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 - ~buttons~

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 ... 25
1
Australia / Re: John James DEARLOVE
« on: Friday 25 April 25 03:17 BST (UK)  »

and it doesn't help when the transcription of the above record (link provided prev) shows:

Name:           Dearlove, John
Record Type:   Marriage Permissions
Ship/free:           Maria Somes
Marriage to:   Egan, Mary
Ship/free:           Duke of Cornwall
Permission date:13 Sep 1852
Index number:   18178
Record ID:           NAME_INDEXES:1246054

2
Australia / Re: John James DEARLOVE
« on: Thursday 24 April 25 02:16 BST (UK)  »
Quote from: Christine Cramer on Thursday 24 April 25 00:30 BST (UK)

Name    John Dearlove
Registration Quarter    Apr-May-Jun
Death Registration Place    Hackney, London, United Kingdom
Death Date    Jun. 1860
Inferred Death Place    London, United Kingdom
Volume    1b
Page    219


This John DEARLOVE was reported to be 47 years old (GRO) so probably not your man

It would be unlikely that he was refused permission to marry only because his wife was alive in UK.
The laws associated with a 7 year transportation sentence would mean both could remarry.
However any initial problem was rectified in October 1852
TROVE newspaper search has reported that the sanction was lifted in October 1852 so John & Mary were free to marry. Note that he only had Ticket of Leave in 1852.
Did they marry?

CONVICT DEPARTMENT.
Comptroller-General's Office, 11th October, 1852.
The Lieutenant-Governor has been pleased to withdraw his sanction to the marriage
of the under-mentioned persons ;—
John Dearlove. T. L„ "Maria Somes" and Mary Evans, "Anna Maria",
both residing in the Hobart District.
J.S. HAMPTON, Comptroller-General

Was Mary Evans of the "Anna Maria" the same lady as Maria Evans of the "Duke of Cornwall"?

EDIT: Amended to add extra info

3
Family History Beginners Board / Re: WHERE DID I FIND THIS INFORMATION??
« on: Sunday 30 March 25 07:25 BST (UK)  »
This appears to have come from Queensland BDM

https://www.familyhistory.bdm.qld.gov.au/

James Gall & Elizabeth Bavister married 23 August 1880 in Qld. Ref: 1880/C/474

4
Free Photo Restoration & Date Old Photographs / Re: Identifying a sailor aboard the USS Nashville (PG-7)
« on: Thursday 20 March 25 06:58 GMT (UK)  »

In my opinion they are totally different men


5
Family History Beginners Board / Re: Mary Gouldthorpe, b. abt 1821, Melbourn, Cambridgeshire.
« on: Monday 10 February 25 12:24 GMT (UK)  »
Just to add a few extra details (from FREEREG)

Mary Jane GOULDTHORPE, spinster, age 20 yrs of Melbourn Cambs, dau of John Gouldthorpe, Publican

married 9 December 1873 at All Saints Melbourn

Charles Mortlock WALLER, bachelor of full age, a Farmer of Meldreth, son of William Waller, Farmer
 -----------
The Mortlock name/family was well known in the Melbourn & Meldreth area

 

6
The Common Room / Re: Parish Registers &/or Bishops Transcripts
« on: Monday 10 February 25 00:55 GMT (UK)  »
Thanks for the update john ni

Having finally found a copy of the actual, for real, page of burials from the Parish Registers and compared that with BT - you're correct Boo. There isn't any way to see when one or the other was written.

Surprisingly & contrary to popular belief, the Lamb burial is on the PR for Staindrop in 1838.

The search continues for the "real" HenryLamb
 
Many thanks for everyone's help. It's very much appreciated

7
Free Photo Restoration & Date Old Photographs / Re: Damaged Torn Photo - Needs Restoration.
« on: Tuesday 04 February 25 00:44 GMT (UK)  »
Although not a restoration it's a stunning AI interpretation based on the original - well done Rami

Personally, I find that the extra birds, beads, baubles and brooch are unnecessary additions to what is a lovely old family photograph.
Unfortunately, I find the "extras" somewhat of a distraction.

BTW - Shoulders should be pleated, not gathered, to fit with the timeframe of the original photo.

All in all, an interesting rendition

8
The Common Room / Re: Parish Registers &/or Bishops Transcripts
« on: Saturday 01 February 25 12:20 GMT (UK)  »

Thanks for the extra info Spelk & Boo

Interesting details on the York Baptism book - Thanks hanes teulu

There are 2 records showing Maria's baptism. One is PR, other is BT.
Comparing various PR's to the corresponding BT shows exactly how errors or corrections can occur.

On The Bishop's Transcripts in very small writing at the end it states:
"N.B. All copies of Baptisms, Marriages and Burials must be made out at the expiration of Two Months after the 31st Day of December in every Year, and transmitted to the Registrar on or before the 1st Day of June following."

Excellent example - many thanks



9
The Common Room / Re: Parish Registers &/or Bishops Transcripts
« on: Saturday 01 February 25 00:56 GMT (UK)  »
Thanks hanes teulu & Boo

My question, this time, wasn't related to Durham but thanks for the link.

Quote from: Tickettyboo on Friday 31 January 25 15:59 GMT (UK)
The simple answer is that the layout and info, in theory, should be the same.

The event (Baptism/Marriage/Burial) details were entered in the Parish Register, which remained at the Church.

A copy register was then transcribed from the original (could have been done concurrently or up to a year later, there's no way to know) and that copy was sent to the Bishop at yearly intervals.

as the BTs were a transcription, copying from one book to another, there is always a 'possibility' that some entries 'may' have been mistranscribed or missed altogether.

...

Boo

Thank you Boo
Your explanation was just what I was looking for.

Unfortunately I have all recorded as "PR's"  ???
 (done before recording exact source was important )

The timing of the recording of the BT's also answers my other question re Durham records.
12 month delay could make a big difference in transcription info.

Again, thank you both for your help.

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 ... 25