The last comment on the list regarding this issue was that I may have mis-interpreted the handwriting and the real occupation was “paige”.  I accept this as a possibility, and think that all the comments really lead to the same general conclusion.  The Page/paige was a very junior assistant, helper or gofer that may be aspiring to higher responsibilities in a service position, in a household or institution.

I hope that’s an adequate summary.

In the enumerator’s description of the Enumeration District, there is nothing distinctive about the “institutions” of the ED – just a recitation of the road-boundaries.

I decided to flip through the 45 pp of the ED and note the individuals who might be more likely to hire a paige.  I found no other mention of a page/paige on any of these 35 pp.  The closest were errand boy (3), factory boy (1), shepherd boy (1) and a couple of railway porters.

These are the potential employers:

·         Vicar

·         Hop Merchant

·         Beer house keeper

·         Boot & shoe maker (collector of rents)

·         Corn dealer

·         Stationer & Collector of Taxes

·         Decorator Master (employing 38 men & boys)

·         Bengal Civil Service Retired

·         M.D.

·         Lady – Income and Investment Property [large live-in staff]

·         Mineral water proprietor

·         H.M. Batallion Cold… Oudrchs..  [head of household: Alfred Silvester]

·         Lastly, the Royal Asylum of St. Anne’s Society (school for 400 children) was nearby (in Streatham, but in another ED).

Parentheses indicate content from census page; brackets are my comments.

In addition, more than 30 constables/police lived in the ED, including those in high positions.  So, I’m thinking that there must have been a police station/courthouse in the vicinity – needing a page/paige.

No conclusion from all this – but a better understanding of the neighbourhood I think.

Judith (Judii) Rempel

rempel@...

Ah – this “foreign” stuff is so very interesting.  I have no UK heritage myself, so probably find the census terms more obscure than most of the e-listers, but even you folks likely will find this one interesting. 

Continuing in my research journey, I’m looking for a Hugh Jones (not Welsh, perhaps English- or Irish-born), likely Catholic, who married  an Irish-born Italian lass (Mary A. Pieraccina/i).  

I know Hugh was a builder in 1859 (from a St. Pancras marriage record of his son William) and I find his wife in the 1861 census, living in Norwood, Surrey with son William who was a taxidermist). Mary is shown as “mother” in the 1861, and married, but there is no sign of Hugh.

I do think it’s possible that Hugh may be invisible because he was in Ireland (and no census is available for 1861), or he could be many of the solitary Hugh Jones that I find in England.

In my meanderings (I’m way beyond logic at this time and hoping for serendipity), I found a Hugh Jones who died in 1871 in Liverpool (Walton Park Parochial Cemetery; sounds like a sharp departure from London or Ireland, but parts of the Jones family did live in Liverpool and nearby Lancashire communities).  His address at date of death was of no help, but I thought it might be of curious interest to all.  The record reads:

No.                                                                                         1508 

Name:                                                                                  Hugh Jones

Abode:                                                                                 Dead House Pr Dk

When buried:                                                                    Sept 14^th

Age:                                                                                       60 yrs

By whom the ceremony was performed:              J. Holmes

And, a marginal annotation:                                        35 U

[others on the page were annotated 34C, 34D, or 35 U – perhaps the location of the gravesite]

This led me to a  couple of interesting articles:

First, “A Pauper Dead-House: The Expansion of the Cambridge Anatomical Teaching School under the late-Victorian Poor Law, 1870–1914” (http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=546296), wherein the following paragraph opens the article:

In May 1901 an article appeared in the Yarmouth Advertiser and Gazette entitled ‘Alleged Traffic in Pauper Corpses—How the Medical Schools are Supplied—The Shadow of a Scandal’.¹ It recounted that, although a pauper named Frank Hyde aged fifty had died in Yarmouth workhouse on 11 April 1901, his body was missing from the local cemetery. The case caused a public outcry because the workhouse death register stated that Hyde had been “buried by friends” in the parish five days after he had died. An editorial alleged that “the body was sent to Cambridge for dissection” instead and that the workhouse Master's clerk profited 15 shillings from the cadaver's sale. Following continued bad publicity, the visiting committee of Yarmouth Union investigated the allegations. They discovered that between 1880 and 1901 “26 bodies” had been sold for dissection and dismemberment under the terms of the Anatomy Act (1832) to the Cambridge anatomical teaching school situated at Downing College. The Master's clerk staged a false funeral each time a pauper died in his care. He arranged it so that “coffins were buried containing sand or sawdust or other ingredients but the body of the person whose name appeared on the outside [emphasis in original]” of each coffin never reached the grave. This was Hyde's fate too. Like many paupers who died in the care of Poor Law authorities in the nineteenth century, Hyde's friends and relatives lacked resources to fund his funeral expenses. Consequently, he underwent the ignominy of a pauper burial, but not in Yarmouth. His body was conveyed on the Great Eastern railway in a “death-box” to Cambridge anatomical teaching school. Following preservation, which took around four months, the cadaver was dissected and dismembered. It was interred eleven months after death in St Benedict's parish graveyard within Mill Road cemetery, Cambridge, on 8 March 1902.² A basic Christian service was conducted by John Lane of the anatomy school before burial in a pauper grave containing a total of six bodies. The plot was unmarked and Frank Hyde disappeared from Poor Law records—the end product of pauperism.

Then, second:

Religious Belief and Popular Culture, http://fds.oup.com/www.oup.co.uk/pdf/0-19-820769-7.pdf, scroll to p. 50 of the pdf (80 in the publication), to see reference to a “dead house” adjourning a church – the waiting place of bodies for coroner’s inquest.

So – I’ve not solved this problem either – the one of finding “my” Hugh Jones – but I have had a wonderful pass through some previously unknown practices in England.

Judith (Judii) Rempel

rempel@...

Hi everyone,

I am now in Kelowna and I have been off my computer for almost four days due to packing, moving and unpacking (though there is a long way to go, I have managed to unearth the items needed for Internet and phone access). My cat was a mess through the process, including people tromping through the house packing and moving stuff out, an airplane ride, a night and day at a strange person’s house and finally in a new home. She took to the new home immediately, so that is a relief. As for me – it will be awhile until everything is in place. I certainly feel much better once connected to computer. I have not unpacked a single dish. I headed straight for the computer and phone equipment.

I had very short notice for the actual move date and not much time to find a place here, prepare for the move and leave. Fortunately for all of us, Wayne Shepheard, assistant editor, was ready and willing to jump in as Chinook editor for the July issue. I know he will do a great job.

For my clients or potential clients, I want you to know the move will only temporarily delay my getting back to business.

For those of you attending, I will see you June 6^th at the 30^th anniversary celebration.

Xenia Stanford

www.stanfordsolutionsinc.com

I think your client is hoping to transfer the family information FROM Ancestry and move it TO a genealogy program, rather than the other way around.  Unfortunately, Ancestry does not have a method of exporting from Ancestry.ca to a GEDCOM file.  If this is the direction your client wants to go, then I don’t see any easy way to do it; it will have to be re-typed.

One likely reason for this blockage is that any visitor to your client’s Ancestry.ca family tree could just lift the years of work in a few clicks.  That would be bad publicity for Ancestry.

Jim Benedict

Glad I could help, but I have forwarded you email from David Lee, who has a better answer.  I tried his trick in Ancestry:

·         Go to Ancestry.ca and go to your client’s family tree page.

·         Near the top there is a link, “Tree pages”

·         Hover over it and you can see a choice, “Tree settings”.   Click it.

·         On the Tree Settings page, on the right, is “Manage your tree” and a button, “Export tree”.

·         That brings up another button, “Download your GEDCOM file” along with a download tips hyperlink.

I haven’t tried the rest of the process but it should be self-directing.  As with the nature of GEDCOM files, you may not get all the information extracted, but it should be a lot better than typing!

Good luck,

Jim Benedict

----- Original Message -----

From: Jim Benedict

To: 'Heather Jaremko' ; 'dist-gen AFHS'

Sent: Thursday, May 12, 2011 8:16 PM

Subject: RE: Ancestry.ca

 

I think your client is hoping to transfer the family information FROM Ancestry and move it TO a genealogy program, rather than the other way around.  Unfortunately, Ancestry does not have a method of exporting from Ancestry.ca to a GEDCOM file.  If this is the direction your client wants to go, then I don’t see any easy way to do it; it will have to be re-typed.

 

One likely reason for this blockage is that any visitor to your client’s Ancestry.ca family tree could just lift the years of work in a few clicks.  That would be bad publicity for Ancestry.

 

 

Jim Benedict

 

 

 

From: owner-dist-gen@... [mailto:owner-dist-gen@...] On Behalf Of Heather Jaremko
Sent: May-12-11 8:07 AM
To: dist-gen AFHS
Subject: Ancestry.ca

 

Hello all,

 

I am working with a client and she is doing her family tree on Ancestry.ca. Is there any way, short of re-typing all of her information, that she can put the family tree into a genealogy program?  Any help would be greatly appreciated.

 

Sincerely,

Heather Jaremko

 

She can contact PEI Archives either by email or postal address

See http://www.archives.pe.ca/index.php3?number=1025351&lang=E

I searched their online database but could not find a John Quin or Quinn with and without the middle name but there is nothing in their current online database. However, they could search the records for her as not all records are online.

If she searches in the census records, the adoptive family was also indexed as Corley. The birth place and date on census records are not always correct. On the 1881 Census with the Corleys, his birthplace is given as a ditto mark along with the parents and their birth children.

Where she assumes the name of the head of household on the 1871 is Given, it is actually Quinn – the handwriting of the surname of the father and the surname of John, the youngest member of the family, shown on the next page are identical. The surname of the others is given as John on the indexing because the name of the HOH is Quinn John (which the indexer put as first name Given). Thus these could be his birth family and he could have been taken in by the Curley or Corley family as a farm labourer or other worker and not been adopted by them – formally or informally. He may have felt he spent more time with the Corleys than his birth family and thus adopted their name. This happened frequently in that era for children of his age when a family felt they could no longer support a child when he or she reached 10 or older.

I would go with the birth record for John Quinn in Ontario in 1870 or keep an open mind about when and where he was born. The mother’s name is different on the 1870 birth, so this may not be the right family. However, my suggestion is to keep looking with a view that the birth year and date could be somewhat different (year or two) from that given on the census.

Hi Everyone,