I want to be _on_ topic, hence this!

I know there are several genealogists here: what newsgroups, if any, do
you take? I wanted to start taking one, but there are rather a lot with
genealogy in the 'group name.

(I don't like web forums.)

Since I've created the OT thread: has anyone found a central B, M, or D
resource for either the USA or Canada? It seems very fragmentary, but
surely there's some central one - or is it all done by individual
state/province? I'm spoiled by the all-England FreeBMD.org.uk and GRO
(back to mid-1837 anyway).
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Warning. The following ad break may contain sofas. - seen on Dave, 2018-4-20

On 27/06/2023 16:36, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
> I want to be _on_ topic, hence this!
>
> I know there are several genealogists here: what newsgroups, if any, do
> you take?

I've been subscribed to soc.genealogy.britain for yonks but it seems to
have rather given up the ghost - perhaps as a result of Goggle Gropes
ditching it because of (alleged) spam. Pity, because it used to be very
useful and if there was much spam Berlin dealt with it super efficiently.
>
> Since I've created the OT thread: has anyone found a central B, M, or D
> resource for either the USA or Canada?

No!

It seems very fragmentary, but
> surely there's some central one - or is it all done by individual
> state/province?

I think so.

--
Jenny M Benson
Wrexham, UK

In message <kg0kepFopjiU1@mid.individual.net> at Tue, 27 Jun 2023
18:26:46, Jenny M Benson <NemoNews@hotmail.co.uk> writes
>On 27/06/2023 16:36, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
>> I want to be _on_ topic, hence this!
>> I know there are several genealogists here: what newsgroups, if any,
>>do you take?
>
>I've been subscribed to soc.genealogy.britain for yonks but it seems to
>have rather given up the ghost - perhaps as a result of Goggle Gropes
>ditching it because of (alleged) spam. Pity, because it used to be
>very useful and if there was much spam Berlin dealt with it super
>efficiently.

I'm giving it a go, thanks. Seems to be on both plusnet and
eternal-september.

>> Since I've created the OT thread: has anyone found a central B, M,
>>or D resource for either the USA or Canada?
>
>No!
>
> It seems very fragmentary, but
>> surely there's some central one - or is it all done by individual
>>state/province?
>
>I think so.
>
Some of them seen to be either patchy or nonexistent.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Can you open your mind without it falling out?

On 27/06/2023 20:57, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
> In message <kg0kepFopjiU1@mid.individual.net> at Tue, 27 Jun 2023
> 18:26:46, Jenny M Benson <NemoNews@hotmail.co.uk> writes
>> On 27/06/2023 16:36, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
>>> I want to be _on_ topic, hence this!
>>>  I know there are several genealogists here: what newsgroups, if any,
>>> do  you take?
>>
>> I've been subscribed to soc.genealogy.britain for yonks but it seems
>> to have rather given up the ghost - perhaps as a result of Goggle
>> Gropes ditching it because of (alleged) spam.  Pity, because it used
>> to be very useful and if there was much spam Berlin dealt with it
>> super efficiently.
>
> I'm giving it a go, thanks. Seems to be on both plusnet and
> eternal-september.
>
>>>  Since I've created the OT thread: has anyone found a central B, M,
>>> or D  resource for either the USA or Canada?
>>
>> No!
>>
>> It seems very fragmentary, but
>>> surely there's some central one - or is it all done by individual
>>> state/province?
>>
>> I think so.
>>
> Some of them seen to be either patchy or nonexistent.

Aren't the Mormons pretty comprehensive? I thought they planned to
include everyone in the whole wide world, or at least the United States,
in order to baptise them retrospectively.

--
Kate B

Kate B <elvira@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> On 27/06/2023 20:57, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
>> In message <kg0kepFopjiU1@mid.individual.net> at Tue, 27 Jun 2023
>> 18:26:46, Jenny M Benson <NemoNews@hotmail.co.uk> writes
>>> On 27/06/2023 16:36, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
>>>> I want to be _on_ topic, hence this!
>>>>  I know there are several genealogists here: what newsgroups, if any,
>>>> do  you take?
>>>
>>> I've been subscribed to soc.genealogy.britain for yonks but it seems
>>> to have rather given up the ghost - perhaps as a result of Goggle
>>> Gropes ditching it because of (alleged) spam.  Pity, because it used
>>> to be very useful and if there was much spam Berlin dealt with it
>>> super efficiently.
>>
>> I'm giving it a go, thanks. Seems to be on both plusnet and
>> eternal-september.
>>
>>>>  Since I've created the OT thread: has anyone found a central B, M,
>>>> or D  resource for either the USA or Canada?
>>>
>>> No!
>>>
>>> It seems very fragmentary, but
>>>> surely there's some central one - or is it all done by individual
>>>> state/province?
>>>
>>> I think so.
>>>
>> Some of them seen to be either patchy or nonexistent.
>
> Aren't the Mormons pretty comprehensive? I thought they planned to
> include everyone in the whole wide world, or at least the United States,
> in order to baptise them retrospectively.
>

Didn’t you know? The United States *IS* the whole world as far as Merkins
are concerned!

--
Toodle Pip, Mike McMillan

On 28/06/2023 09:36, Kate B wrote:
> Aren't the Mormons pretty comprehensive? I thought they planned to
> include everyone in the whole wide world, or at least the United States,
> in order to baptise them retrospectively.
They are not the fount of ALL knowledge but do have a huge amount of
stuff available to all for free. I think some of their ideas are crazy
but I do have a great deal of respect for members of the LDS church who
I have always found friendly and helpful in the extreme and a real boon
to us genealogists. Like every other genealogy site, they do not have
images of original Source material for all their record sets and for
many of them access is restricted to viewing at an LDS library only.

Their aim is to include everyone in one giant Family Tree to which all
and sundry can and do contribute. The first snag is that much of the
content is unsourced or the sources are not original documents. The
second one is that not all the contributors are very good at it so there
is masses of duplication and incorrect entries.

BTW Jpeg, if you want to see what S.G.B. has to offer you can use
https://soc.genealogy.britain.narkive.com/.

--
Jenny M Benson
Wrexham, UK

In message <u7grtq$1nmad$1@dont-email.me> at Wed, 28 Jun 2023 08:44:42,
Mike McMillan <toodle.pip1@virginmedia.com> writes
>Kate B <elvira@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> On 27/06/2023 20:57, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
>>> In message <kg0kepFopjiU1@mid.individual.net> at Tue, 27 Jun 2023
>>> 18:26:46, Jenny M Benson <NemoNews@hotmail.co.uk> writes
>>>> On 27/06/2023 16:36, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
[]
>>>>>  Since I've created the OT thread: has anyone found a central B, M,
>>>>> or D  resource for either the USA or Canada?
>>>>
>>>> No!
>>>>
>>>> It seems very fragmentary, but
>>>>> surely there's some central one - or is it all done by individual
>>>>> state/province?
>>>>
>>>> I think so.
>>>>
>>> Some of them seen to be either patchy or nonexistent.
>>
>> Aren't the Mormons pretty comprehensive? I thought they planned to
>> include everyone in the whole wide world, or at least the United States,
>> in order to baptise them retrospectively.
>>
Yes; they're now known to the genealogical community as the LDS, which
is the name they prefer to be known by ("The Church of Jesus Christ and
the Latter-Day Saints"); they rather distance themselves from the Mormon
name nowadays. Their website it familysearch.org . They do indeed do it
because of some retrospective saving philosophy - but the main thing I'd
say about it is, they let the rest of us participate in their genealogy,
and access their records, with absolutely no pressure to join their
church or follow their beliefs. This was the case way back when you had
to go to a "family research centre" - I remember doing so; they just let
me use the microfilm machines and so on - and has extended to their
website and resources. Of course, they'll be delighted if you _do_
express any interest or curiosity about their
belief/philosophy/whatever, but absolutely no _pressure_. That's my
experience anyway. And their resources are completely free to use, for
anyone. (I think you _can_ pay, and possibly even get extra facilities
by doing so, but I've never either looked into it, nor felt the need to
do so.)

From a purely genealogical point of view: they - and especially their
"international genealogical index", or IGI for short - got a slightly
poor reputation in the early days, because it was compiled by people
with enthusiasm (and religious zeal) but not too much skill, and made
connections that were shall we say somewhat fanciful. But in recent
decades, they've realised this, and now differentiate between which
parts of their "one tree" were made by enthusiastic members, and which
are actually records-based. (The aim is to have one family tree that
connects everyone, which AFAICS is commendable - so many of us/we
researchers each building our own trees makes for a lot of duplication
of effort. Each person in their tree has a unique identity - for
example, my father is G4LZ-4C5.) I find their system a bit awkward to
actually _use_, but that's probably mainly because I'm not as familiar
with it as I am with other resources.)

Fanciful genealogy is of course certainly not unique to them though:
many of those new to the hobby (and, sadly, plenty who are not new!)
make connections that don't bear the slightest scrutiny, just because
they find the right name - to the extent that, on the whole, I _never_
copy links from another person's tree unless they have evidence. (Which
good genealogists do - they don't necessarily provide copies, but they
at least cite the source so you can look it up yourself.) To the extent
that if nine "trees" say one thing and one says another, it's likely
that the one is correct: one of the other nine made an innocent error,
and the other eight copied it!
>
>Didn’t you know? The United States *IS* the whole world as far as Merkins
>are concerned!
>
Also, they don't appreciate the difference in lifetime range between the
USA and the UK. I'm not sure why this difference exists: maybe it's the
pioneering spirit of how the USA developed. In the UK, there _are_ long
journeys (social migration, caused by e. g. the industrial revolution),
but _on the whole_, most people really didn't travel more than about
five miles - ten to fifteen at the most - in their lifetime. This
actually remained the case surprisingly late - I've been amazed to find
people up to about the 1920s who didn't move far! - but certainly before
the late 18xx, it's pretty rare. Even where there _is_ a big move - some
of mine moved from Norfolk to Northumberland, to get into mining
(dangerous and hard work, but it did pay very well, for the hewers at
least!) - it's followed by more staying put.

Certainly, genealogy is bigger in the USA - and also there's more
emphasis on racial origins ("ethnicity") from way back (Ancestry tell me
I'm 51% "England & Northwestern Europe", 24% Scotland, 19% Wales, 4%
Ireland, 2% Sweden & Denmark), whereas UK and European genealogists like
me are more interested in actual lines and the people, such as
occupations and stories. (Despite the above percentages, I've not really
found _any_ foreign ancestry: of my 32 G3GPs [born 1793-1829], all but
two are English-born, and those two are one Welsh one Scottish.)
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Lucy Worsley takes tea in Jane Austen's Regency Bath. - TV "Choices" listing,
RT 2017-5-27

In message <kg2cudF2c2nU2@mid.individual.net> at Wed, 28 Jun 2023
10:30:53, Jenny M Benson <NemoNews@hotmail.co.uk> writes
>On 28/06/2023 09:36, Kate B wrote:
>> Aren't the Mormons pretty comprehensive? I thought they planned to
>> include everyone in the whole wide world, or at least the United States,
>> in order to baptise them retrospectively.
>They are not the fount of ALL knowledge but do have a huge amount of
>stuff available to all for free. I think some of their ideas are crazy
>but I do have a great deal of respect for members of the LDS church who
>I have always found friendly and helpful in the extreme and a real boon
>to us genealogists. Like every other genealogy site, they do not have
>images of original Source material for all their record sets and for
>many of them access is restricted to viewing at an LDS library only.

(I just wrote more or less the same thing!) They _do_ actually have some
original documents: one range I've found particularly useful is their
"Diocese of Durham" range of bishop's transcripts (OK, BTs aren't
_quite_ original documents, but they're transcribed _fairly_
conscientiously and within a year or so of the originals); despite the
name, the Diocese of Durham actually covers quite a lot of
Northumberland and Yorkshire, and some of Cumberland (Cumbria). I think
they have other such blocks around the country (and presumably world,
especially USA).
>
>Their aim is to include everyone in one giant Family Tree to which all
>and sundry can and do contribute. The first snag is that much of the
>content is unsourced or the sources are not original documents. The
>second one is that not all the contributors are very good at it so
>there is masses of duplication and incorrect entries.

They do let you correct it (both by merging duplicate people and
breaking invalid links), though understandably [to minimise vandalism]
they make the process somewhat difficult; for the general benefit of
all, and as a sort of thank-you for the availability, I sometimes do do
a bit of that.
>
>BTW Jpeg, if you want to see what S.G.B. has to offer you can use
>https://soc.genealogy.britain.narkive.com/.
>
I keep forgetting about narkive. But I've subscribed anyway. You feature
prominently (-:
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Try to tell me to watch something because it's brilliant and everyone says so
and therefore I will love it, too, and you lose me for ever.
- Alison Graham, RT 2016/2/6-12

Mike McMillan <toodle.pip1@virginmedia.com> wrote:
> Kate B <elvira@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> On 27/06/2023 20:57, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
>>> In message <kg0kepFopjiU1@mid.individual.net> at Tue, 27 Jun 2023
>>> 18:26:46, Jenny M Benson <NemoNews@hotmail.co.uk> writes
>>>> On 27/06/2023 16:36, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
>>>>> I want to be _on_ topic, hence this!
>>>>>  I know there are several genealogists here: what newsgroups, if any,
>>>>> do  you take?
>>>>
>>>> I've been subscribed to soc.genealogy.britain for yonks but it seems
>>>> to have rather given up the ghost - perhaps as a result of Goggle
>>>> Gropes ditching it because of (alleged) spam.  Pity, because it used
>>>> to be very useful and if there was much spam Berlin dealt with it
>>>> super efficiently.
>>>
>>> I'm giving it a go, thanks. Seems to be on both plusnet and
>>> eternal-september.
>>>
>>>>>  Since I've created the OT thread: has anyone found a central B, M,
>>>>> or D  resource for either the USA or Canada?
>>>>
>>>> No!
>>>>
>>>> It seems very fragmentary, but
>>>>> surely there's some central one - or is it all done by individual
>>>>> state/province?
>>>>
>>>> I think so.
>>>>
>>> Some of them seen to be either patchy or nonexistent.
>>
>> Aren't the Mormons pretty comprehensive? I thought they planned to
>> include everyone in the whole wide world, or at least the United States,
>> in order to baptise them retrospectively.
>>
>
> Didn’t you know? The United States *IS* the whole world as far as Merkins
> are concerned!
>

https://www.pbs.org/mormons/etc/genealogy.html. Everything you mght need
to know.

Mrs McT

On 28/06/2023 10:55, J. P. Gilliver wrote:

> Also, they don't appreciate the difference in lifetime range between the
> USA and the UK. I'm not sure why this difference exists: maybe it's the
> pioneering spirit of how the USA developed. In the UK, there _are_ long
> journeys (social migration, caused by e. g. the industrial revolution),
> but _on the whole_, most people really didn't travel more than about
> five miles - ten to fifteen at the most - in their lifetime. This
> actually remained the case surprisingly late - I've been amazed to find
> people up to about the 1920s who didn't move far! - but certainly before
> the late 18xx, it's pretty rare. Even where there _is_ a big move - some
> of mine moved from Norfolk to Northumberland, to get into mining
> (dangerous and hard work, but it did pay very well, for the hewers at
> least!) - it's followed by more staying put.
>
Yes, I've often heard that people rarely travelled further than the
nearest market town or thereabouts up until the bicycle became popular
and put an end to inbreeding. But I wonder how true that really is. Most
people may well have not migrated far but travel may well be a different
matter. Looking at bits of history there appear to be people travelling
all over the place on a regular basis which must have resulted in the
spread of culture and technology and some migration. I'm thinking of
Bronze age trade between Orkney and Belgium(?); Roman soldiers (and
merchants?) from all over the Roman Empire; Assorted armies fighting off
various Viking or Scottish invasions; Medieval aristocracy "commuting"
between various castles spread across their estates and wherever the
king happened to be residing; The crusades; Pilgrimages to Canterbury
(or further afield); Assorted wars with France; Assorted minority groups
fleeing persecution; Freelance craftsmen going from one major project to
another; Touring entertainers; The civil war(s); The wealthy going on
their grand tours of Europe; The East India Company.

There must be many more reasons for travel that don't come to mind at
the moment (and, obviously, the exploration of the Americas, Africa,and
the far east). Much of this may have been limited to the rich and
powerful (and their staff) and it may have been a minority of the
population aver all but it still seems to add up to an awful lot of
coming and going for various reasons over the years.

As for the USA: They certainly can and do travel but when I was there I
got the impression that many of them never migrate out of state - they
grow up, go to the local university then move back home or to the
nearest major city in the state. I actually met one person (in his 20s)
working in a gas station who told me he had never been out of the county
(and it was a pretty rural county with very limited facilities).

--
Ric

On 29/06/2023 23:39, Joe Kerr wrote:
> On 28/06/2023 10:55, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
>
>> Also, they don't appreciate the difference in lifetime range between
>> the USA and the UK. I'm not sure why this difference exists: maybe
>> it's the pioneering spirit of how the USA developed. In the UK, there
>> _are_ long journeys (social migration, caused by e. g. the industrial
>> revolution), but _on the whole_, most people really didn't travel more
>> than about five miles - ten to fifteen at the most - in their
>> lifetime. This actually remained the case surprisingly late - I've
>> been amazed to find people up to about the 1920s who didn't move far!
>> - but certainly before the late 18xx, it's pretty rare. Even where
>> there _is_ a big move - some of mine moved from Norfolk to
>> Northumberland, to get into mining (dangerous and hard work, but it
>> did pay very well, for the hewers at least!) - it's followed by more
>> staying put.
>>
> Yes, I've often heard that people rarely travelled further than the
> nearest market town or thereabouts up until the bicycle became popular
> and put an end to inbreeding. But I wonder how true that really is. Most
> people may well have not migrated far but travel may well be a different
> matter. Looking at bits of history there appear to be people travelling
> all over the place on a regular basis which must have resulted in the
> spread of culture and technology and some migration. I'm thinking of
> Bronze age trade between Orkney and Belgium(?); Roman soldiers (and
> merchants?) from all over the Roman Empire; Assorted armies fighting off
> various Viking or Scottish invasions; Medieval aristocracy "commuting"
> between various castles spread across their estates and wherever the
> king happened to be residing; The crusades; Pilgrimages to Canterbury
> (or further afield); Assorted wars with France; Assorted minority groups
> fleeing persecution; Freelance craftsmen going from one major project to
> another; Touring entertainers; The civil war(s); The wealthy going on
> their grand tours of Europe; The East India Company.
>
> There must be many more reasons for travel that don't come to mind at
> the moment (and, obviously, the exploration of the Americas, Africa,and
> the far east). Much of this may have been limited to the rich and
> powerful (and their staff) and it may have been a minority of the
> population aver all but it still seems to add up to an awful lot of
> coming and going for various reasons over the years.
>
> As for the USA: They certainly can and do travel but when I was there I
> got the impression that many of them never migrate out of state - they
> grow up, go to the local university then move back home or to the
> nearest major city in the state. I actually met one person (in his 20s)
> working in a gas station who told me he had never been out of the county
> (and it was a pretty rural county with very limited facilities).

There have always been some individuals who would never move far from
home (unless forced) and there have always been others who 'leave home'
as soon as they can manage it.

In message <HbonM.1746$fNr5.743@fx16.iad> at Fri, 30 Jun 2023 00:10:31,
Sam Plusnet <not@home.com> writes
>On 29/06/2023 23:39, Joe Kerr wrote:
>> On 28/06/2023 10:55, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
>>
>>> Also, they don't appreciate the difference in lifetime range between
>>>the USA and the UK. I'm not sure why this difference exists: maybe
>>>it's the pioneering spirit of how the USA developed. In the UK, there
>>>_are_ long journeys (social migration, caused by e. g. the industrial
>>>revolution), but _on the whole_, most people really didn't travel
>>>more than about five miles - ten to fifteen at the most - in their
>>>lifetime. This actually remained the case surprisingly late - I've
>>>been amazed to find people up to about the 1920s who didn't move far!
[]
>> Yes, I've often heard that people rarely travelled further than the
>>nearest market town or thereabouts up until the bicycle became popular
>>and put an end to inbreeding. But I wonder how true that really is.

(I think the bicycle required moderately good roads. Not sure when it
came in, anyway - apart from Ordinaries, I think very late 18xx or early
19xx, for the masses anyway.)

>>Most people may well have not migrated far but travel may well be a
>>different matter. Looking at bits of history there appear to be

Yes, probably travel to visit things - shows, trade fairs, etc. - was a
_bit_ wider than actually moving your whole household. (Which -
certainly before the railways - I imagine as being more or less limited
to walking pace or less; I don't think a horse _pulling a cart_ foes
much more than walking pace, certainly not for long.)

>>people travelling all over the place on a regular basis which must
>>have resulted in the spread of culture and technology and some
>>migration. I'm thinking of Bronze age trade between Orkney and

Yes, but how much of that was single traders, and how much goods passed
from one to another? I imagine there _were_ some long-distance traders,
but the exception rather than the rule - if only because of the
difficulty of protecting your stock, either from robbers or excessive
customs charges (legal or otherwise).

>>Belgium(?); Roman soldiers (and merchants?) from all over the Roman

Armies have indeed always involved more travel than the average person,
up to after WWII at least. I'm also really only talking about say from
14xx/15xx onwards - things _may_ have been different further back,
though I don't think so.

>>Empire; Assorted armies fighting off various Viking or Scottish
>>invasions; Medieval aristocracy "commuting" between various castles
>>spread across their estates and wherever the king happened to be

As you say below, it was different for the rich.

>>residing; The crusades; Pilgrimages to Canterbury (or further

I think the crusades and pilgrimmages were something that (a) still took
months (b) were once-in-a-lifetime things. And undertaken by either
young people with few ties, or those wanting to do them before they
died.

>>afield); Assorted wars with France; Assorted minority groups fleeing
>>persecution; Freelance craftsmen going from one major project to
>>another; Touring entertainers; The civil war(s); The wealthy going on
>>their grand tours of Europe; The East India Company.
>> There must be many more reasons for travel that don't come to mind
>>at the moment (and, obviously, the exploration of the Americas,
>>Africa,and the far east). Much of this may have been limited to the
>>rich and powerful (and their staff) and it may have been a minority
>>of the population aver all but it still seems to add up to an awful
>>lot of coming and going for various reasons over the years.

Yes, but as you say, only a minority - and, on the whole, a tiny one. I
can only cite my experience in genealogy: on the whole, I've found 10
miles to be about the limit for most people, with 5 not being unusual -
certainly before the railways, and (with a _slightly_ larger range) even
well into the 19xx. (I _still_ find families where they don't stray
_that_ far - I've just been doing one that haven't strayed far from
Leeds, for example, up to the present day.)

>> As for the USA: They certainly can and do travel but when I was
>>there I got the impression that many of them never migrate out of
>>state - they grow up, go to the local university then move back home
>>or to the nearest major city in the state. I actually met one person
>>(in his 20s) working in a gas station who told me he had never been
>>out of the county (and it was a pretty rural county with very limited
>>facilities).

Certainly there are plenty of USAnians who've never left the USA. But I
think in the period I tend to be interested in - probably late 16xx to
mid 19xx - greater distances _were_ the norm, especially (?) for
European migrants who'd crossed the Atlantic anyway.
>
>There have always been some individuals who would never move far from
>home (unless forced) and there have always been others who 'leave home'
>as soon as they can manage it.
>
Indeed. I think I've been both. (Though I never accepted the concept of
_by default_ moving about every three years, which seemed to be what was
expected over a certain period, centred around 1980-1990 I'd say.)

(Note: I say e. g. 18xx rather than "the ??th century", because I've
always had the momentary hesitation: for the reason I understand but it
still throws me, the nominal century and the "number" of the year
disagree in my mind, so I use the actual year number.)
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

A professor is one who talks in someone else's sleep.

On 30/06/2023 02:19, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
>
> Yes, probably travel to visit things - shows, trade fairs, etc. - was a
> _bit_ wider than actually moving your whole household. (Which -
> certainly before the railways - I imagine as being more or less limited
> to walking pace or less; I don't think a horse _pulling a cart_ foes
> much more than walking pace, certainly not for long.)

What amazes me is the number of people, in the C19th who were
transported quite long distances after they died, to be buried in the
churchyard of their original home town. I can't recall the exact
details right now, but there was one instance where a person living in
or near Liverpool, died there and was buried in Wiltshire only 4 or 5
days later.

--
Jenny M Benson
Wrexham, UK

In message <kg7jteFquq9U1@mid.individual.net> at Fri, 30 Jun 2023
10:00:29, Jenny M Benson <NemoNews@hotmail.co.uk> writes
>On 30/06/2023 02:19, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
>> Yes, probably travel to visit things - shows, trade fairs, etc. -
>>was a _bit_ wider than actually moving your whole household. (Which -
>>certainly before the railways - I imagine as being more or less
>>limited to walking pace or less; I don't think a horse _pulling a
>>cart_ foes much more than walking pace, certainly not for long.)
>
>What amazes me is the number of people, in the C19th who were
>transported quite long distances after they died, to be buried in the
>churchyard of their original home town. I can't recall the exact
>details right now, but there was one instance where a person living in
>or near Liverpool, died there and was buried in Wiltshire only 4 or 5
>days later.
>
I guess the railways made a big difference to that possibility. I know
(there have been prog.s about it, usually as part of some series such as
Michael's or the ones about the London Underground) there was a railway
line from somewhere fairly central in London whose main if not sole
purpose was to convey such to one of the new cemeteries that had opened
up in the suburbs (to the north I think it was).
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Diplomacy is the art of letting someone have your way.

On 30/06/2023 10:14, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
>>
> I guess the railways made a big difference to that possibility. I know
> (there have been prog.s about it, usually as part of some series such as
> Michael's or the ones about the London Underground) there was a railway
> line from somewhere fairly central in London whose main if not sole
> purpose was to convey such to one of the new cemeteries that had opened
> up in the suburbs (to the north I think it was).

That was the Necropolis Line.
--
Jenny M Benson
Wrexham, UK

On 30.6.23 10:46, Jenny M Benson wrote:
> On 30/06/2023 10:14, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
>>>
>> I guess the railways made a big difference to that possibility. I know
>> (there have been prog.s about it, usually as part of some series such
>> as Michael's or the ones about the London Underground) there was a
>> railway line from somewhere fairly central in London whose main if not
>> sole purpose was to convey such to one of the new cemeteries that had
>> opened up in the suburbs (to the north I think it was).
>
> That was the Necropolis Line.

South from Waterloo to near Brookwood. The little branch at Brookwood
was dedicated to the service and it had a stand alone station at Waterloo.

--
Kosmo Richard W
www.travelswmw.whitnet.uk
https://tinyurl.com/KRWpics

On Fri, 30 Jun 2023 02:19:06 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> a
gribouillé dans la poussière...

>Armies have indeed always involved more travel than the average person,
>up to after WWII at least.

Also navies and sea-bourne traders of course.
I imagine Alexander Selkirk left home in Largo, Fife, because he had
several older brothers (one of which was my 8th GG, who was a shoemaker,
like their father). One of my GG was born in Stafford, shortly before, or
afterward, his father died (I'm having trouble sorting that one out as that
area is full of Ledbetters (in a wide range of spellings). He joined the
Navy at 15 - presumably not wanting to work in the boot-making trade like
his mother and her family - and settled in Portsmouth in his 30s. His
journal is held in the RN museum - interesting reading as it gives the lie
to some of the things reported in Hansard and The Times.

Large families and, if there was any property involved, inheritance by
eldest son only, will have set some young men wandering off to 'seek their
fortune'.

Some of the travellers were deported to America, or Australia, for theft,
or other relatively minor misdemeanours. A slave workforce for building the
empire in relatively unpopulated lands.

Some of Ray's forebears, left Glendenning in Scotland, to seek work
elsewhere after the antimony mine where they worked failed. They ended up
in Devon where one or two set up a quarrying enterprise which is still
going. Others farmed like Ray's GGG and one of his sons ended up in the
Black Country, having worked on the canal and married a local girl.

One way or another, a lot of my ancestors and other relations have moved
about a lot.
--
Penny
Annoyed by The Archers since 1959

Jenny M Benson <NemoNews@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
> On 30/06/2023 02:19, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
>>
>> Yes, probably travel to visit things - shows, trade fairs, etc. - was a
>> _bit_ wider than actually moving your whole household. (Which -
>> certainly before the railways - I imagine as being more or less limited
>> to walking pace or less; I don't think a horse _pulling a cart_ foes
>> much more than walking pace, certainly not for long.)
>
> What amazes me is the number of people, in the C19th who were
> transported quite long distances after they died, to be buried in the
> churchyard of their original home town. I can't recall the exact
> details right now, but there was one instance where a person living in
> or near Liverpool, died there and was buried in Wiltshire only 4 or 5
> days later.
>

Good ham that year?

--
Toodle Pip, Mike McMillan

J. P. Gilliver <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:
> In message <kg7jteFquq9U1@mid.individual.net> at Fri, 30 Jun 2023
> 10:00:29, Jenny M Benson <NemoNews@hotmail.co.uk> writes
>> On 30/06/2023 02:19, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
>>> Yes, probably travel to visit things - shows, trade fairs, etc. -
>>> was a _bit_ wider than actually moving your whole household. (Which -
>>> certainly before the railways - I imagine as being more or less
>>> limited to walking pace or less; I don't think a horse _pulling a
>>> cart_ foes much more than walking pace, certainly not for long.)
>>
>> What amazes me is the number of people, in the C19th who were
>> transported quite long distances after they died, to be buried in the
>> churchyard of their original home town. I can't recall the exact
>> details right now, but there was one instance where a person living in
>> or near Liverpool, died there and was buried in Wiltshire only 4 or 5
>> days later.
>>
> I guess the railways made a big difference to that possibility. I know
> (there have been prog.s about it, usually as part of some series such as
> Michael's or the ones about the London Underground) there was a railway
> line from somewhere fairly central in London whose main if not sole
> purpose was to convey such to one of the new cemeteries that had opened
> up in the suburbs (to the north I think it was).

The London Necropolis is what you may have in mind Jpeg.

--
Toodle Pip, Mike McMillan

On Wed, 28 Jun 2023 10:55:12 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> a
gribouillé dans la poussière...

>Fanciful genealogy is of course certainly not unique to them though:
>many of those new to the hobby (and, sadly, plenty who are not new!)
>make connections that don't bear the slightest scrutiny, just because
>they find the right name - to the extent that, on the whole, I _never_
>copy links from another person's tree unless they have evidence. (Which
>good genealogists do - they don't necessarily provide copies, but they
>at least cite the source so you can look it up yourself.) To the extent
>that if nine "trees" say one thing and one says another, it's likely
>that the one is correct: one of the other nine made an innocent error,
>and the other eight copied it!

Interesting thought, quite possibly correct.
I was in contact a few years back, with two of my mother's cousins of whom
I had not previously heard - I was aware of their father, my mother wrote
to and visited him, and older brother who I had met once. Their father, the
youngest son, had told them his view of his own father, which was not
positive. I knew, and could find documents to show, that at least some of
what they'd learned from him was not true.

Sometimes the fanciful genealogy springs from mis-remembered or
misunderstood family stories. I have tried to contact an American cousin
whose family tree claims my maternal grandfather married my mother! Just a
confusion of names I expect, or maybe the early death of my mother.

As for the LDS, they keep sending me emails claiming I'm related to this or
that US President. In truth it seems I may be related to the wife of the
president mentioned. Related by marriage is no relation in my mind, unless
the link is *after* said marriage.
--
Penny
Annoyed by The Archers since 1959

In message <po5t9ihrlt8bed0sgbbo0mu60ecncjjd1o@4ax.com> at Fri, 30 Jun
2023 11:06:53, Penny <spam@labyrinth.freeuk.com> writes
[]
>like their father). One of my GG was born in Stafford, shortly before, or

A lot of my tree is in Stafford - maybe email me? (I'd have emailed, but
wasn't sure how to de-spam the address.) Surnames Warren, Youdale,
Smith, Woolrich, LEESE, Frith, Malabar, MARTIN, Robinson, Haywood, Torr,
Shemilt, DAVALL, Foster, Knobbs, Hughes, and ...

>afterward, his father died (I'm having trouble sorting that one out as that
>area is full of Ledbetters (in a wide range of spellings). He joined the

.... a couple of Leadbetters (Thomas 1858-1925 [Died in Stafford] and his
daughter Mary Elizabeth 1895-1979 [born, married, and resided 1939 in
Stafford]), though not direct relatives. (No, no Margo or Jerry!)
[]
>Large families and, if there was any property involved, inheritance by
>eldest son only, will have set some young men wandering off to 'seek their
>fortune'.

Or, indeed, make any sort of living at all.
>
>Some of the travellers were deported to America, or Australia, for theft,
>or other relatively minor misdemeanours. A slave workforce for building the
>empire in relatively unpopulated lands.
>
>Some of Ray's forebears, left Glendenning in Scotland, to seek work
>elsewhere after the antimony mine where they worked failed. They ended up
>in Devon where one or two set up a quarrying enterprise which is still
>going. Others farmed like Ray's GGG and one of his sons ended up in the
>Black Country, having worked on the canal and married a local girl.
>
>One way or another, a lot of my ancestors and other relations have moved
>about a lot.

Mining does have that effect - either mines run out, or - as in my case
- encourage migration when mining takes off, from areas with little
employment (which I think Norfolk was). But mine, once they'd made the
big move from Norfolk to (mostly) Northumberland, then didn't move much
there - stayed in or near the little towns/villages [such as Bedlington,
Shilbottle, and Ra{t|d}cliff(e) Terrace] they'd moved to.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

"Where's Piglet?" asked Pooh, as he munched a pork pie.

On 30/06/2023 11:44, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
> In message <po5t9ihrlt8bed0sgbbo0mu60ecncjjd1o@4ax.com> at Fri, 30 Jun
> 2023 11:06:53, Penny <spam@labyrinth.freeuk.com> writes
> []
>> like their father).  One of my GG was born in Stafford, shortly
>> before, or
>
> A lot of my tree is in Stafford - maybe email me? (I'd have emailed, but
> wasn't sure how to de-spam the address.)

There's what looks like a valid email address for Penny in the Reply-To
field.

john

On 30/06/2023 11:06, Penny wrote:
> Some of the travellers were deported to America, or Australia, for theft,
> or other relatively minor misdemeanours. A slave workforce for building the
> empire in relatively unpopulated lands.

Oh you didn't have to do _anything_ illegal to be exported to
underdeveloped parts of the Empire.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Home_Children

My grandfather for example, who seems to have ended up in British
Columbia (but came back again).

On Fri, 30 Jun 2023 11:06:53 +0100, Penny <spam@labyrinth.freeuk.com>
wrote:

>Also navies and sea-bourne traders of course.
>I imagine Alexander Selkirk left home in Largo, Fife, because he had
>several older brothers (one of which was my 8th GG, who was a shoemaker,
>like their father).

How interesting. I have often seen the statue of your ancestor in
Lower Largo. I was born in the next village, Lundin Links. The East
Neuk of Fife is a lovely spot, with a string of charming villages
along the coast. Have you ever visited?

(Lots of statue pics online!)

On Fri, 30 Jun 2023 11:44:08 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> a
gribouillé dans la poussière...

>In message <po5t9ihrlt8bed0sgbbo0mu60ecncjjd1o@4ax.com> at Fri, 30 Jun
>2023 11:06:53, Penny <spam@labyrinth.freeuk.com> writes
>[]
>>like their father). One of my GG was born in Stafford, shortly before, or
>
>A lot of my tree is in Stafford - maybe email me? (I'd have emailed, but
>wasn't sure how to de-spam the address.)

The 'Reply To' address needs no adjustment, it just puts it in the right
folder in gmail.

GG Ledbetter's mother was a Godwin. I found a Godwin website some years ago
and bought a book listing the Freemen of Stafford in which several Godwins
feature (I think it's an inherited thing). The photograph on the cover
shows some of GGGrandmother's family which is why I bought it. I'd check it
for your surnames, but can't lay hands on it at the moment.
--
Penny
Annoyed by The Archers since 1959