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
If you click on 'About us' on the on the Castle Garden site and then the 'Credits' tab, there is a statement:? "Historical Records used by Castlegarden.org are part of the holdings at the U.S. National Archives & Records Administration"
I don't know whether this helps.
Get a FREE AOL Email account with unlimited storage. Plus, share and store photos and experience exclusively recorded live music Sessions from your favourite artists. Find out more at http://info.aol.co.uk/joinnow/?ncid=548.
Is anybody familiar with the source data underlying castlegarden.org?
I have searched it and found the arrival of an ancestor (in 1853). There is
no reference to the source records and no digitised version of the record.
So where did it come from? I should, like all good researchers, like to
trace it back to the original source but don't know where to look.
I have searched ancestry.com' s "Passenger Lists of Vessels Arriving at New
York, New York, 1820-1897"; (National Archives Microfilm Publication M237,
675 rolls); Records of the U.S. Customs Service, Record Group 36; National
Archives, Washington, D.C. The same family is there but the passenger list
does not contain all the information that is to be found in the Castle
Garden database - so that cannot be the source.
Can anybody help.
Having a quick scan through my books - they mention that the
eldest son inherited all the land and property but did not receive any of the
moveable property if the father died intestate before 1868. (remember Scottish
law has the Will holding the land, buildings etc and the testament of all
moveable property before 1868). It all hinges on 1868. I wonder if this is
important - the chap dies in 1869 just after the law changes, and as such the only
son goes from automatically inheriting the land and buildings to just
getting a share by law. Perhaps he felt hard done by and contested everything?
The son may have had to go through the Retours (services of
heirs) process to prove inheritance so they may be worth a look. Everything is
held in Edinburgh.
I bet the fact that he's the only living male heir has
something to do with it. Remember as well that women were expected to marry and would
have been provided for by their husbands, which is why many dont get an
awful lot from a Will and Testament.
Definately a puzzle, but I bet there's an answer somewhere in
the vaults of Edinburgh.
To fill in some of the details - the son was 34 years old when his father
died. He had already been married & had 3 children of his own by this date
(with at least 4 more to follow). His sister, younger by 4 years, had also been
married for 5 years at the time of the father's death. The second wife, was
left with daughters 9, 7 & 3 when their father died. None of the 3
daughters from the second marriage married, but all lived into their 60's & 70's.
The second wife survived her husband by 33 years, only dying in 1902. You're
right that they may not have gotten along, although it would appear that the
father had waited at least 4 years before remarrying. I suppose, as the only
son, (& eldest child) he may possibly have seen himself as the only "rightful
heir", disregarding the second family. Would Scottish law have gone along
Could this have been the result of a very prolonged intestacy case?
Under Scottish Law until 1868, if I remember rightly, the widow
would get 1/3, the children 1/3 and the crown 1/3 if an estate was left witthout
a will, but if the wife was deceased it went 1/2 to the children and 1/2 to
the crown (although I may be wrong, i havent got my books to hand at the
moment) If the son was from the first marriage he may have seen himself as the
next of kin as the first wife was deceased and put foward his case for being
heir to the estate. Could this have gone on for 16 years? Of course I may be
What Im meaning to say in a roundabout way, is if the son didnt get
on with the 2nd wife, he may have put forward his case for inheritance and
took a very long time to come to fruition.
Or is there anything to say that when the son came into his majority
that he would inherit? You dont say how old the lad was when his father died.
An interesting problem!
Having recently been doing a lot of research in Scottish records, I have
come across the inventory filed in 1886 for a man who died in 1869. The man had
married twice & left a son & daughter by his first marriage & 3 daughters &
a widow by his second marriage. He died intestate. The inventory was filed
by his son as "next of kin" even though the widow was still alive at this
date. There seems nothing in family occurrences that would indicate why this
inventory was filed 16 years after his father's death. The inventory listed
furniture & household effects valued at £50, 5 shares in the Paisley Cemetery
Co, Ltd valued at 4/12/6, and dividends on these shares from 1854 to date
valued at 5/12/1. The assets total was £60/4/7. The only reason I can think of
for filing an inventory 16 years after the death was that this was necessary
to claim the above noted dividends. Can anyone out there think of another
The Wellcome Library is offering a series of free workshops, some of which
might be of interest to members. Workshops from October to mid-December are
now being advertised on the Library's web site at:
ellcome.ac.uk/node32.html> . They include "Hunt the Ancestor: Resources for
family history", as well as sessions on using full text online sources such
as the Times Digital Archive and The Lancet. Bookings can be made by
contacting 020 7611 8722 or emailing library(a)wellcome.ac.uk
Society of Genealogists
14 Charterhouse Buildings
London EC1M 7BA
direct phone 020 7702 5488
visit the Society of Genealogists' Website www.sog.org.uk
This e-mail message (and attachments) may contain information that is
confidential to The Society of Genealogists. If you are not the intended
recipient you cannot use, distribute or copy the message or attachments. In
such a case, please notify the sender by return e-mail immediately and erase
all copies of the message and attachments. Opinions, conclusions and other
information in this message and attachments that do not relate to the
official business of The Society of Genealogists are neither given nor
endorsed by it.
I have spent the day chasing Scottish families, looking at the census
transcriptions first on Ancestry before knowing which documents I want to purchase
on Scotlands People. In going through the transcriptions on Ancestry, I have
come across some absolutely amazing occupations - which, quite clearly, no
English speaker has ever proofed. For general amusement, I submit the
following occupations as being pursued in 19th century Scotland:
nonstes nonbee Irne
patter form weater
engenire iron inmie
Mary in London
Thanks for highlighting that, Jeanne.
I only get the Plus version of the weekly Newsletter (which I'm happy to pay
for because of the extra items <g>), so would have seen this article
eventually in the early hours of Monday morning.
Nevertheless, I was interested enough in this case to want to read it
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jeanne Bunting" <firgrove(a)compuserve.com>
To: "SoG List" <sog-uk(a)rootsweb.com>
Sent: Tuesday, November 06, 2007 7:58 AM
Subject: [SOG-UK] Back Doors
> Once again, illegal access to online information has been mentioned. By
> coincidence, Dick Eastman has just posted an article to his Genealogy
> Newsletter blog titled, "Why isn't it Free?". It would do everyone good
> read it. You will find it at:
> Jeanne Bunting
From: sog-uk-bounces(a)rootsweb.com [mailto:email@example.com] On
Behalf Of Phil Warn
Sent: 06 November 2007 09:21
To: sog-uk(a)rootsweb.com; SoG List
As an outsider I did not read Jeanne's message as suggesting that you were
advocating fraud. All you did was ask a question - I am sure tongue in
cheek - about a back door.
I think that Jeanne merely picked up on a possible problem for other less
principled researchers than you and was offering some useful guidance for
them. I have lost count of the number of messages floating around other
forums asking for details of free access to The Times Online archive, for
Let's all shake hands and get back to our research - judging by my
brickwalls, we need to focus all our energies on that!!
Subject: Re: [SOG-UK] Back Doors
At 07:58 06/11/2007, Jeanne Bunting wrote:
>Once again, illegal access to online information has been mentioned. By
>coincidence, Dick Eastman has just posted an article to his Genealogy
>Newsletter blog titled, "Why isn't it Free?". It would do everyone good to
>read it. You will find it at:
That reference was not to illegal access. I said
"back door" because I had overlooked on the main
page, the link to free access to the articles for a day.
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.15.22/1112 - Release Date: 05/11/2007
Just to mention,
Just checked and I still seem to have free access today - to search and view
(and first had access yesterday morning) so over 24 hours
Well worth while - but do use the advanced search option as there seem to be
issues with the search engine (I've posted on GOONS and Eastman on results
of searches) - meanwhile back to Wheeler's Manchester Chronicle for 45
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Monday, November 05, 2007 7:19 PM
Subject: Re: [SOG-UK] Guardian/Observer Digital Archive....
> Phil Warn wrote:
>>Thanks for the link, but surely the offer is half
>>price for a day not a freebie?
>>OR, do you know a back door method?
> The offer is as Chris stated: "Introductory offer. Click here for a
> free 24hr pass."
> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
> SOG-UK-request(a)rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes
> in the subject and the body of the message