1911 UK Census for Nathan and Fanny Sandler

I've written before about Sarah Nathan who married Sol, the brother of my great grandfather in London in 1902. Her parents were Nathan and Fanny Sandler. On many documents Sarah went by Sarah Nathan, following the Jewish naming convention of using her father's given name as her surname, but without using the Bat/Ben Daughter/Son prefix. On other documents she used Sandler. Sarah, Sol, and their children immigrated to America with the rest of the Newmark family in 1909. In the 1910 census, one of Sarah's brothers, Sam Nathan, is  in the same household as Sarah and Sol. It appears he, too, was using his father's given name as a surname, but if Sarah was the informant on the census, she may have given him the surname. I have not been able to track him later than 1910 under either possible surname.

In the 1901 UK Census, Sam, born in 1891, is indicated as having been the first Sandler child born in the UK, though I have not yet located the family in the 1891 census, or his birth record. I have also found the Sandler family in the 1911 UK Census. I find the 1911 UK census interesting in that each household seems to have gotten their own page.

Census of England and Wales - 1911

• Nathan Sandler - Head - Age 55 - Married - 30 years married - 9 children - 7 still living - 2 dead - Green Grocer - Working at Home - Birthplace Russia - Nationality Russian
• Fanny Sandler - Wife - Age 50 - Married - Birthplace Russia - Nationality Russian
• Joseph Sandler - Son - Age 18 - Single - Birthplace London
• Rebecca Sandler - Daughter - Age 11 - Single - Birthplace London
• Leon Sandler - Son - Age 7 - School - Birthplace London

I'm not sure how a green grocer works at home, but they may have lived above the grocery. I have possibly located Nathan Sandler on FindaGrave. The 1901 and 1911 census records suggest a birth year of 1856, and not 1853 as the FindaGrave profile suggests, but it's close. I've submitted a request for a researcher to photograph the tombstone, as well as to check if Fanny is buried nearby. Fanny is very possibly a nickname. If I can find some birth records of the younger children they might contain a given name I can use to find her death record.

There are two pages to the 1911 UK Census, which might be easy for some to miss. But of course, whenever looking at records online (or offline), it is always important to page forward and backwards just to make certain you aren't missing anything. The primary piece of information on this page is the address. It appears to be 1 Genter Street N, though I am unable to identify a street with that name. There appears to have been multiple families residing at that address in the census.

I'm looking forward to next year's release of the UK 1921 Census, as well as the 1950 US Census.

Wordless Wednesday: Westminster Jews Free School

Source

For more information on members of my family who attended this school, see Monday's post.

Amanuensis Monday: London School Records for Nelly and Bella Newmark - 1898

Amanuensis: A person employed to write what another dictates or to copy what has been written by another.

I continue my project to transcribe family letters, journals, newspaper articles, audiotapes, and other historical artifacts. Not only do the documents contain genealogical information, the words breathe life into kin - some I never met - others I see a time in their life before I knew them.

---

Below I transcribe some school records from the Westminster Jews Free School (obtained from Ancestry.com) referencing a Nelly and Bella Newmark. Are they the sisters of my great grandfather, Barney? Quite Possibly. If it is them, it provides the earliest record of their dates of birth - and neither date provided matches later records.

---

Register of Admission

Admission Number: 1325
Date of Admission or ReAdmission: 93.10
Name of Child: Newmark Nelly
Birth Date (Exact Date) 25.12.86
Name and Address of Parent or Guardian: 36 Broad St. Golden Sq.
Whether Exemption from Religious Instruction is Claimed: No
Last School (if any) attended: Not Any
In What Class at Admission: 5
Date of Leaving 8.7.98
Remarks: Required at Home

Admission Number: 1326
Date of Admission or ReAdmission: 93.10
Name of Child: Bella
Birth Date (Exact Date): 14.3.89
Name and Address of Parent or Guardian: 36 Broad St. Golden Sq.
Whether Exemption from Religious Instruction is Claimed: No
Last School (if any) attended: Not Any
In What Class at Admission: 5
Date of Leaving: 8.7.98
Remarks: Work

---

Notes:

1. Dates of Birth: Since the Polish birth records haven't yet been found, this would be the earliest document with their dates of birth if we accept this as them. Later records indicate Bella was born on March 14, 1890. This document states March 4, 1889. It's not uncommon for a year to be subtracted from someone's age. The similarity in month and date reinforces the likeliness of this being a match.

Later documents indicate a date of birth for Nelly of March 1889, this document states December 25, 1886. This is a significant difference. However, the 1901 UK census indicates a 2-year difference between sisters and ages that correspond with the document above. Alone, the 1901 census wasn't enough to suggest the family records were wrong. Mistakes by census takers are common. But this document seems to confirm the 1901 census with respect to age differences, and the census seems to confirm this document is for the same Nelly and Bella.

If Nelly was born in December of 1886, and my great grandfather was born in March of 1886, there was nine months difference between them.

2) The sisters in this document, while born a little over two years apart, were both enrolled in the school in October of 1893 and were both in the same class at admission. (Class doesn't necessarily refer to grade level.) With the last sibling of my great-grandfather born in Poland thought to have been born in 1892 and the first sibling born in London known to have been born in 1894, 1893 has long been the estimate for immigration. (Passenger manifests from Europe to the United Kingdom are not available.)

3) Below is a current map of the Soho area with the addresses marked where I now know my second great grandparents and their family lived between 1893 and 1908. They lived at 55 New Compton in 1894 and 1895, and at 56 Wells Street in 1901 and 1904. It's not clear from the above document whether they lived on Broad Street in 1893 when Nelly and Bella were enrolled, or 1898 when they left. Hanway Place is where the Westminster Jews Free School was located. Broad Street changed its name to Broadwick. #36 would have been on the corner of Poland Street. #28 Broad Street was the birthplace of poet, William Blake.

4) The book of records this page comes from lists only the girls admitted 1868-1896, in admission order. The order suggests the address would apply to admission date. If that is the case, the Newmark family didn't remain long on Broad Street, since they were at 55 New Compton Street by November of 1894 when Kate was born.

There doesn't appear to be a companion book online yet for boys. Though Ancestry notes that the records come from the London Metropolitan Archives, which could have additional records.

My Denyer Ancestors

I've blogged about my research on my Denyer ancestry before, but I thought I would create a summary post of what I have found so far.

Third Great Grandparents

Information on which I am fairly certain ends with my third great grandparents, William Denyer and Elizabeth Sliver. My third great grandather, William, was the immigrant, and he married Elizabeth Sliver in America. Most of my information about the two of them comes from the work of Rev. Abraham J. Fretz, in A Brief History of John and Christian Fretz and a Complete Genealogical Family Register, 1890. And the extent of the information provided about William was "He was born in the county of Southampton, Hampshire, England, November 22, 1794."

Fourth Great Grandparents

Most of my research and 'conclusions' on prior generations could be critiqued as "Cinderella Genealogy" - a term I created for a common fallacy among some family historians. If the shoe fits, the fairy tale Prince's reasoning went, it must belong Cinderella. Because, clearly, no one else in the kingdom wore the exact same size shoe. However, keeping my mind open to other alternatives, these look like the best matches.

Here's what I suspect is the marriage allegation for my fourth great grandparents, William and Jane Denyer.  According to Fretz, my second great grandfather, Ebenezer Denyer, had a sister named Jane Goldfinch, so a connection to the Goldfinch surname is likely. Farlington and Portsea are also both located in Hampshire.

Here are a list of baptisms from the Farlington Parish records. The parents for all of them, except Barnard Goldfinch Denyer, are listed as William and Jane. Barnard's parents are listed as William and Ann. I'm unsure if this is a clerical error or not. I suspect the William baptized in 1795 is my 3rd great grandfather, the immigrant. Baptisms several months after a birth aren't uncommon. FindMyPast indicates John Henry was baptized in 1796, which makes more sense, for if William and John Henry were twins, they likely would have been baptized together. All the public family trees on Ancestry.com that include William and Jane (Goldfinch) Denyer, include these children as theirs, so I am not alone in making this connection.

Absent documentation that the William Denyer who married Elizabeth Sliver was born in Farlington, and not elsewhere in Hampshire, this is supposition.

Fifth Great Grandparents

Here's a baptism record (from FindMyPast) for a William Denyer born in 1763, child of Richard and Elizabeth. 1763 is an unlikely birth year for the William Denyer who married Jane Goldfinch in 1791, as he was supposed to be 21 at the time of the marriage allegation. However, the text of the marriage allegation is a transcription. Someone born in 1763 could have been 27 in 1791, and a 27 could be mis-transcribed easily as a 21.

Here's a 1771 baptism transcription for a William Denyer, illegitiamate son of a William Denyer and Elizabeth Fyfield. This is a more likely possibility, if the marriage allegation is correctly transcribed.

The Farlington Parish burial records include three Denyers (Robert, Ann, and William - with William indicated as their son, and born in 1763) in April of 1807. Most of the public family trees at Ancestry indicate this William as Jane Goldfinch's husband. I haven't found a 1763 baptism for a William, son of Robert and Ann. None of the public family trees cite such a source. It's possible someone somewhere has found birth information for this William, perhaps from his death records, however, without any documentary evidence, I am uncertain this is the same William who married Jane Goldfinch.

It is entirely reasonable to believe there may have been two William Denyers of similar age living in Farlington at the same time. It's a fairly common name.

Onto Jane's parents

Here's a transcription of a 1766 baptism for a Jane Goldfinch, daughter of George and Jane. This is unlikely due to the year, since Jane was also supposed to be 21 in 1791, and neither 24 nor 25 are likely to be mis-transcribed as 21. Many online family trees identify Jane's parents as George and Jane, without any documentary evidence that it is the correct match. Goldfinch is another somewhat common surname.

I haven't found a baptism closer to 1770 for a Jane Goldfinch. However, I have found a Barnard Goldfinch of Portsea, who died in 1789, and whose will indicated he had an unmarried daughter named Jane. The marriage allegation above indicated Jane was from Portsea, not Widley.

One avenue of research I have considered is to try to research the history of ownership of the plot of land that is described in the will, and assigned to Jane. If I'm correct, it should have transferred from the Goldfinch to the Denyer family after William and Jane were married in 1791. Of course, it appears that William and Jane Goldfinch Denyer settled in Farlington, and not Portsea. So even if it was this Jane who inherited Barnard Goldfinch's land, it may not have been kept by her after the marriage. I have done a search for all the Denyers living in Portsea in the 1841 Census. There are a handful.

Cinderella Genealogy

Just because the shoe fits, doesn't mean it belongs to Cinderella.

When a marriage document indicates that someone was 21 when they got married, the researcher is likely to go back 21 years and look for a birth record. Finding one with the appropriate name doesn't mean you have 'found Cinderella.' The more common the name, the more likely there could be doppelgängers lurking.

Back in July I indicated that I had found a William Denyer baptized in Headly, Hampshire in 1771. This was of interest since my fifth great grandfather, William Denyer, was married in 1791, in Hampshire, at the age of 21. Since slightly delayed baptisms aren't uncommon, I thought there was a possibility I had found my fifth great grandparents - William Denyer and Elizabeth Fyfield.  As nicely as the shoe fit, I realized there could be another William Denyer out there with another perfectly matched shoe.

As I detailed in my July post, these aren't the same parents as those on many online family trees. Many of them suggest a William baptized in 1763, which would have made him 28 in 1791. The marriage allegation specifically says 21. In this case, the shoe doesn't fit, and it seems several researchers are  behaving like Cinderella's step-sisters, and attempting to cut off toes or heels to force a fit.

Today in Google I found a marriage allegation for a William Denyer (of Headly) and Elizabeth Hunt about 21 years prior to the 1771 baptism. It's the loosest of connections - a name, a place, and an approximate time. But it certainly deserves further research. I hesitate researching too much further back until I find corroborating evidence.

28 Feb., 1748-9. William Denyer of Headly, co. Hants, taylor, bachelor, 21, and Elizabeth Hunt of Farnham, spinster, 21 ; at Farnham. Francis Hunt of Farnham, labourer, 2nd s.

Source: Eng. (Diocese) Commissary Court Surrey. Allegations for marriage licences issued between 1673-1770; with an appendix of allegations discovered whilst the ms. was passing through the press (Volume 2). p. 30.

Hants is a common abbreviation for 'Hampshire.'

(Image Source: Andy Lapham, 2012. Used under Creative Commons license) 

Fourth Annual Genealogy Poetry Challenge: Portsmouth, Hampshire

It is time for me to share my selection for the Fourth Annual Great Genealogy Poetry Challenge hosted by West in New England.

Find a poem by a local poet, famous or obscure, from the region one of your ancestors lived in. It can be about an historical event, a legend, a person, or even about some place (like a river)or a local animal. It can even be a poem you or one of your ancestors have written! Or if you prefer, post the lyrics of a song or a link to a video of someone performing the song...If you submit a humorous poem or song that will be entered under the "Willy Puckerbrush" division. Willy was the late geneablogger Terry Thornton's alias for some humorous posts and comments. [Deadline: November 18th]

• For the Third Annual Genealogy Poetry Challenge, I shared a poem by Chaim Bialik, representing my ancestors from Volhynia, Russia.
• For the Second Annual Genealogy Poetry Challenge, I submitted the song, Texas our Texas, representing my ancestors from the Lone Star State
• For the First Annual Genealogy Poetry Challenge, I shared a poem by Emilius Buczi, representing my Hungarian ancestors, Julian Ursin Niemciwicz, representing my Polish and Lithuanian ancestors, and T.S. Eliot, representing my hometown of St. Louis, as well as my London ancestors, since he was an ex-pat.

This year I decided to return to England and find a poet or poets from there, preferably from Hampshire, where my Denyer and Goldfinch ancestors were from, and more specifically, from Portsmouth.  I soon realized I had several choices.

Rudyard Kipling spent six years of his childhood (age 5-11) in Portsmouth. However, most everyone is familiar with the poetry of Kipling.

I found another two authors who were born in Portsmouth, very well-known for their fiction. I went in search to see if I could find some poetry, and I did. Both of these poems display wit possibly suitable for the Willy Puckerbrush division of this challenge.

***

This first poem is not only in honor of my Portsmouth ancestry, but also the blacksmith trade.

I have several ancestral blacksmiths:
My 2nd great grandfather, Selig Dudelsack/Feinstein
My 7th great grandfather, Burger Van Iveren
My 8th great grandfather, Myndert Fredericksen

The humor in this poem should be obvious to even the least artful old codger - as it is forged on word-play.

***

The Blacksmith
Charles Dickens (1812-1870)

Old England, she has great warriors,
Great princes, and poets great;
But the Blacksmith is not to be quite forgot,
In the history of the State.

He is rich in the best of all metals,
Yet silver he lacks and gold;
And he payeth his due, and his heart is true,
Though he bloweth both hot and cold.

The boldest is he of incendiaries
That ever the wide world saw,
And a forger as rank as e'er robbed the Bank,
Though he never doth break the law.

He hath shoes that are worn by strangers,
Yet he laugheth and maketh more;
And a share (concealed) in the poor man's field,
Yet it adds to the poor man's store.

Then, hurrah for the iron Blacksmith!
And hurrah for his iron crew!
And whenever we go where his forges glow,
We'll sing what A MAN can do.

***

It doesn't take the world's greatest detective to identify the following poem as satire. If I were to offer some literary criticism, I'd say the author should have shown faith in his readers, and omitted the final stanza.

***

The Bigot - 1919
Arthur Conan Doyle (1859-1930)

The foolish Roman fondly thought
That gods must be the same to all,
Each alien idol might be brought
Within their broad Pantheon Hall.
The vision of a jealous Jove
Was far above their feeble ken;
They had no Lord who gave them love,
But scowled upon all other men.

But in our dispensation bright,
What noble progress have we made!
We know that we are in the light,
And outer races in the shade.
Our kindly creed ensures us this—
That Turk and infidel and Jew
Are safely banished from the bliss
That's guaranteed to me and you.

The Roman mother understood
That, if the babe upon her breast
Untimely died, the gods were good,
And the child's welfare manifest.
With tender guides the soul would go
And there, in some Elysian bower,
The tiny bud plucked here below
Would ripen to the perfect flower.

Poor simpleton! Our faith makes plain
That, if no blest baptismal word
Has cleared the babe, it bears the stain
Which faithless Adam had incurred.
How philosophical an aim!
How wise and well-conceived a plan
Which holds the new-born babe to blame
For all the sins of early man!

Nay, speak not of its tender grace,
But hearken to our dogma wise:
Guilt lies behind that dimpled face,
And sin looks out from gentle eyes.
Quick, quick, the water and the bowl!
Quick with the words that lift the load!
Oh, hasten, ere that tiny soul
Shall pay the debt old Adam owed!

The Roman thought the souls that erred
Would linger in some nether gloom,
But somewhere, sometime, would be spared
To find some peace beyond the tomb.
In those dark halls, enshadowed, vast,
They flitted ever, sad and thin,
Mourning the unforgotten past
Until they shed the taint of sin.

And Pluto brooded over all
Within that land of night and fear,
Enthroned in some dark Judgment Hall,
A god himself, reserved, austere.
How thin and colourless and tame!
Compare our nobler scheme with it,
The howling souls, the leaping flame,
And all the tortures of the pit!

Foolish half-hearted Roman hell!
To us is left the higher thought
Of that eternal torture cell
Whereto the sinner shall be brought.
Out with the thought that God could share
Our weak relenting pity sense,
Or ever condescend to spare
The wretch who gave Him just offence!

'Tis just ten thousand years ago
Since the vile sinner left his clay,
And yet no pity can he know,
For as he lies in hell to-day
So when ten thousand years have run
Still shall he lie in endless night.
O God of Love! O Holy One!
Have we not read Thy ways aright?

The godly man in heaven shall dwell,
And live in joy before the throne,
Though somewhere down in nether hell
His wife or children writhe and groan.
From his bright Empyrean height
He sees the reek from that abyss—
What Pagan ever dreamed a sight
So holy and sublime as this!

Poor foolish folk! Had they begun
To weigh the myths that they professed,
One hour of reason and each one
Would surely stand a fraud confessed.
Pretending to believe each deed
Of Theseus or of Hercules,
With fairy tales of Ganymede,
And gods of rocks and gods of trees!

No, no, had they our purer light
They would have learned some saner tale
Of Balaam's ass, or Samson's might,
Or prophet Jonah and his whale,
Of talking serpents and their ways,
Through which our foolish parents strayed,
And how there passed three nights and days
Before the sun or moon was made!

....

O Bigotry, you crowning sin!
All evil that a man can do
Has earthly bounds, nor can begin
To match the mischief done by you—
You, who would force the source of love
To play your small sectarian part,
And mould the mercy from above
To fit your own contracted heart.

Is Hillary Duff the Closest US Celeb to the Queen?

Many media sources have recently printed the following fact:

Hillary Duff is the closest US celebrity relative to the Queen. They share Edward III, the Queen's 18th great grandfather, as a common relative.

AZCentral and USA Today are two examples.  Both cite a study by FindMyPast.

I have a serious problem with this, because I have a difficult time imagining that every single US celebrity's genealogy was traced. But for that claim to be legitimately made, that's what would have had to be done. There are thousands of celebrities.

It's a perfect example of the Black Swan Fallacy.

Out of all the celebrity genealogies studied, Hillary Duff was most closely related, therefore she is the closest celebrity related to the queen. That is the logic being used, even though it doesn't sound as newsworthy reported in that manner.

How many genealogies were studied? That is information I have not been able to find in any news source.  (FindMyPast doesn't appear to have this in their list of press releases on their website.) There is a list of 20 'royal' celebrities mentioned, which means at least 20 were studied. But it could be any number equal to or greater than 20.

I thought to myself: Wouldn't it be funny if I could find a black swan? 

Could I find a celebrity that the study missed?  I didn't know how easy it would be, because it seems the study missed an entire category of US Celebrities.  Political Celebrities.

Celebrity is only defined as a famous or well-known person, that's why there are so many of them. Presidents are definitely celebrities, and I have a copy of Ancestors of American Presidents, written by Gary Boyd Roberts (2009 edition). There is a living US President who traces his ancestry back to Edward III as well, making them equal cousins with the Queen and Hillary Duff. James Earl Carter. (Therefore, his daughter Amy descends from Edward III as well, and some might consider her a celebrity.)

Franklin D. Roosevelt traced his ancestry back to James II of Scotland (The Queen's 14th great grandfather) and Truman to Robert III of Scotland (The Queen's 16th great grandfather) - unfortunately, none of their living descendants quite approach the name recognition for celebrity status.  Truman's daughter Margaret probably came the closest, though she passed away in 2008.

[Note: I used the sample Royal database that came with my iFamily genealogy software to calculate the Queen's relationship with James II and Robert III.]

Finding My Past - Part Three: Hampshire Baptisms

Exploring FindMyPast with my new subscription, I decided to look up some Denyer baptisms. This is another instance where I have already conducted the research, but I wanted to see if FindMyPast had the same information.

Farlington Parish has transcriptions of their Baptism Records from 1654-2005 (with some gaps) online. I had already looked up the records for the eight children of my fourth great grandparents William and Jane (Goldfinch) Denyer.

Source: Farlington Parish Baptismal Records

(the only additional information on the full records are the given names of the parents.)


For the set between 1766 and 1812, Farlington Parish provides the following source information: Reproduced by kind permission of the Portsmouth Record Office. From a transcription of the original Register done by the Rev John Burrough Rector of Farlington Parish, in 1794. [This obviously references the entries from 1766-1794. The website displays a document written by Rev. Burrough and dated 1794 explaining that the original registers had been damaged due to dampness and the transcription was done to prevent loss of the information. The website doesn't indicate from where the information for the records 1794-1812 come, beyond the Portsmouth Record Office.]

At FindMyPast I conducted a search for all Denyers in the United Kingdom with the Optional Keyword 'Farlington' and specifically selected the Hampshire Baptisms record set.  There were only ten results.  The first two below may well be related in some fashion, but I haven't yet figured out how. The following eight match up with those found on Farlington's website.

Source: FindMyPast (used with permission)

At least all of the names, and six of the dates. John Henry was baptized in either 1795 or 1796, according to Farlington Parish or FindMyPast respectively. Charles was baptized in either 1802 or 1801, according to Farlington Parish or FindMyPast respectively.  The months and dates are identically transcribed.

Source: FindMyPast - (used with permission)

FindMyPast doesn't indicate where their transcribed records came from. I suspect if they transcribed from any original records themselves there would be images. Since all FindMyPast has is a transcription, my assumption is that they transcribed from a transcription - possibly the same transcription Farlington Parish transcribed from. But in both cases it's a transcription of a transcription. There is nothing in either to give greater credence.

However - in the case of John Henry - I suspect FindMyPast is more likely correct. It's very unlikely that John Henry was baptized in March of 1795 if my 3rd great grandfather, William, was baptized in July of 1795. (Especially since family records suggest William was born in November of 1794. Waiting several months between birth and baptism was common, but if William and John Henry were twins, they would likely have been baptized together.)

FindMyPast does appear to fall into the same trap that I've noticed elsewhere in referring to baptismal year as birth year in the transcription. They're not the same thing.

Another baptism I searched for is that of my fourth great grandfather, William - the father of the eight children above. Many family trees posted online indicate he was born in 1763, and his father was named Richard.

Source: FindMyPast - (used with permission)

However, the Hampshire Marriage Allegation for William Denyer and Jane Goldfinch asserts they were both 21 in 1791. It is very unlikely in my mind that this William Denyer was my fourth great grandfather.

FindMyPast was able to uncover a much more likelier answer. While some descendants might cringe at part of the transcription, I'm not bothered.

William (Fyfield or Denyer) - baptized in Headley Parish in December of 1771 - the illegitimate son of a William Denyer and Elizabeth Fyfield.

Source: FindMyPast - (used with permission)

All I have to support this theory is a baptismal date that comes within a year after the assumed birth year from the marriage allegation.  There might well be another William Denyer born at the right time whose baptismal record hasn't either survived or for some other reason doesn't appear in these databases. But for now I think these are the most likely candidates for my fifth great grandparents.

Update February 2013 - I have been contacted by one of the joint administrators of the Farlington Parish, and he has clarified that their transcriptions are from the original registers that are kept at the Portsmouth Record Office. He also mentioned that the transcription continues and more records continue to be added.

Finding My Past - Part Two: Census Records

Readers of Part One, where I looked at FindMyPast's marriage records, may have enlarged the image of the search results and noticed the check marks by the two view icons. This indicates that the transcription and the image had already been viewed.  I didn't take screen captures as I was conducting the research, I went back later and repeated my steps.

These check marks are a nice addition, letting the researcher know: You've already been here. 

Source: FindMyPast (used with permission)

Instead of repeating my original research steps exactly, I'm going to go another route to the same records.

First, I am going to click "Search" on the opening screen without entering any data whatsoever:

Source: FindMyPast (used with permission)

This takes me to a screen with 1,232,970,358 results. I guess that's the number of records they currently have. I will then narrow down the results dramatically by entering a last name, specifying the United Kingdom, and using the Optional Keyword "Tailor".  There are 15 results, and I show the first four below.

I'm unsure who Harry Newmark is. There are several Newmark families in England and the US. From discussions on Surname message boards, it seems many of them trace their roots to a similar geographical area. Whether there is a common ancestor might only be determinable through Y-Surname DNA.

Source: FindMyPast (used with permission)

Barnet is my great grandfather, Solomon his brother, and Samuel their father. There is one tailor in their household, however, who appears on the 1901 census, but doesn't appear in these search results. Unless one searches for "Tailor*" or "Tailoress". My great grandfather's sister, Nelly.

Source: FindMyPast (used with permission)

I was actually unaware that Nelly was listed on the census as a Tailoress.  I originally viewed the 1901 English Census back in April of 2007. (I know this because of the date on the image file I downloaded.) This tells me that there is a 99% probability I downloaded it from Ancestry.com. That said, I clearly wasn't looking at documents very carefully back then.

Database Source: The National Archives (published by permission)

Despite the X marks (and I am unsure why they are there) the professions for Solomon, Barnet, and Nelly are quite clear.

This page of census results only lists the children of the household. Obviously, the parents were at the bottom of the preceding page. There seems to be no way to move back or forward a page in the census results.  However, I can return to the transcription.

Source: FindMyPast (used with permission)

And at the top of the "Other Household Members" are the parents, and I can select the view options from there.  (You might notice that on the transcription page, previously viewed transcriptions or images aren't checked off like they are on the search results page.)

I like how FindMyPast appears to transcribe every or almost every possible field on the record. This allows one to search on those fields using the "optional keyword," and helps the novice researcher not overlook some fields on the image.

One might complain that even though one can find other family members on the transcription, not being able to move back and forth on the pages prevents you from looking up neighbors. Not so. The Registration District and Street Name appear in the transcription.

Using the Optional Keywords: Marylebone "Wells Street" - and narrowing the results to the 1901 census, produces 462 results - likely everyone recorded on Wells Street in the 1901 census.

Source: FindMyPast (used with permission)

Another feature I like is their "Research Profile". This can be selected from the home page, or any transcription or image page:

Source: FindMyPast (used with permission)

It provides you a list of every single entry you have looked at, and whether you have viewed the image, transcription, or both. 

Source: FindMyPast (used with permission)

It also provides you with the # of credits it would cost if you were purchasing the documents "As you Go" instead of using a monthly or annual package.  Currently you can buy 100 credits for $13.95, and you have 90 days to spend them.  This will help a lot in a year when I have to decide if I wish to renew, and what package to choose.

So far I have 'spent' 95 credits, and I have focused mostly on my Newmark relatives. I've viewed one Goldfinch record, no Denyers, and none of my wife's British surnames. There's a lot of fun research ahead for me.

Finding My Past - Part One: England and Wales Marriages

FindMyPast - the British genealogy website, is expanding to America.

They currently have a deeply discounted World Subscription rate, and since my Ancestry subscription is US-only, I decided to give it a try. My first search involved the brother of my great grandfather, Sol Newmark. I knew he had gotten married in London.  I actually already have a copy of his marriage certificate, but I was curious what FindMyPast would turn up.

1) On the opening screen I entered his name under Who. I selected 'name variants' for the given name, but not the surname.

Source: FindMyPast (used with permission)

[Note: any image in this entry can be clicked upon to make larger]

2) These were the the first two results:

Source: FindMyPast (used with permission)

The first result was his marriage. And there were two spouses listed - one of them completely unfamiliar to me. My initial assumption was that either

A) Something no one told me about happened
B) What we have here is a page of a document with multiple marriages and the FindMyPast transcribers were unable to differentiate the marriages for some reason, so they include all of the surnames.

So I viewed the transcription (There are two icons in green next to the word "View" - a camera, and a piece of paper. The piece of paper is the transcription.) I also conducted a search on both spouses, and the additional groom who turned up, pretty much confirming hypothesis B. Here are the four transcriptions:

Source: FindMyPast (used with permission)

If you enlarge the images, you will notice that all four indicate a Page # of 110.  They all have the same "Image Quarter" (3). I was unable to fit the entire transcription in the images, but there is also a row that indicates they all have identical Volume #s (1C)  All other rows with data in them are in the images above.


I decided I wanted to view the image of Page 110. So from Solomon's transcription I clicked on the View Image button.

Database Source: The National Archives (published by permission)

Above I show the top of the page, so you can see the header, and the bottom of the page where Solomon's entry was located (in the middle column).  You can see that isn't page 110.  The images for Sarah Nathan, Eva Belosky, and Morris Rudowsky are all on different pages.


It's clear why the transcribers didn't know which spouse was which.  They entered the volume and page number for each person, and then saw who matched up. I believe '3rd Quarter' represents the months of the year - since each year appears to have been divided into 3-month segments. The image doesn't really contain any information that isn't on the transcription.

This is all supposition. I could probably do some research on the England and Wales Marriages (1837-2008) database  - but this information isn't on the FindMyPast website that I could tell. I'd have to find it on a different website with the same database. They also provide no information on how to take this information and order the actual certificate - which would be nice.

As Randy at Genea-Musings noted there isn't enough information for a proper citation. If I don't care about the academic quality of the citation (which in general I don't) I have enough information to suffice for my own needs.


FindMyPast does have an article in their "Learn More" section on the importance of citations.

Source: FindMyPast (used with permission)

In Part Two I will look at the Census results, as well as a couple other FindMyPast features. (Some of which I am quite fond.)

Note: As Randy points out in the comments, FreeBMD does have the information about these records that FindMyPast doesn't.  I'm unsure where I retrieved the Volume and Page # for my great great uncle back in 2007 (no source notes were written down in my database), but wherever it was, they didn't provide me with multiple spouses.  They probably just provided me with the volume and page number for Solomon, which was enough for me to order the certificate from the General Register Office. While the multiple spouses listed might not confuse British researchers, now that they are trying to attract American researchers, it would likely behoove them to provide a little bit of explanation.

Further Note: Here's the Certificate ordering information that FindMyPast provides on their British website.  They haven't yet moved it over to their American site.

Amanuensis Monday: Barnard Goldfinch and the Siege of Winchester

Amanuensis: A person employed to write what another dictates or to copy what has been written by another.

I continue my project to transcribe family letters, journals, newspaper articles, audiotapes, and other historical artifacts. Not only do the documents contain genealogical information, the words breathe life into kin - some I never met - others I see a time in their life before I knew them.

I began this project three years ago, back on February 16, 2009.  Since I began, many others have joined in on the meme. I am thrilled that this meme I started has inspired so many to transcribe their family history documents. Why do we transcribe? I provide my three reasons in the linked post. You may find others.

***
Last week I mentioned that I had found two news articles of interest at British Newspaper Archive. This week I am sharing the second.

The below was found on page 7 of the Hampshire Advertiser - Saturday February 6, 1854. It describes the discovery of a tombstone corroborating a local legend.

Remember, Remember, the Fifth of November

If there are any British readers of this blog, Happy Guy Fawkes Night

Remember, remember the Fifth of November,

The Gunpowder Treason and Plot,

I know of no reason

Why the Gunpowder Treason

Should ever be forgot.

Guy Fawkes, Guy Fawkes, t'was his intent

To blow up the King and Parli'ment.

Three-score barrels of powder below

To prove old England's overthrow;

By God's providence he was catch'd

With a dark lantern and burning match.

Holla boys, Holla boys, let the bells ring.

Holloa boys, holloa boys, God save the King!

And what should we do with him? Burn him!

There are many videos online of the above.  Here's one of them:





I wonder if my British Denyer ancestors, who immigrated to America in the early-1800s, observed Guy Fawkes day in any fashion after arriving in America.  I wonder if my Newmark ancestors who lived in London for fifteen years from the mid-1890s to 1910 got into the habit of celebrating it with their neighbors.

If you are reading this on November Fifth, the Oxford English Dictionary's Word of the Day is Gunpowder. Clearly in honor of November Fifth. However, they don't store archives, so you can only see the current Word of the Day.  (Or you can subscribe to their free email edition, like I do.)

Amanuensis Monday: The Will of Barnard Goldfinch (w/guest Amanuensis)

Amanuensis: A person employed to write what another dictates or to copy what has been written by another.

I know I said I was taking a vacation, but I received an amazing email this morning from geneablogger, Martin Hollick of The Slovak Yankee.  Apparently he has experience with 16th century English script, so 18th century was easy for him to read.  So when he saw my post this morning concerning the will of Barnard Goldfinch, it didn't take him long to transcribe it.  I plan to use his transcription to try to familiarize myself with this style so I am able to do the same in the future.

London Lives - Barnard Goldfinch

I've extended one branch a generation further back this week.  I was inputting some surnames into London Lives, a new website recently mentioned by the Genealogy Insider.

I discovered the abstract of a will for a Barnard Goldfinch.

Forename	Barnard
Surname	Goldfinch
Occupation	Sailmaker
Parish, County	Portsea , Hampshire
Parish Name	Portsea
County, or Country	Hampshire
Date Proven	27 June 1789

My fourth great grandfather, William Denyer, married a Jane Goldfinch in 1791.  I knew from the marriage record I had found online that Jane was from Portsea, and William was from Farlington.

Denyer, William, of Farlington, lime-burner, 21, b., & Jane Goldfinch, of Portsea, 21, sp., at P., 22 Oct., 1791.  (from Hampshire allegations for marriage licences granted by the Bishop of Winchester: 1689 to 1837 - Vol 35, p. 217.) [The b. and sp. mean bachelor and spinster, and the 'at P.' most likely means 'at Portsea'.] 

I figured this Barnard Goldfinch was a likely candidate for a relative.  Not necessarily an ancestor, but possibly that too.  So before heading to the UK Archives to obtain a copy of the will, I did a google search on "Barnard Goldfinch."

There were a total of 8 results, including an index to baptisms in Farlington Parish from 1766-1812.  Apparently, a Barnard Goldfinch Denyer was born to a William (and Ann) Denyer on August 17, 1800.  Ann?  That's close to Jane.  Clerical or transcription error perhaps?

The parish index listed a total of 8 Denyers born to a William from 1793-1807, and the other seven had a mother named Jane.  My third great grandfather appears to be among them.  So it seems a likely clerical error.  Sure, there could be a child with a different mother -- but to name him after the other woman's father would be slightly unorthodox.  And at this point, I was suspecting that's what he was.  Still, I was less interested in the parentage of Barnard, than in the parentage of Jane.  I was certain I wanted to obtain that will.

The UK National Archives charges a fee per record.  (3.50 pounds)  However, you can immediately download the record.  Instant gratification.

Sort of.  I'd like to go back in time and invent the typewriter a few centuries early please!

[Image of will removed due to copyright/permission issues with the UK National Archives.]

It's going to take some work to transcribe (decipher) this, but my initial perusal finds no mentions of a wife, and mention of only one child, a spinster daughter named Jane.  Since my fourth great grandmother wasn't married yet to William Denyer, this is a very likely fifth great grandfather.

Whether or not he is descended from the Barnard Goldfinch who was born in 1643 in Winchester at the Goldfinch Cottage - is an unknown.
Correction: I have received some help in transcribing this, and there appears to have also been a son named Joseph, which could be helpful.

Nellie and Barney Newmark - 1900s - The London Dining Rooms

Sign: The London Dining Rooms - Good Breakfasts & Teas

On the right is my great grandfather, Barney Newmark. On the left is his sister, Nellie. They are standing in front of The London Dining Rooms. This is the only photograph I have seen of anyone from the Newmark family before they arrived in America.

I'm not certain when the photograph was taken. Judging from the apparent ages, and looking for a 'special event' to explain the photo - I might guess May of 1907, or October of 1908.

In May of 1907, Barney and his father, Samuel, left England to explore America. Barney would have been 21, and Nellie 18.

Barney and his father returned to England in June of 1908. In October, Samuel, Barney, and another son, Sol, left again. The rest of the family followed in March of 1909.

After this photo, the next photo I have of Barney is from his wedding on August 27, 1911.

The photograph came this past weekend from a grandson of Nellie, who in his email says he is scanning in several family photographs, so maybe there will be more.

London Dining Rooms

Another institution was the London Dining Rooms, opposite New Road in Church Street. One could obtain an individual meat pudding for one penny. Many other small independent premises served the working man around the town. Sadly, few if any of the type described survive, for they were an institution in themselves. At some of the shops you stirred your tea with a spoon chained to the counter - fancy not trusting us! -- Tim Wren - Flying Sparks, ©1998.

Tim Wren above writes about The London Dining Rooms in Brighton, UK, about 50 miles south of London. I've found references to a London Dining Rooms in Dunedin, New Zealand. There may have been multiple locations in London itself, but in The multum in parvo guide to London and its environs, 1872, p. 21 - there is a reference to one at the corner of Chancery Lane and Fleet Street. This would have been about a mile from 56 Wells Street, where the Newmark family lived in 1901.

Another Angle

The corner of Chancery Lane and Fleet Street was somewhat famous for a time, though erroneously, as where Izaak Walton, author of The Compleat Angler, lived.

According to Walter George Bell, in Fleet Street in Seven Centuries, 1912, p. 374:

None of Old London's buildings is more familiar by illustration than the glorious old timber house at the Chancery Lane corner erected in King Henry the Eighth's reign, or earlier, and not destroyed until 1799, when the Corporation widened that thoroughfare. It was constructed entirely of oak, the heavy frames filled in with lath and plaster, and with overhanging storeys, gable roof, and elaborate carving covering the front, made a most picturesque pile. This is said to have been the famous King's Head Tavern, though in its last years the sign borne was The Harrow. It is best known as " Izaak Walton's house," which certainly it was not.

Many books upon London repeat this misdescription ; its persistence is doubtless due to the fact that an engraving of this delightful corner house appears in every edition of The Compleat Angler. Walton's shop was at the more modest building adjoining, two doors west from Chancery Lane.

In a footnote, Bell wrote: "The site is definitely fixed by a deed bearing date 1624, cited by Sir John Hawkins in his Life of Walton. Ed. 1792, pp. viii, ix, as next door to the old timber-built corner house. I note that the misdescription is repeated in the London Museum."

The Wedding Cake of the Duke and Duchess of York, 1923

Here's a 1923 silent film, from the official YouTube channel of the British Monarchy. The Duchess of York later became Queen Elizabeth, The Queen Mother.

UK Passenger Lists

A few days ago I mentioned that the UK Passenger Lists had been added to Ancestry.UK, and I provided Ancestry's description of the database:

This database is an index to the Board of Trade’s passenger lists of ships arriving in the United Kingdom from foreign ports outside of Europe and the Mediterranean from 1878-1888 and 1890-1960. Information listed on the passenger lists may include: name of passenger, their birth date or age, port of departure, port of arrival, date of arrival, and vessel name.

And then I went on and talked about how I hoped to obtain access to the international edition of Ancestry so I could see if my Newmark ancestors' arrival in the UK from Poland was in there. I'm not sure how I missed "from foreign ports outside of Europe."

As I've written before, my Newmark ancestors did a lot of traveling in the first decade of the 20th century. Likely in 1904 my second great grandfather, Samuel, and great grandfather Barney traveled from London to Quebec. In July of 1907 they definitely crossed over into the US, and those documents suggest they arrived in Quebec in May of 1904, though I have been unable to find backup for this. I knew that sometime between July of 1907 and October of 1908 they returned to the UK, and in October of 1908 they returned to the US with another of Samuel's sons, Sol. The rest of the family followed in March of 1909.

So while I still don't have a date for when they arrived in the UK from Poland (estimated in 1893), I did make a trip to the St. Louis Genealogical Society offices this weekend and using their computers found Samuel and Barney's return trip from the US to England on June 21, 1908.



I've drawn a box around Samuel and Barney. They traveled only under their first initial, so theoretically it could be a different S Newmark and B Newmark. However, both of the travelers were tailors, which matches, and both of them are single or traveling unaccompanied by their spouse. (That's what the tally mark by their name indicates, here's a closeup of that box on the form):



The only other information it provides is their port (Southampton), they traveled third class, and they were considered British subjects. (later pages contained lists of foreign subjects. This was the first page of the manifest, the date of the ship's arrival was on every other page.)

Barney and Samuel had lived in England for at least ten years prior to traveling to North America, and the rest of their family still lived in England, so it's logical they would be treated as British subjects. They also had to have made a return trip around this time, so I am fairly certain that this is their passage.

UK Passenger Lists

Ancestry.UK yesterday added incoming passenger lists (1878-1960).

This database is an index to the Board of Trade’s passenger lists of ships arriving in the United Kingdom from foreign ports outside of Europe and the Mediterranean from 1878-1888 and 1890-1960. Information listed on the passenger lists may include: name of passenger, their birth date or age, port of departure, port of arrival, date of arrival, and vessel name.

My second great grandparents Samuel and Rose Newmark immigrated to England from Poland at some point in the early 1890s with their four eldest children: Sol, Barney, Nellie and Morris/Moses. I don't have an international subscription, but with my US subscription I was able to search for my surname, and while they don't allow you to access any other details, they do provide the names and ports of entry. There are several Samuels, one Rosie, one Nellie, and a couple Morrises. No Sol, and no Barney, but there is a B. Newmark. Enough to suggest their records might well be there.

I believe the St. Louis Genealogical Society office has a full subscription, so I will visit them this weekend and see what I can find.

Yom Kippur 1899

Yom Kippur, the Jewish Day of Atonement, begins Friday night at sunset. But for this post, I’m taking you back 108 years to 1899:

“Jews Celebrate Atonement Day by Holding Demonstrations”
“Chief Rabbi Adler Speaks”
“Says Last Saturday’s Verdict was a Disaster to France”

London – Sept 14 English indignation against France was strengthened today on account of the observance by all Jews of the Day of Atonement.

The day was celebrated here, especially in the East End, with Dreyfus demonstrations…The Great Synagogue in London presented a striking spectacle. It was crowded from 6 o’clock in the morning until 6 at night and thousands were unable to enter.

The above comes from the Sept 15, 1899 New York Times. (read the full article) They used to charge a fee to read their archives, but this week they opened up most of it for free. Everything prior to 1922, and thus in the public domain, is freely downloadable as PDFs. Anything after 1987, out of NYTimes generosity, is also free. There’s still a large amount they charge for, but they decreased the price as well. (It used to be $4.95 per article, and the ones I've found in my searches so far have been $3.95)

Several of my Newmark ancestors were likely at the Great Synagogue that day. They were in London from 1893 to 1909. They were definitely at the Synagogue a couple years later, on August 31, 1902, but that’s a different post I will write soon.

Dreyfus had been convicted in 1895, but this protest followed rumors of an army cover-up and his possible innocence. Pertaining to that, here’s another interesting quote from the above article:

“Let the majesty of the law be vindicated,” [Chief Rabbi Adler] concluded, “and let them not seek a pardon, which should be rejected with scorn, for where no crime was committed, how can a pardon be granted?”

Dreyfus was pardoned on September 19th. And while a pardon, as the article points out, is usually all one can expect in most countries after a conviction, in 1906 he was exonerated by a military commission. (source)

Speaking of which...Are there black sheep in your family tree that you would like pardoned/exonerated? Craig Manson of Geneablogie has created a new service called the Historical Appellate Review Project

HARP, the Historical Appellate Review Project, is dedicated to setting the record straight. Using state-of-the-art genealogical and legal research procedures, HARP will investigate your family's alleged black sheep and let you know if their names might be cleared! In certain cases, we even may be able to go to court and get the official record changed!

That sounds like a great idea! I haven't found any ancestors yet that have been convicted of any serious crimes, but if I do, and think it may have been an unfair conviction, I now have a place to go!

Now, that's impressive!

Last Tuesday (6 days ago) around 7 am (Central Daylight Time) or 1 pm (British Summer Time) I went online and ordered a marriage certificate from the British General Register Office. (The marriage took place in 1902 in the Great Synagogue of London, for those curious.)

It arrived today. And that, in itself, is impressive, because it took over two weeks to get documents from the Missouri Archives, and you know, I’ve driven to Jefferson City and back in one day. And I received a postcard from the Missouri Archives that initially told me it could take up to 8 weeks. It didn’t, but it could have.

So a six day turnaround from London is impressive. But that’s not the most impressive thing.
The receipt that came with the certificate says the “Despatch Date” was July 16th. I double checked my calendar. Yep. Same-day mail.

Now, someone is going to point out that London is six hours ahead of me. But, OK. Let’s say it was 8 am in London, and 2 am here in St. Louis when they mailed it. For it to be sitting in my mailbox at 5 pm when I return from work is STILL BLOODY IMPRESSIVE! There was an ocean to cross!