Oh dear - for someone who likes short posts - I exceeded the maximum size
so had to make 2 posts. To continue
The remainder of post #34 of today appears to be an expanded transcription of the 1881 Census available on the family search site. I would prefer to provide a link to a freely available source, so you will know it is available for further use. viz
http://www.familysearch.org/Eng/Search/frameset_search.asp?PAGE=census/search_census.aspOn any of the England boards (England general if you do not know a county) a number of folks will instantly find you census information from 1841 to 1901. They love to do it. Tati has the record for the fastest response time. For 1881, you will usually be directed to the LDS family search as you can search this yourself. The 1880 US and 1881 Canadian census are also available on this site.
I am not vaguely interested in denigrating anybody & I take offense at the word being used. I believe that the spirit of Rootschat is to share our information and sources to the best of our ability. Stating as fact something for which a source is not given, does not lend itself to this spirit. Quoting from sources without specifying the source ignores, among other things, any copyright attached to the source. Providing information freely available on the internet, as opposed to explaining to someone where it can be found, severely reduces the ability of folks to learn how to do their own research. Helping is great, teaching, when relevant, is better.
Encouraging off board conversations reduces the knowledge and enjoyment of all. There are times when folks may not want to discuss things on the main boards - recent family events being the obvious example - but encouraging PMs for items such as Parish research and location seems very self defeating.
I love Fife and I enjoy researching in Fife - a large part of my background (albeit many years ago) is Fife related. I do not claim any type of expertise whatsoever - I am a self taught family researcher. Five years ago I was too embarrassed to ask what was the IGI, and further embarrassed when I realised my assumption that spelling was important was ridiculed by those who found my Mill
ers masquerading as Mill
ars. Much of what I have learnt has come from RootsChatters. Everyone brings different skills to the boards. May this continue.
I also believe short is better, so before ending this very overlong post, I will provide the "short" census description. Tells the same story
1881 Bridge St Millers yard Kings Lynn St Margaret Norfolk RG11/2000 34/24
William W Johnson head M 59 Waterman Cambridge, Cambridge
Elizabeth do wife M 47 Scotland
William do son 15 Mat Maker Kings Lynn Norfolk
Elizabeth Ann Cowen Dau in Law U servant dom Eye, Suffolk
William Cowen SIL 14 mat maker Lynn, Norfolk
David Cowen SIL 10 scholar do do
Malinda Cowen DIL 7 do do do
(The in-law description at that time was often used for step relationships)
Trish
