year, quarter, Registration District, Volume (10b) and page number (410). The marriage that you seek probably took place at Wallsend Our Lady & St Columba Roman Catholic church, since this is on page 409. From what John says helpfully in his reply post, it seems likely that W43 means the same thing for page 409 as 410. The broader point here is that it must have taken place at a non-Conformist church or in a Register Office and in either case it would be recorded in the Registrar's Books, since the marriage took place before the 1898 Act came into force on 1st April 1899. That means you usually can't get access to the details except by buying a certificate. That said, a few non-Conformist churches, especially RC ones, did keep their own books as well, although not necessarily giving all the details that you would find in a certificate. Here, you might be lucky, because, according to the GENUKI website, this church has a marriage register from 1886 onwards available at the Tyne & Wear Archives. Continuing the broader point, you need to be aware of the practice of GRO clerks in arranging Anglican marriages before non-Conformist (NC) & Register Office (RO) ones. Here, Tynemouth Reg. District occupies page 271 to 435 of the GRO book and page 410 is only 9.5 percent from the end of the range, which, in the late 1800s, as here, indicates NC or RO. You can find more about how to "mine" marriages from church registers from the papers on the subject on my website at www.users.waitrose.com/~whitehousefhc. The papers relate to other areas, but the same principles apply to all areas. It would be helpful to me and others if you would go to the T & W archives (if you live in the area) and report back here on the range of marriages at this church in that quarter of 1891 (Jan to March), giving the dates and parties of the first and last in the quarter, because the number of marriages indicated by John's reply as belonging to the W43 code would be most unusual for one RC church, esp. as the 1st quarter is usually quiet - maybe Easter was early that year. Good luck ! Keith
5
Northumberland / Re: North Tyneside BMD index code
« on: Friday 21 October 16 21:58 BST (UK) »
Hi Michael,
I suppose, from reading from my own post giving Anglican church codes, that W43 must refer to a non-Anglican church. Maybe it's a Wesleyan Methodist church. Could you give me the parties involved and the GRO reference, please ?
Keith
I suppose, from reading from my own post giving Anglican church codes, that W43 must refer to a non-Anglican church. Maybe it's a Wesleyan Methodist church. Could you give me the parties involved and the GRO reference, please ?
Keith
6
Leicestershire Lookup Requests / Re: Ashby de la Zouch Marriage 1925
« on: Saturday 20 August 16 07:55 BST (UK) »
...which is 150 miles away from me, so I'm hoping that someone who is visiting the Leicestershire Record Office would be kind enough to come to my aid.
7
Leicestershire Lookup Requests / Re: Ashby de la Zouch Marriage 1925
« on: Friday 19 August 16 22:57 BST (UK) »
Your message merely repeats the GRO data given in the request. The term "details of the marriage" means what is entered in the church register.
8
Leicestershire Lookup Requests / Ashby de la Zouch Marriage 1925
« on: Friday 19 August 16 17:17 BST (UK) »
Could someone please be so kind as to extract for me the details of the marriage of Carrie BUTLER to Frank Howard POOLE, GRO ref. 1925 Q4 Ashby Z 7a 206. GRO page number analysis indicates that this took place at Ashby de la Zouch parish church and is probably the last marriage there in the quarter, so approx. Christmas 1925.
Keith
Keith
9
Derbyshire Lookup Requests / Re: Derbyshire Registrar's Marriage Index
« on: Sunday 26 June 16 14:36 BST (UK) »
Dawn,
Many thanks. It's over a year since I looked at FindMyPast's Yorks Marriage Transcripts. They claimed in a Press Release to have covered Sheffield, but when I came to compare their results with my own "Marriage Mining", I found that they had transcribed very few indeed. Perhaps things have improved. Nevertheless, I am at fault for not looking and thank you again for rescuing me.
Carol,
Many thanks for the transcript, presumably from the same source. Curiously, perhaps, what struck me most about the witnesses was the Butler who gave only initials (plural). It so happens that the only two people in that family who properly had more than one forename had initials S M R and F E, the latter actually being a Butter (Reuben's aunt Gertrude Butler married Francis Edward Butter, in a move cunningly designed to test transcripts
. Even aunt by marriage Sarah Janet Butler did not properly have the Jane or Janet forename - she was registered as plain Sarah Teather, Jane being a later addition.
I apologise for having put the same request under Yorkshire, but you will understand my doubt about whether it would be fulfilled by Derbyshire Roots Chat. Again, many thanks.
Keith
Many thanks. It's over a year since I looked at FindMyPast's Yorks Marriage Transcripts. They claimed in a Press Release to have covered Sheffield, but when I came to compare their results with my own "Marriage Mining", I found that they had transcribed very few indeed. Perhaps things have improved. Nevertheless, I am at fault for not looking and thank you again for rescuing me.
Carol,
Many thanks for the transcript, presumably from the same source. Curiously, perhaps, what struck me most about the witnesses was the Butler who gave only initials (plural). It so happens that the only two people in that family who properly had more than one forename had initials S M R and F E, the latter actually being a Butter (Reuben's aunt Gertrude Butler married Francis Edward Butter, in a move cunningly designed to test transcripts
. Even aunt by marriage Sarah Janet Butler did not properly have the Jane or Janet forename - she was registered as plain Sarah Teather, Jane being a later addition.I apologise for having put the same request under Yorkshire, but you will understand my doubt about whether it would be fulfilled by Derbyshire Roots Chat. Again, many thanks.
Keith