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.


Messages - stevemiller

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 ... 33
1
Suffolk / Re: Suffolk parish registers to go online?
« on: Friday 08 August 25 10:46 BST (UK)  »
Suffolk Archives have just replied to me.

Badingham was NOT scanned as they do not hold the originals - only a microfiche of an earlier temporary deposit.

Arrrrgh!

2
Suffolk / Re: Suffolk parish registers to go online?
« on: Friday 08 August 25 09:49 BST (UK)  »
Trevor, thanks for the link but I'm looking for 1780/1790s; I have the Suffolk FHS transcripts.

I've just looked at my Phillimore Atlas & Index (3rd ed 2003) which says the Badingham registers had not been deposited.

I tried to find a list of holdings at Suffolk Archives but without success.

The Berkshire registers are being digitalised by Ancestry, but locally-held originals are also being included.

I wonder what is special about Badingham?

3
Suffolk / Re: Suffolk parish registers to go online?
« on: Friday 08 August 25 09:19 BST (UK)  »
Up at 6am (my usual time!) and lots of confirmations of transcripts. Indexing appears to be OK (at the moment).

When I turned to my Burrows/Burroughs of Badingham I hit the buffers - no registers for Badingham!
see the list at Trevor's earlier post no. 289.

I've emailed Suffolk Archives, but does anyone have any thoughts for the omission?
The registers can't all be too fragile to scan surely, and they are not in the Ipswich/Norfolk triangle mentioned above.

I cannot get "view record" either - just the chap panning for Suffolk gold.






4
Handwriting Deciphering & Recognition / Re: An Intriguing Marriage Certificate
« on: Wednesday 28 May 25 14:03 BST (UK)  »
Quarters

5
Free Photo Restoration & Date Old Photographs / Re: Estate workers, a few queries.
« on: Saturday 21 December 24 13:51 GMT (UK)  »
Very interesting photo.

Nearly six years ago (where did those years go?) I posted a photo which shows a similarly mixed group. https://www.rootschat.com/forum/index.php?topic=786359.0

Perhaps there are other examples out there.

Where was your photo taken?

(I've still had no luck discovering where my photo was taken)


6
Sussex / Re: "Missing" Baptist births at Wivelsfield
« on: Wednesday 28 February 24 12:42 GMT (UK)  »
Just in case someone follows down this path in the future.

I would think that Abraham Knight born 4 March 1773 is likely to be the one buried at Bethel Chapel, Wivelesfiled in Sep 1792, aged 19 - and unmarried.

Jesse Knight born 8 May 1792 was not the one who married Maria Lempriere; the one who did was my 4xgreat uncle Jesse, the only one (!) of 7 siblings to have a birth record (Ote Hill Chapel, Wivelsfield Jan 1790).



7
Sussex / Re: "Missing" Baptist births at Wivelsfield
« on: Wednesday 28 February 24 12:39 GMT (UK)  »
Many thanks for the comments

I have not been looking at baptisms whether adult, Baptist or CofE.

This is the Register of Births I have mentioned (on Ancestry; Findmypast have the same).
https://www.ancestry.co.uk/imageviewer/collections/2972/images/40612_B0150269-00005?ssrc=&backlabel=Return

FS film number 0825422 covers 9 chapels from the RG4 series, including this Wivelsfield register of births.

Amondg – do you have a link to that transcription on Ancestry? Or is it just the individual entries in “England, Select Births & Christenings, 1538-1975”?

I had a look at Sussex FHG’s data archive for the Chapel. Their transcription has the missing Knights, plus 3 Normans – 12 entries or 3 pages all “baptised” (should be “registered”) on 14 April 1790. These would fit in before the first image, page 5. Confusingly,  they appear to have nothing transcribed after page 20 of the Ancestry/FindMyPast images.

Either there a duplicate register (with more entries) or the scans on Ancestry/FindMyPast are missing pages. 

I would prefer to see the actual images but the transcriptions seem to be sound.  I don’t think it warrants a trip to Kew to see the original!

An interesting diversion.

8
Sussex / "Missing" Baptist births at Wivelsfield
« on: Tuesday 27 February 24 19:09 GMT (UK)  »
I'm sure I'm doing something wrong, but I can't see what! Please can anyone help?

FamilySearch batch C093041 covers the Baptist Chapel at Wivelsfield including three chrildren of William & Mary Knight - John 1771, Abraham 1773 and Hannah 1775

Here is the entry for John Knight https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:JQ14-D52

I've gone through the images for this register on Ancestry and Findmypast (twice) but I cannot see these entries (although there are quite a few Knights)

The stamped page number for the entries starts at page 5.

Do the two companies both have missing pages? (presumably they got the images from the LDS/FamilySearch)

Or are the missing Knights indexed wrongly and are at another Sussex chapel?

many thanks in advance





9
Berkshire / Re: Looking for c1770 baptism of Ann Blake at Didcot(?)
« on: Thursday 08 February 24 12:24 GMT (UK)  »
Hello Alan,
Thank you so much for that confirmation - I sort of hoped you would come up trumps!!!

I was happy Ann was correct (she witnessed her sisters' marriages and all three were in her mother's 1815 PCC will) but I wanted the icing on the cake with the baptism.

I'll wait for Oxon or Berks FHS to make Didcot a seperate download before I tackle the Blakes.

best wishes
Steve



Pages: [1] 2 3 4 ... 33