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 - dimmell123

Pages: [1] 2
1
Graveyards and Gravestones / Re: Help deciphering plaque please
« on: Friday 20 June 08 09:34 BST (UK)  »
Oh dear Berlin-Bob - so sorry. I should have made it much more obvious that I had my tongue well and truly in my cheek! I am very happy with the forum's protocols and was merely having a bit of fun with the word 'gang'.
David

2
Graveyards and Gravestones / Re: Help deciphering plaque please
« on: Friday 20 June 08 08:51 BST (UK)  »
Hi GG
My brother Bob (LBobble on here) and I were following the Graveyard Gang main thread with excitement and great interest. It seemed the most creative and innovative development in the Restoration site in recent times. So I was sad to see it locked on Wednesday - just as I was getting ready to post up a couple of sarcophagi (is that the correct plural???)) of our ancestors  one of which is a bit of a challenge.
Can I ask if this thread is a replacement and if I may post them here?
David
ps that's another way of asking if I can join the gang????

3
World War One / Re: G Uncle Charlie's Naval Record
« on: Tuesday 29 January 08 16:02 GMT (UK)  »
Golly! Thanks for that. I guess it would be safe to assume something similar operated in the navy. I was delighted to see you had used Google Books for that. I have only just discovered what a goldmine that is in recent times but have only used it to look for people. Never thought of using it as you did. Thanks for that prompt!
David

4
The Common Room / Re: "What makes these people tick" EGO?
« on: Tuesday 29 January 08 15:55 GMT (UK)  »
Hi Sue. I sympathise with your view and situation because, to some extent, 'lifting' names from some-one else's tree devalues the massive enterprise and effort (and sheer expense!!!!!!) some of us undertaken in order to get where we are.
I started out on Genes Reunited (ages ago) and was pretty excited, initially, especially when I found living family connections I hadn't known about. That has been a particular joy. Sadly, when ITV took GU over I saw things going down the pan and there was a huge furore about 'stolen trees'. I even came across one with over 220,000 names in it and was incandescant with rage when I noticed that my tree had been lifted wholesale, imported, and even a few significant names and dates changed slightly to make it fit. THAT was the moment when my tree went private!!!!!
I came across yet another living family member who had done some terrific research (and leg-work) and she introduced me to Ancestry. So I exported my gedcom, made my brother an editor (and we work together on it), and ensured that it was PRIVATE not public. As a precaution I deleted everything from the GU tree except myself with a silly name and rubbish dates and waited until this month for my sub to expire.
Why do I protect my tree this way? Well it is simple: I am a purist. I drive my brother to distraction because he is much more excitable than I and prone to flights of fancy. Generally, I allow nothing into my tree unless there are the required three pieces of primary evidence. Because our tree is verified in this way back to 1610 obviously there are some difficulties obtaining primary evidence for the earlier years but gravestones, newspaper reports, land taxes etc are all acceptable in my opinion. It doesn't just have to be certificates! Getting hold of such information has cost me a fortune and, of course, both of us now living well away from Northumberland we have to make expensive visits for periods to actively research various points.
Like many others I have the blinkers off and look sideways at my tree and this is because it fills out the picture and feeds my other main interest of social history. Quite often, the bloodline alone doesn't tell the whole story. If one comes across distant relatives in the process that is all part of the story. Three of mine are really 4th cousins once removed (two from the same branch, one from another) and their help has been invaluable. If it hadn't been for them I wouldn't have understood why some members of the family migrated away from the 'family seat' in Northumberland.
My view is simple: if one has information which needs protecting in any way make the tree private. You can always invite people in (even for a limited period). In Ancestry links still arise even if a tree is private. It just means the 'finder' has to approach the unknown owner for information. The control is then with the owner to decline or open it up. I am not interested in making a public show of what a wonderful job of work we have done (because we still feel we have only just scraped the surface) and I certainly don't want all the world to see some of our 'skeletons' we have unexpectedly uncovered.
This is only my way and I share it with you so you can see others face the same issues you have encountered. Sometimes there are decisions to be made and it would be better if some-one gave us guidance before we start because most of us just jump in with enthusiasm and then discover we have to unpick some bits!
David

5
World War One / Re: G Uncle Charlie's Naval Record
« on: Tuesday 29 January 08 15:08 GMT (UK)  »
Hi and thanks for your reply. Charles was born 14 June 1893, Ashington, Northumberland. As I stated I have his Naval record complete from joining 24 July 1912 (when he signed up for 12 years) through to his "free discharge" 19 March 1920 and then his transfer to RFR where he spent 9 April 1921 till 9 June 1921  again on Victory II. That last point is the final entry on his service record ie 4ish years short of the term he signed up for.

Victory II is, as far as I understand it,  a shore-based training establishment where, judging by the pattern,  they spent episodes of about a month, obviously at the start and then periodically again throughout service. Charles did this 5 times throughout his years ending up there again when he transferred to RFR.

The vessels he served on were (in order, but missing out Victory II periods):
HMSs Renown, Ninerda II, Vindictive, Achilles (the longest single spell - 14 Sep 1914-1 Nov 1917), Hsela II, Dolphin, Ross (some of the spelling of these might not be right: everything is handwritten and at times a little difficult to read).

Checking the WW1 Forum there is some confusion about Victory II - whether it might have been Crystal Palace based and/or Portsmouth, and whether it was used as early as 1905 (some say 1910) or as late as 1920 (but some say they have records through to 1928 at least).

None of these points are THAT important because they do not change the facts of his known service record.

I only wanted to know what the expression "Free Discharge" meant and if anyone had any idea why he would be released 4 years earlier than the term he signed up for (and I suspect the word "free" has something to do with the latter point, linked to his transfer to RFR)
David

6
World War One / Re: G Uncle Charlie's Naval Record
« on: Friday 25 January 08 18:57 GMT (UK)  »
.

7
World War One / G Uncle Charlie's Naval Record
« on: Friday 25 January 08 14:58 GMT (UK)  »
I wonder if any of you knowledgeable people can help with my relative's naval record. Charlie  (Charles Lawson) signed up for 12 years commencing 24 July 1912 and I have his entire service record month by month which runs till the following entry:
Victory 2 Leading Stoker 16 March 1920-19 March 1980 but in the Discharge column it states "Shore (free discharge) and then the following entry is:
Joined RFR 20 March 1920. The final entry is as follows:
Victory 2 9 April 1921-4 June 1921
and then the record ends.

I am familiar with the terms 'honourable and dishonourable discharge' (of course) but have no idea what a free discharge is. Can anyone shed any light on that?

Also I am puzzled about his not serving until 1924 (the original 12 years from 1912). His record is unblemished and he rose steadily through the rankings without problem.

Our main problem is the trail goes cold on him completely from the last entry and I am wondering if the circumstances of his discharge and transfer to Royal Fleet Reserve might open a way for us. Despite having brothers (and our grandfather) whom we can trace from birth to death (and almost everything in between!) Charlie disappears off the face of the earth - no family comments/stories/mentions, no marriage, no death - no idea where he might have lived.
Any help would be appreciated.
David

8
Technical Help / Re: What is wrong with Ancestrythis afternoon?
« on: Thursday 24 January 08 20:14 GMT (UK)  »
Gadget, thanks for replying and I'm so glad to see you are in some agreement (I have a lot of respect for you!). I was really scared I might have ranted a bit too much and was waiting for a 'flame war' to start.
My bro and I have just had an hour together on Skype and together we have been searching for some of our 'brick walls'. And because of some of the stuff in this thread I tried logging in to Ancestry.com instead of .co.uk. Very strange happenings there! It logged me in automatically but I have to log in on .co.uk and then.....and then.....I see the Americans have a different menu system on the right hand side of the people view. One is a beta test for printing a book (very very interesting and possibly shows a lot of promise) and then another which I forget now. But we were looking for an ancestor of ours called Charles Lawson and true to form, it brought up Andrew Charles Lawson, Archibald Charles Lawson etc right through the alphabet until finally, after 350 results it reverted to just Charles Lawson. Excuse me - that's what I asked it to do. There simply is no rhyme or reason for this idiocy.
David

9
Technical Help / Re: What is wrong with Ancestrythis afternoon?
« on: Thursday 24 January 08 18:05 GMT (UK)  »
Hi Everyone
I read this thread with GREAT interest because I have been having extensive discussions (by phone and email) with Ancestry staff for some weeks now about the 'silliness' of the search engines. These discussions escalated to the level of Product Manager but when I invited him to join with me in a structured search under my guidance he seems to have backed off. I am an experienced researcher in general terms (being a retired university lecturer) and can see all sorts of problems with the manner in which Ancestry have developed their databases. For those in the know they do not use hierarchical searching and so results are very random indeed. Tney also use one American tradition which is not in universal use and that is adding the woman's married name to the maiden name when you use the link next to your person in the tree "Search For Historical Records" (if when searching you scroll right down to the bottom of the page you will see the system has added the married name in so the original might be Mary Jones but becomes Mary Jones Smith [names concocted]). You will now readily see why when looking for example for a birth record in Ancestry lots of Smiths come up when you are only expecting Joneses! They say they do this so that it becomes possible to get a match for a death which would only be recorded under a married name. Talk about taking a sledgehammer to crack a walnut!. My brother and I have run many tests in this way using known data (our mother) and it is possible to go through 2000 results (all completely irrelevant) without finding her. Interestingly a hit is produced in Findmypast instantly. I have asked and better asked if  am going about searching the wrong way and all staff have said I have it right and they cannot understand why so many false results are produced. I have even challenged individuals to find themselves using these methods and they have to confess they cannot.
I really don't know where all this will end. All I do know is that now I am retired I find it difficult to justify an Ancestry subscription, Findmypast credits, credits for other specialised sites and then the cost of certificates on top of all that so something will have to be done and Ancestry don't seem to have the answer.
Whilst having a little rant have you not noticed in the UK how Ancestry slows down to a standstill in the afternoons (presumably when our friends across the pond get out of bed and get going on their PCs)?  Yesterday (high powered PC, fast broadband and 4GB memory!) it actually timed out about 10 times! We need more dedicated bandwidth (UK servers) but will they listen????
And then there is the matter of the GRO and sending for certificates. £7 each and they retain £4 if it isn't right. But usually the errors are in the actual Index in the first place - ie THEIR error. That seems most unfair. On this subject there are two books (A Comedy of Errors Acts I and II by Michael Whitfield Foster available through FFHS at GenFair) which is phenomenal research indicating that at least 30% of GRO records are in an error state. Add to that transcribers' errors and suddenly all is explained!.
I'm not knocking Ancestry for the sake of it. If I say I was originally with Genes Reunited and got hopelessly fed up with the clunkiness and inadequacy there (since ITV took them over) and I haven't found anything better than Ancestry yet - but you know - fitness for purpose, 'doing what it says on the tin' - it isn't cheap and we should expect what we expect.
I just wanted to share these thoughts with you in view of the fact that some of you have experienced search problems. Actually I don't know many people who haven't!
David

Pages: [1] 2