Newsletter
- 22 January 2014
Ancestry
Challenge: your starter for £20 ENDS MONDAY
The
Lost Boys: tracking down sons (and daughters) who died as infants
Over
100,000 historic images now available free online
When
did National Service end?
Netherlands
newspapers free online
Should
the 1921 Census be released early?
The LostCousins newsletter is
usually published fortnightly. To access the previous newsletter (dated 15
January 2014) click here, for an index to articles
from 2009-10 click here, for
a list of articles from 2011 click here and for a
list of articles from 2012-13 click here.
Whenever possible links are
included to the websites or articles mentioned in the newsletter (they are
highlighted in blue or purple and underlined,
so you can't miss them).For your convenience, when you click on a link a new
browser window or tab will open (so that you don’t lose your place in the
newsletter) - if nothing seems to happen then you need to enable pop-ups in
your browser or change the settings in your security software.
To go to the main LostCousins
website click the logo at the top of this newsletter. If you're not already a
member, do join - it's FREE, and you'll get an email to alert you whenever
there's a new edition of this newsletter available!
Ancestry
Challenge: your starter for £20 ENDS MONDAY
How far can you extend your family tree
in 4 months? Ancestry.co.uk have announced that for just 5 days, from Thursday
23rd until 11.59pm on Monday 27th January, you'll be able to buy a 4 month Premium
membership - providing access to ALL of
Ancestry's British and Irish records - for just £20.
It's
a great low-cost way to get access to well over a billion records, and because
there are hundreds of millions of records which you won't find at any other
site it's an offer you should consider even
if you've already got access to another major subscription site.
As I mentioned in my last newsletter,
researchers with British ancestry ideally need simultaneous access to both
Ancestry and findmypast - but it's often hard to justify the cost of two annual
subscriptions, whilst if you go for shorter subscriptions it usually works out
significantly more expensive.
Because
it's such a small investment, yet such good value, this offer from
Ancestry.co.uk makes the decision really easy - and I'm going to add a little
extra to spice it up.
Click this link to go to the Ancestry
site and you can earn up to 4 months free subscription to LostCousins - though
before you make your claim you'll need to enter at least 5 additional relatives
from any of the 1881 Censuses we use to your My Ancestors
page.
Here's how it will work: if you add 5
relatives from 1881 you'll get 1 month free, if you add 15 you'll get 2 months
free, and if you add 50 I'll give you 4 months free!
However, you'll only be able to make one
claim - and it's entirely up to you whether this claim is for 1, 2 or 4 free
months (of course, the more relatives you enter, the more 'lost cousins' you're
likely to find - so don't feel you have to stop when you reach 50). You can see
how many relatives you've entered from each census on your My Summary page.
When you email me to make your claim please provide
your Ancestry Order Number - this is a 9-digit number which is displayed on the
screen as part of the confirmation of purchase, and also given in the email
receipt (if you receive one - many people don't). This will enable me to verify
that we have received the commission that funds the free subscriptions. You should
also state how many relatives you have added from 1881 since taking up the challenge, and
how many months you are claiming. Remember you can only make ONE claim.
Note:
the Ancestry offer is not exclusive to LostCousins, but you won't qualify for a
free LostCousins subscription (or support LostCousins) unless you go to the
Ancestry site using the link above immediately prior to purchasing your
Ancestry subscription. This offer cannot be combined with any other offers.
Free subscriptions will start on the day your claim is verified, but no claims
will be accepted after 27th May 2014. If you already have a LostCousins
subscription I'll extend it by the appropriate number of months.
The article Getting the most from Ancestry in the last
newsletter was very well-received, so I thought I'd follow up with some
additional tips, this time in relation to Ancestry family trees.
Public or private?
You probably already know that Ancestry
trees can be public or private - public trees are visible to all Ancestry
subscribers, private trees can only be viewed by people you personally invite.
But you can search both public and private trees, so having a private tree
doesn't prevent you connecting with your cousins.
It's true that if you have a private
tree lazy researchers probably won't connect with you. Then again, they
probably won't connect with you if you have a public tree, either - they'll
take your information without out a please or thank you. So my advice is to
make your tree private so that serious researchers can contact you, but name
collectors don't get their grubby mitts on your hard-won data.
Downloading
an online tree
A lot of people rely totally on their
online tree, and don't have a family tree program on their computer. This is
very dangerous - and severely limits what you can do (family tree programs have
many more features than online trees).
It's very easy to download your Ancestry
tree to your computer - you don't even need to have a tree program on your
computer if you're just doing it as a backup. Here's what you do.....
1. Go to your Ancestry tree and select Tree settings from the Tree pages menu. 
2. On the Tree Settings page look for the Manage your tree section on the
right, towards the bottom of the page.
3. Click the green button labelled Export tree - this creates a GEDCOM file
in preparation for downloading
4. Once the file has been prepared
you'll see a new green button labelled Download
your GEDCOM file - you can click it now or click it later (you may as well
do it now).
Note:
if you make a change to your Ancestry tree the Download button will disappear,
and the Export button will come back.
The Lost Boys: tracking
down sons (and daughters) who died as infants
Although it was first performed as a
stage play in 1904, Peter Pan wasn't
published in book form until 1911 which, coincidentally was also the year when,
for the very first time, married women were asked to provide details of the
children they had borne during their marriage.
Many of the householders filled in the
form incorrectly - the most common error was to put the information against the
father rather than the mother (since this was a time when wives couldn't own
property or vote in national elections, and were called by their husband's
names, perhaps we shouldn't be surprised).
My maternal grandfather had been married
twice, but the numbers he put down - against his name, not his wife's - were
for both marriages (though no less useful for all that).
Nevertheless, despite the frequent
misunderstandings, it's usually possible to glean some useful information -
most parents lost at least one child and unless they survived long enough to
appear on a census we wouldn't even know of their existence (even though we
might speculate about the gaps between the births of the children we do know
about).
However, even when you know that there
are some births (and deaths) that you haven't found, identifying them in the
birth indexes can seem like an impossible task - and that's where this LostCousins
member's story starts.....
Not very long ago, I came across
the 1911 census entry for the household that contained my Grandfather Campbell
and his mother. To my surprise (and that of the rest of the family) my great
grandmother reported that she had had seven children, of whom four had died. I
knew of my grandfather and two great uncles, but the other four were news to us
all.
From a combination of Free BMD
and Familysearch christening records, I was able to
find a great aunt, born 13 July 1887, christened 19 August 1887, died
3Q1887. But the other three still evaded
me, not least because the family name was a fairly common one.
Just the other day I started a discussion
on the Lost Cousins forum:
"...if
anyone can think of a realistic way of identifying 3 children born to my great-grandmother,
dead before the 1911 census, I am interested to know. I am not rushing to pay for all
birth certificates of children named Campbell, born in South Shields during her
childbearing years - nor death certificates of Campbells
dying there under the age of ten. Too many, too expensive,
too depressing!"
I had quite a rush of
recognition, support and helpful suggestions, and a surprisingly good
outcome. I thought I would share the
ideas and progress, in the hope of encouraging others who may be faced with the
same problem.
For one thing, the numbers to
consider weren’t quite as daunting as had first appeared. Although there were
456 births in South Shields registration district in the thirty years up to the
1911 Census, there were only 118 deaths during those years of children aged 0-9
years old (anyone aged 10 or more would have been recorded on at least one
census, so I could rule them out). A further 14 deaths could be disregarded
because the child would have been on a census, leaving just 104 deaths. (My
thanks to Peter for doing this calculation - I had been too discouraged to even
address it)
I was able to reduce the period
to consider, as I knew that my GGM was born in June 1855 so was very unlikely
to have been having children after about 1902 (when she would have been 47).
She married in March 1882, so that still left me about twenty years of
births/deaths, but the number was shrinking. We were down to 99 child deaths in
South Shields RD for the years 1883-1902 (74 of these children were under two
when they died).
I also had birthdates for the
four children I knew of (these were recorded in the FamilySearch baptism
records), so could exclude babies born too close to them. I decided to be fairly sweeping with my
exclusions, taking out a year either side of the known births, as the idea was
to get a shortlist of likely candidates. There were three unnamed babies - I
gambled that it was unlikely I would be discarding all of them.
There was a suggestion that I
could see if there was a pattern to the births that I knew of - if I could see
when a baby might be ‘due’. Unfortunately, the interval between children is not
much of a lead in this case, as there is three to four years between all the
four that I know of - plenty of room to fit in another baby. And my great-grandfather
was away at sea for long periods (he was never at home for a
census) which has an effect on such things.
I could reduce the number slightly
by eliminating babies who had the same name as an elder child who survived.
Also, it was suggested that I could discard those who had a middle name which
was obviously a surname, but didn’t mean anything to me. A really constructive
idea was that, since the four children I knew of all had two or more Christian
names, I should concentrate on babies who also had two names.
By including only babies with two
names and excluding the ones I could identify as being born too close to the
children I know of, I got the list down to an amazingly low nineteen. I
excluded another 3 by finding christenings with the 'wrong' parents, leaving 16.
The four children I knew about
had all been baptised, and the baptism register entries were recorded at
FamilySearch. It therefore seemed quite likely that the others had not been
christened, suggesting they had died very young. I started by excluding anyone
dying with an age greater than 0, but when I looked at the age my GGM’s babies
had been christened, I found that it ranged from about three weeks to about
nine weeks, which suggested that if any of my great aunts or uncles had
survived beyond a few months, they would very likely appear on the baptism
records. On this basis, it seemed I might be looking for children
who died in the same quarter that the birth was registered, or the next quarter
(or just possibly the previous quarter, since the period for registering deaths
was and is shorter than that for registering births).
That left just 6 on my shortlist. On
closer consideration I excluded a further two babies because their births only
just fitted in between two of the known children. And, incredible as it seemed
at the start it looks as if my missing relatives may be:
EITHER John Edward Campbell (3q1896
- 4q1896) OR Edward Charles Campbell (1q1897 - 2q1897)
AND
Agnes Dorothy Campbell (2q1898 - 2q1898)
AND
John William Campbell (4q1900 - 4q1900)
I
must repeat that these were techniques to reduce the list of ‘possibles’ to something manageable, not homing in on 'The
Right Answer'.
I am very aware that I was making
sweeping assumptions, and only sight of a certificate will prove if any of
these are my great grandparents’ children - and I won't be entering them on my
tree until I have some evidence. However, my experience might encourage you, if
you are also faced with a seemingly impossible task of finding Lost Children -
it's almost certainly not as difficult as it looks!
Liberty is one of the 660 LostCousins
members helping me to prepare the LostCousins forum in advance of its official
opening - I'm very grateful to her for this article, which I'm sure will
inspire others to emulate her success.
Over 100,000 historic
images now available free online
In November I wrote
about the Wellcome Library's collection of London
health reports, which includes reports from 1848-1972 made by the Medical
Officers of London boroughs, and highlighted the 1956 report for Ilford in
which my own bout of scarlet fever would have been recorded in the statistics.
After that article appeared I had
several emails from members who had family connections to the reports - for
example, Bryan wrote to tell me that his father, who was the Chief Sanitary
Inspector for Merton & Morden wrote part of the
1950 report for the borough.
Now the Wellcome Library is making
available another fascinating resource - over 100,000 images at its Wellcome Images
site can now be used completely free of charge, even for commercial purposes
(just so long as the Wellcome Library is named as the source). I found this wonderful
advertisement for the National Children's Home and Orphanage which, judging
from the shape, may have been displayed in a bus or
train:
(Looking for historical information
about the charity I came across this site
created by Philip Howard, who grew up in their care - it might be of interest
to others who had a similar upbringing.)
At Wellcome
Images I also found an engraving of a building I have driven past many times
without knowing anything of its history, nor its present role.
Built between 1841-43 and designed by
Gilbert Scott (who was also responsible for the Albert Memorial), the Infant
Orphan Asylum in Snaresbrook, which had been opened by King Leopold I of
Belgium, later became the Royal Wanstead School, and is now Snaresbrook Crown
Court.
Note:
in this context the word 'asylum' does not imply mental incapacity (as in
'lunatic asylum' or 'mental asylum', but the need for protection.
I wonder what images you'll find in this
wonderful collection?
When did
National Service end?
As this Daily Mirror article
reports, the last conscript was discharged in May 1963 - ironically just months
after the Cuban missile crisis. The decision was taken years earlier - the last
conscripts joined in November 1960, and nobody born on or after 1st October
1939 was called up.
Note:
the Daily Mirror photo shows a scene from 'Carry On
Sergeant', with Bob Monkhouse in the foreground - but
do you know who that is in the background?
Netherlands newspapers
free online
You can search and view newspapers,
books, magazines, and even radio news bulletins free at the Delpher
site. Unfortunately there isn't an English language version of the site, but if
- like me - you use the Chrome browser the website pages are translated
instantly (though not the newspaper articles).
Note:
the site is still being developed so you might occasionally run into problems.
If you have connections with the
Netherlands you might also have used the Genlias site
in the past - it was an excellent free site with an English version. Sadly Genlias is no more, but can search the same records at WieWasWie,
although currently the site is only in Dutch.
If you liked the composite photographs
of San Francisco that I recommended in the last issue you might enjoy this video production which puts a 1927 film if
London alongside a closely matched modern equivalent (thanks to Joanna and
everyone else who recommended it). This composite photo of Buckingham Palace is also
interesting, and Cathy directed me to some then-and-now photos of Covent
Garden that are very nicely done.
If you're interested in contributing
photos, the BBC's "Turn
Back Time" project has a Flickr group where photos can be shared.
Should the 1921 Census
be released early?
There's an online petition suggesting
that the 1921 Census should be released earlier than the due date of 2022. A
lot of people have written to me suggesting that this would be a good idea -
but I'm not so sure.
According to the Office of National
Statistics there were 465,000 alive in 2012 aged 90 or over - and most of them
would been recorded on the 1921 Census. When their parents filled in their
census forms they would have done it expecting the information to be kept
confidential for 100 years - a period that was laid down in the Census Act of
1920. Of course, in those days life expectancy was much lower - in 1921 life
expectancy at birth was around 60 for girls, and only 55 for boys - so 100
years really was a long time.
Note:
you can find out more about life expectancy at intervals since 1841 here.
I'm not sure that the minimal benefits
from seeing the 1921 Census a few years early can outweigh the infringement of
the rights of the tens, possibly hundreds of thousands of people whose
information will be revealed. We could ask them, I suppose - but what about the
people who have dementia, and can't give informed consent. Surely we can't
trample over the rights of one group of citizens simply because another group
is impatient?
To release the census early would
require a change in the law - and if we're going to fight for a change in the
law shouldn't we be putting all our efforts into securing the changes that will
allow the General Register Office to put the historic birth, marriage, and
death registers online?
There's an even more important reason
not to ask the government to go back on the promise that was made in 1920. If
the traditional census is to continue in 2021, as we all hope - don't we want
the people completing the forms to believe the promise of strict
confidentiality? How can we expect people to answer truthfully - if they answer
at all - after breaking the promise made on the 1921 Census forms?
Low-paid workers: 1795 vs
2014
Recently the Chancellor of the
Exchequer, George Osborne, called for the Low Pay Commission to agree on an
above-inflation rise in the minimum wage. Perhaps counter-intuitively, increasing
the minimum wage can actually reduce government expenditure, because the
increases are mostly paid by private employers, and many low-paid workers come
from households which receive top-up benefits from the State.
If you listened to The Long View on Radio 4 this week (available online here)
you may have been struck by the similarity with the Speenhamland System, instituted by magistrates in
Berkshire in 1795. They called for farmers and other employers in the county to
increase the wages of their employees to take account of inflation in food
prices, but provided a safety net of subsidies paid by the parish.
That
is to say, when the Gallon Loaf of Second Flour, Weighing 8lb. 11ozs. shall cost 1s. then every poor and industrious man shall
have for his own support 3s. weekly, either produced by his own or his family's
labour, or an allowance from the poor rates, and for the support of his wife
and every other of his family, 1s. 6d. When the Gallon Loaf shall cost 1s. 4d., then every poor and industrious man shall have 4s. weekly for his own, and 1s. and
10d. for the support of every other of his family. And
so in proportion, as the price of bread rise or falls (that is to say) 3d. to the man, and 1d. to every other
of the family, on every 1d. which the loaf rise above
1s. That is to say, when the Gallon Loaf of Second Flour,
Weighing 8lb. 11ozs. [3.9 kg] shall cost 1s. then
every poor and industrious man shall have for his own support 3s. weekly, either produced by his own or his family's labour,
or an allowance from the poor rates, and for the support of his wife and every
other of his family, 1s. 6d. When the Gallon Loaf shall cost 1s. 4d., then every poor and industrious man shall have 4s. weekly for his own, and 1s. and
10d. for the support of every other of his family. And
so in proportion, as the price of bread rise or falls (that is to say) 3d. to the man, and 1d. to every other
of the family, on every 1d. which the loaf rise above
1s.
Loaves of bread were bigger and heaver
in the 18th century - a Gallon Loaf would have been almost 5 times the weight
of the large loaves you'd find in British supermarkets today. According to the Measuring Worth website, 3 shillings
in 1795 is equivalent to about £13 today when the rise in prices is taken into
account. Or to put it another way, the minimum income for a single man in 1795
is equivalent to just 2 hours of labour at the modern minimum wage - which goes
to show how much worse off our ancestors were than us.
The Speenhamland
System didn't work - there was no way to force employers to raise wages, and in
practice they cut wages rather than raising them, secure in the knowledge that
the parish would make up the difference.
The Poor Law Amendment Act of 1834 created the Poor
Law Commission, whose three commissioners were each paid £2,000 per annum, an
enormous sum in those days when many ordinary people laboured long hours for
less than £20 a year.
Things are a little
different nowadays - by 1997, when members for the new Low Pay Commission were
being chosen the government had at least got the remuneration sorted out, as
you can see from this Letter to the Editor, published in The Times on 1st July
of that year.
Indeed, even though the
current commissioners are now entitled to claim fees and be reimbursed for
travelling expenses several of them have not made any claims at all.
(One of these days I'll
put together a compilation of my letters to newspapers and magazines - if only
to prove that I did have a life prior to LostCousins!)
I've mentioned previously that I've been
transferring my savings to Zopa,
a peer-to-peer site that matches lenders and borrowers, but minimises the risks
by breaking up the loans into small chunks (of as little as £10 each). They've
also created a fund to offset any losses that are incurred.
Recently the rates have been falling
both for lenders and borrowers, so Zopa came up with the idea of a Rate Promise
for lenders - until 3rd February you can get a rate of 5% on money you lend for
between 3 and 5 years (the rate is subsidised by Zopa handing back some of the
1% commission they normally take).
But if you do want to take advantage of
this offer don't leave it until the last minute - the Rate Promise only applies
to money that has been lent out by the deadline.
One of my favourite family photos is of
my mother with the rest of her primary school class. I would never have
recognised her with straight hair, so thank goodness I went through the photos with
my aunt before she died.
There was one problem with this picture
- there were some dirty marks that I couldn't get off without damaging the
photo (and believe me I tried).
Fortunately a new photo retouching
company called Repixl
had just opened up - and as they were based just down the road from where I
used to live in the early 1990s I decided to give them a try. There was no need
to send anything through the post - I simply scanned in the photo (warts and
all), then uploaded it to their site. In less than an hour I had an almost
perfect copy, and because they currently have a free trial running, it didn't
cost me a penny!
My mum, by the way, is in the 2nd row
from the front, 4th from the left. I wonder if any other readers of this
newsletter have ancestors in this photo from 1934?
Finally, in case any of you are short of
reading matter, the genealogical novel I'm currently reading is by LostCousins
member Alan Dance. I'm currently only 56 pages in, so I can't yet deliver a verdict
on The
Westbrook Affair, but I'm certainly looking forward to getting back to
it now that I've finished this newsletter (and submitted my tax return).
This is where I'll post any last minute
news, updates, or offers.
Thanks for taking the time to read my
newsletter - I hope you find some of the articles and tips useful.
Peter Calver
Founder, LostCousins
© Copyright 2014 Peter Calver
You
MAY link to this newsletter or email a link to your friends and relatives
without asking for permission in advance. I have included bookmarks so you can
link to a specific article: right-click on the relevant entry in the table of
contents at the beginning of this newsletter to copy the link.