Beginning March 2nd, 2020 the Mailing Lists functionality on RootsWeb will be discontinued. Users will no longer be able to send outgoing emails or accept incoming emails. Additionally, administration tools will no longer be available to list administrators and mailing lists will be put into an archival state.
Administrators may save the emails in their list prior to March 2nd. After that, mailing list archives will remain available and searchable on RootsWeb
Genuki says Anglican records for Gotham from 1554 survive in good condition but doesn't say where.
FreeREG seems to have marriages from this date but I'm not sure about Baptisms. There are a number of marraiges using the SPENSER spelling
The Archer Software IGI site shows Family Search batches starting 1605.
It just shows you need to check closely and not rely on just one site.
It looks like most of your information is from submitted trees on Family Search's Pedigree Resource File. I struggle to find supporting evidence in IGI batches for Gotham.
The one thing I did find was the marriage of Timothye SPENSER in 1628, not 1627. I actually clicked on the Marriage batch and omitted any surname which gave me every entry in the batch. It was then a case of scrolling to the S surnames.
Ancestry has 120 Public and 53 Private trees for the family of Robert Spen*er and Ann* Glover, but only Timothy has subsequent marriage and children. The fact nothing has been found for Richard and Anne reflects the lack of available records.
And if 100 or more people haven't been able to find anything. I doubt that there's anything much to find.
It is a pity one cannot add a PS to mailing list messages as I did not
respond about ONS.
I should also point out for those who do an ONS one image could give
around a dozen households and if the household picked extends to the
previous page or later page the researcher gets that one free as well.
Yes it still works out costly but lets be fair and point out the good
After all the majority of complaints seem to be that FMP have not been
fully open about costs then surely those who complain have to be fully
open about the bonuses where these occur?
The Archer Software site for IGI batches shows records for Gotham start 1605 so you might have to look for nearby parishes for earlier records. I'm not quite sure where you found baptisms 1593 - 1902. Perhaps you might check them for a batch number.
You'll find the site by Googling "Archer Software IGI". Once you click on a batch number, you only need a surname to search. That will give you all the Spencer records 1605 - 1812. Then you can sort them into families. You can repeat the exercise for Glover. If you're handy with Excel you can copy and paste the records into a spreadsheet and sort them there.
I'd also check Genuki for Nottinghamshire to see if other records might be held locally or available on CD.
On 30/11/2015 09:49, dialsquare via wrote:
> Sorry Guy, but I must disagree with you analogy. If someone pinches
> some fiche from a library then they are stealing what is freely
> available to any one who cares to go to that library.
As I wrote "To me the the rightful owners in each case are having to
bear the loss even though the loss is slightly different."
Yes there is a slight difference but both lead to a loss.
You seem to be saying it is alright to steal from a large company as
long as an individual does not suffer a loss.
What you overlook is individuals do suffer a loss in both cases.
In the case of the 1939 every single subscriber to FMP will suffer a
loss because it will take longer before the 1939 is added to the
In addition every subscriber to Ancestry and all the other online sites
that will licence the 1939 in a few years time will also suffer because
there will be less work done on un-redacting closed records as less
funds will be available.
This means that more records will still be redeacted when it is licenced
on the open market at the end of the restricted period.
It will possible also mean a loss to every user of the 1939 no matter
which provider hosts the data set as every provider will have additional
costs to take into account.
> 1939 is in my opinion a PPV rip off.
> FMP are part of a billion pound valued holding company, they have
> angered a large proportion of their subscribers, stringing them all
> along thinking it was going to be free, even though they didn't
> speciifcally say it.
> Conveniently changed their T & Cs just before they released 1939 to say
> that some releases may be PPV.
> If they had any sense they will have known that people will try and get
> sommut for nowt, that's just human nature, and built in a provision for
> that. They might have also thought that giving something away would
> bring them mre than it cost. Whereas what they have actaully doe is
> driven many of their subscribers to ancestry.
So what you are saying is that if someone annoys you it is acceptable to
resort to underhand actions to get your own back.
I thought that kind of action was left behind in kindergarten playgrounds.
We are supposed to be adults and behave in an adult manner.
> And from what I hear the transcription standard is dismal. They say
> they have used professional transcribers. I'd guess they weren't English
> speaking ones, and that they were inexpensive.
Your guess would be wrong then, the 1939 was transcribed in the UK.
However there were restrictions put on the transcription due to the
effects of the Data Protection Act.
These included the transcription being done in columns so that the
transcribers could not see the full line of an entry. As anyone who has
the slightest knowledge of transcription knows this poses an immense
problem when faced with a word or letter that is difficult to read. One
normally looks for a similar word or letter on the page to see how it is
written elsewhere on the page or document..
> Good Luck to the guy who has referred them to Trading Standards for
> hiding tthe change f T & Cs, and thus breaching the Unfair Contracts Act
> or whatever it's called. You're the legal man. You'll know what I mean
The fact that an additional charge may be imposed was clear for all who
bothered to read the terms and conditions since at least 11 April 2014
and very possibly before that date (but I do not have proof of this). It
was therefore not "just before they released 1939" as you wrote in
reality well over a year before, but why bother with accuracy?
In a large company like FMP it is not unusual for the team that writes
the blogs knows nothing about any charges that may be applied to new
releases of records therefore cannot make any statement on that topic.
The National Archives were aware and agreed it was acceptable to make an
additional charge for this unique data set which is the largest data set
so far added to any site and exceeds the size of the 1911 Census which
was also pay as you go at first before being added to the subscription site.
Any such potential action is likely to fail.
I am going through my Notts ancestors and am looking at my Spencer family. I start with Robert Spencer and Ann Gloover/Glover. Their three children sound so far areTimothy(e) born 1598, Richard 1593 and Anne 1602. Timothy(e) married Dorothy(e) Daye 1627 St Lawrence, Gotham They had 8 children that I know of: Robert(e)1638, married Marie Redfearne; Mary 1634; Anne1643 ; William 1630; John 1632; Margaret1640; Richard 1628 and Elizabeth 1638 married George Attenborrow. I don’t have marriages for any of the other children. Would love to connect with other Spencer/Daye researchers. I have the above information from IGI, Phillimores and FreeReg.
The Parish Registers for Gotham begin in 1554 and Genuki tells us that they
are in good condition. Almost all Parish Chest documents are held in County
Archives - each County may house them altogether in one or in several Record
Offices. Google to check.
There were many more documents held in the Parish Chest than copies of
Bishops Transcripts which is where much of LDS information is derived. Such
information is very limited and skews the view. Forgive me for being blunt,
but to say that 'if 100 or more people haven't been able to find anything. I
doubt that there's anything much to find' is nonsense. Just because it's
not in the place you are looking doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
Not only are other Parish Records recorded and kept by the Church (accounts,
deeds, terriers, tithes, etc, etc) but many are recorded by the Lord of the
Manor. The vast majority from both these sources are held in Public Record
Offices in each County and in the National Archives in Kew. While some are
still held privately, Manorial Records often are held in University
Archives. The University of Nottingham is a good example of that. All are
catalogued and many can be found on their websites. It is an ongoing
process - and I can vouch for that - and may go on until the end of time as
there are millions of documents. But never say never.
So here are three websites for starters:
http://mssweb.nottingham.ac.uk/catalogue/ - you'll find Spensers in Gotham
easily here. I have.
Margot, I hope this helps.
Whilst I can assure you I am not a FMP spy, in fact have just bought a WW
subscription to go with my Ancestry sub, I had no idea it was possible to
shortcut the system until someone on a forum posted it !
From: Andy Micklethwaite
Sent: Monday, November 30, 2015 8:27 AM
To: Jan Rockett ; NOTTSGEN-L(a)rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: [NTT] 1939 Register
At 21:12 29/11/2015, Jan Rockett via wrote:
>Some time ago I had a formula to see who else was in a household in the
>preview pane and also how to see who was in what street. Since then FMP
>to have changed what is shown in the address bar and it cannot be used.
>Does anyone have an updated formula?
Posting details on open forums is what caused FMP to become aware of the
How do we know you aren't an FMP spy?
On 30/11/2015 08:27, Andy Micklethwaite via wrote:
> At 21:12 29/11/2015, Jan Rockett via wrote:
>> Some time ago I had a formula to see who else was in a household in the
>> preview pane and also how to see who was in what street. Since then FMP seem
>> to have changed what is shown in the address bar and it cannot be used.
>> Does anyone have an updated formula?
> Posting details on open forums is what caused FMP to become aware of the issue.
> How do we know you aren't an FMP spy?
FMP have been forced to spend time and money which would have been
otherwise spent on unredacting closed records and improving the data set
on developing ways to prevent data mining of the 1939 database.
This is because people have been bragging they can get all the
information from the preview screens rather than purchasing images.
FMP have invested millions into this project and need to recoup that
investment otherwise they will not be able to invest in other expensive
data sets in future years.
I find it incredulous that people will happily find ways to circumvent
online protection but shout and scream when someone walks out of a
Family History library with a bunch of microfiche. To me the the
rightful owners in each case are having to bear the loss even though the
loss is slightly different.
I ask every family historian to think how they would react if they had
invested a huge sum of their own money into a project only to have
people undermining the payment system put in place to recoup some of the
Some time ago I had a formula to see who else was in a household in the
preview pane and also how to see who was in what street. Since then FMP seem
to have changed what is shown in the address bar and it cannot be used.
Does anyone have an updated formula?
Hi Jan We have conversed before .I recently "found" my uncle Frederick Leonard Goodson aged 1 on the 1911 Census along with father Thomas and many siblings .Fred was born at Harby .Father Thomas Goodson a Farmer , born Eastwell 1865 . Died 1947 . I have a newspaper obit for him .Interestingly Thomas Goodson appears to have farmed at a place called Harby Lodge also at Muston and later Barlows Farm. Woolsthorpe .I knew Barlows Farm as it is where my Uncle Fred and my aunt , Mary (nee Wilson) lived when I was young .They both died in the 70s and had no children .I know you couldn't connect before but just sending for your info .David
Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
On Sun, 29 Nov, 2015 at 5:32, Pam Downes via<eng-lincsgen(a)rootsweb.com> wrote: Looks more to me like Alice Goodson. Downward stroke for the capital A,
plus another downward stroke for the L.
But it's definitely Goodson. Back in those days the letter S was
frequently written so that if looked like a letter F.
And double S was written so it looked like a P.
Proud to be a member of Lincolnshire Family History Society
On 29 November 2015 at 03:31, Jan Moon via <eng-lincsgen(a)rootsweb.com>
> Can someone please look up Woolsthorpe Parish Records - Baptisms & Burials
> Reference Name WOOLSTHORPE PAR/1/4
> Baptisms 1751-1782 (births 1774-82).
> Marriages 1752-1756.
> Burials 1751-1780.
> Date: 1751-1782
> There is a burial for Elica Goodfon I am hoping she is the wife of George
> Goodson – could Elica be Eliza (Elizabeth)
> And would Goodfon be Goodson?
> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
> ENG-LINCSGEN-request(a)rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the
> quotes in the subject and the body of the message
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to ENG-LINCSGEN-request(a)rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message
Could anyone help me with information on my father's brother Robert John
Kelham's Army record. Robert was born 10 Jan 1920 Nottingham and died 24 Oct
1983 City Hospital Nottingham. I have his WW2 medals IE African Star & 8th
Army Bar, France & Germany Star & War Medal but I've been unable to find any
records on his army service. I've drawn a total blank on several sites I've
look on I've also had a look on the 1939 list but blank again.
Any information at all on Robert Army or otherwise would be most welcome
Regards Terry Kelham
Earlier this year many of you took the time to help me unravel the story of
Alice Pridmore Smith Upton. I received many useful suggestions and
encouragement on that occasion and I thank you all again.
After much thinking, sorting, searching for facts, and organizing documents
to support what I believe to be true about Alice and her two husbands, I
think I now have a better understanding of Alice and John Upton's life.
Since you all were so helpful, I thought you might be interested in this
edited version of what I think was going on in that family! Caution, it
reads somewhat like a soap opera script! John Upton is in my family tree
because he was the second husband of my great aunt (some use term grand
aunt) Mary Ann Padley.
Alice Maud Pridmore, daughter of John and Ellen Pridmore of 110 Forster
Street, Radford, Nottinghamshire, married Henry Smith in 1895. Alice was 22
according to the marriage certificate, and Henry was 25. The marriage took
place after banns at the Parish Church in Lenton, Nottingham. Henry was a
bachelor living at 424 Ilfreton Road. He was the son of John Smith, an
engine driver, which often meant that the person maintained and ran a
stationary steam engine for a factory or a mine operation. Henry Smith's
occupation was "traveller."
How long this marriage lasted is a matter of conjecture. Nevertheless, I
know that by the time of the 1901 Census, something had happened in the
marriage. The couple had separated; but Henry was not necessarily dead.
Alice Maud was living with her parents at 45 Commercial Street, Lenton, and
calling herself Alice Maud Pridmore. Boarding with the Pridmores was John
Upton, a 28 year old framework knitter.
I think that by 1904, John Upton and Alice Pridmore had entered a common law
relationship. There is evidence that Alice became pregnant in 1904, and the
family may have manufactured a respectable fiction that John and Alice were
married and lived with Alice's parents. Alice's first child, George Upton
was born in 1905. Two more children followed. Florence Nelly Upton was
born in 1906, and John Thomas Upton was born in 1909. John Upton claimed to
be the children's father, accepting responsibility for them even though he
was not legally married to their mother. Alice no longer used the Smith or
Pridmore surnames, calling herself Upton. The family continued to live with
Alice's parents, John and Ellen Pridmore, at 37 Commercial Street, Lenton.
On the 1911 census, John and Alice still lived with John and Ellen Pridmore.
This census asked for detailed information about the marriage and the
children. John and Alice claimed on the census that they had been married
for seven years (since 1904). They further claimed that the marriage had
produced five children, two of whom had died. The children still living
were George Upton, born in 1905 (or the alternate George Edward Upton, also
born in 1905); Florence Nelly Upton, born in 1906; and John Thomas Upton,
born in 1909. There would be room to squeeze two more children between 1906
and 1909; or there is a small window for one child between 1909 and the
April 1911 census.
In 1913, word might have come that Alice's legal husband, Henry Smith, was
dead. I have not found a suitable death record.
By this time, I think that John and Alice (and probably her parents) didn't
want everyone to know that the couple was not already married. A quiet
marriage ceremony was arranged, and took place at the Nottingham Register
Office on November 15th, 1913. Alice signed her name on the record as A. M.
At least two more Upton children were born after the 1911 census. Alice M.
Upton was born in late 1912, and Arthur Upton was born in early 1914.
Alice Maud Upton, died from breast cancer and exhaustion on June 18th, 1921.
She was 48 years old.
Widower John Upton, age 47, married Mary Ann Padley Wilkinson, age 41 and a
widow, on October 29th, 1921 at the Register Office in Nottingham. William
J. Pridmore and Mary Ann Pridmore (possible relatives?) witnessed the
ceremony. John and Ellen Pridmore both died in 1921. John Upton remained
at 37 Commercial Street and Mary Ann joined him there after their marriage.
John and Mary Ann Upton stayed at 37 Commercial Street until they moved to
new Council Estate housing in the late 1940s or early 1950's.
Thanks again for all of your help. This is a great group!
In Cooling temps headed for Winter in Minnesota, USA
Many thanks to everyone who looked the Smith Family up.
My goodness but he was a man who was obviously trying to make a good life for his family.
Unfortunately he died young and by 1911 had left a widow and several kids.
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
I am trying to de-cypher the 1901 census entry for the following family but am unable to make much sense of the profession for Frederick Smith. Can some kind soul have a shot at it please?
Page Number: 16
Household schedule number: 104
Household Members: Name Age
Frederick B Smith 33
Mary J Smith 34
Harold Amos Smith 12
John F Smith 7
Percy W Smith 2
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
If you Google "Archer Software IGI" and follow the path to Nottinghamshire you will see that Lowdham has records from 1559 - 1885.
Just click on the batch number, and put in the Godward surname and you'll probably get more records than you can handle. It's then a case of putting them into family groups.
Don't forget to try other surname variants.
Pointing your list members to a new list
This will be the new list when rootsweb will close from Mar 2.
Welcome to the NOTTSGEN mailing list!!
PLEASE SAVE THIS INFORMATION so you have it for future reference.
PLEASE BE CONSIDERATE of your fellow list members. Some folks are beginners at computers and some to genealogy. The world is a better place when we are all patient with each other. Personal attacks, criticism, or flaming are never permitted.
HOW DO YOU POST? Send an email to email@example.com
WHAT SHOULD YOU POST?
1. Questions about your ancestors. Give as much detail as you can.
2. Interesting history that is relevant to the list.
3. Genealogy and family history conferences, even if they charge for admission.
4. Genealogy societies should feel free to post about their society and their websites.
5. Book reviews of genealogy books are reasonable to post. A list of books is not, but sharing a good genealogy book you've found is a good idea.
6. Links to personal blogs that are about genealogy. They can be your blog or another. Even if the blog has ads, that is not a problem.
7. New collections on various genealogy sites that are relevant. We don't want advertisements, but if you find an interesting collection on Ancestry, FamilySearch, Library of Congress, or some other site that has relevance to the list, let people know.
WHAT SHOULD BE IN YOUR POST?
1. An informative but concise subject line.
2. When replying to a previous message, be sure to check that the intended recipient's address is showing in the Send To box of your email BEFORE clicking on SEND.
3. Proofread and be sure you want your post public. All posts go in the archives!
WANT TO UNSUBSCRIBE?
Send an email to firstname.lastname@example.org and put unsubscribe in the subject and body and nothing else.