NE_Ancestors Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  


Pages: 1 ... 6 7 [8] 9 10
 on: June 01, 2014, 04:51:30 PM 
Started by Morriston - Last post by GenKen
The only entry on the IGI for GUILLOD indexed under GUILLETT is the baptism of Thomas GUILLOD, 1772, St Mary le Bow, DUR. There are however, various  entries for one or more Daniel GUILLOD’s during the early to mid 1700’s in Switzerland on Family Search which could fit Thomas’s baptism 1772, St Mary le Bow. There are also several GUILLOD entries on the English census showing a link with Switzerland. Perhaps learning to yodel may help.

 on: June 01, 2014, 11:06:20 AM 
Started by Morriston - Last post by GenKen
Hi Darcy, welcome to the NDFHS Forum,

Geoff’s calculation that the name GUILLOD may not be British could well be right. Very often a check of the NBI is a good guide to where a family was prominent by the number of burials of family members in a particular area. I have therefore checked the NBI and of over 18 million entries there is not a single GUILLOD or variant.

Again as Geoff suggests you would be better off starting a new thread containing GUILLOD in the title, as this thread is two years old.

 on: June 01, 2014, 09:34:46 AM 
Started by Morriston - Last post by Geoff

     It seems that Daniel had no other children baptised at St Mary le Bow.  Also I cannot trace any marriage for him in Co Durham.  That is not surprising, a the North Bailey tended to attract lots of people who, from a family history point of view, were just "passing through".  That is, they themselves might have spent most of their adult lives there but neither their ancestors nor their descendants did so.  Such people might have been prosperous tradesmen, Cathedral dignitaries or, the vast army of servants each would bring with them.  You could seek a Will for Daniel and/or for Thomas, in case he mentioned any relatives living elsewhere.  Otherwise you could look at the LDS (Mormon) FamilySearch site for any mention at all of the surname Guillod, which is not local and may not even be British (it sounds French to me, but that's just me!).  Any account of the death of either Daniel or Thomas could also be informative.  Do you have Thomas' occupation?  Have you looked for his marriage entry -assuming he did marry?  Any of these might carry a clue, even if only a slight one.

     Incidentally, you would probably have achieved more prominence for your query if you had made it a  new topic, which it really is.

                                          Geoff Nicholson

 on: June 01, 2014, 07:08:04 AM 
Started by Morriston - Last post by Darcy1968
I have struck a wall looking for Daniel Guillod, the father of Thomas Guillod (1772-1815) baptised at St Mary le Bow, Durham. Any tips or assistance would be appreciated.

NB I joined NDFHS last week.

 on: May 23, 2014, 10:04:44 AM 
Started by Geoff - Last post by Geoff

     The May meeting began with the Branch Annual General Meeting, at which the Branch Committee reports were received and the previous committee were all unanimously re-elected.  They are: Chairman, Geoff  Nicholson;  Secretary and NDFHS Council rep, Gerry Langley;  Treasurer, Hilary Tewari.

     The speaker for the evening next followed.  This was myself (Geoff Nicholson), on the topic of “Crime and Punishment”.  My theme was that undoubtedly most of our ancestors broke the Law on many occasions: some were caught, even though most probably got away with it.  What happened to those who were caught?  A great deal of information is available, in The National Archives, in local County Record Offices and in local libraries.  Thanks to the work of our own members in the past, a lot of relevant material has been published by this society.

     Although most published material dates from the 19th and 18th centuries, I was able to show that there are cases available to us, thanks to eg The Surtees Society and the Northumberland County History, dating from at least the 13th century (a 1256 case concerning a dispute as to whether two men from Bamburgh were villeins, ie more or less serfs, or free men, and for which most of the evidence on both sides was genealogical in nature).  I also mentioned the cases from the Ecclesiastical Courts at Durham in Tudor times, dealing with, amongst others, anything reflecting on  anyone’s spiritual standing – defamation, accusations of witchcraft, marriage within the church’s “Table of Affinity”, etc – or anything at all concerning a member of the clergy.

     With 18th and 19th century cases people tend to be most interested in examples where the offender was punished by transportation – of which, thanks to the late George Bell, a lot is available, in the NDFHS Library and in other places – or by execution.

     We often hear of people being transported, apparently for very minor offences – stealing a handkerchief, for instance.  I gave as my opinion that such cases might have been only the latest of many offences by a habitual criminal and that the offence for which they were tried might have only been a sample case out of many possible charges – that is, he might have stolen a large amount of goods, of which the handkerchief was just an example.  It was deemed very desirable for magistrates to send a steady supply of fit, tough young men to the colonies, to further the process of settlement and to push back their frontiers.

     With respect to executions I referred to a paper by John Smith in Durham County Local History Society’s Bulletin of 1977 in which he analysed what happened to people indicted at Durham for capital offences in the18th century.  He found that in only 4.7% of such cases was the case proceeded with, the accused found guilty and sentenced to death and the death sentence is known to have been definitely carried out.  That is far different to the popular impression of lots of people being hanged for trivial offences.

     Judging by the “inquest” afterwards in the Steamboat Inn, members seemed happy with what I had told them and interested to hear more.  They were particularly interested in the various books I was able to show them as samples of what I had been talking about.

                    Geoff Nicholson

 on: May 14, 2014, 08:51:41 PM 
Started by pommy - Last post by pommy
Hi guys
Thanks for the replies and input As our mothers are cousins and both alive the
information was readily available so there was no breach of confidentiality
I consider it discourteous, but will let it lie until I have contacted her
about sharing an excellent family photograph she has posted.
It's quite ironic that the gt-grandfather we share is Charles William Thompson
whom I have posted about on several occasions and at different times as
I have searched for his birth

 on: May 14, 2014, 07:12:47 AM 
Started by pommy - Last post by SteveInEssex
As the fact of someone's existence, DOB, Date of marriage, etc., is a matter of public record, I don't see how there could be a "Breach of Confidentiality”

Just knowing that there have been living cousins has enabled me to find their birth, baptism and contact details before now, with very little effort.

But it is bad manners.

Actually, because it is so easy to find these things, I never use my DOB in a security question, or my mother's maiden name, or where I was born, or anything else that is online.


 on: May 13, 2014, 07:33:35 PM 
Started by pommy - Last post by GenKen
I would expect that publishing the name and details of a living person in a family tree would be considered a “Breach of Confidentiality” if those details had been given in confidence and were disclosed to the detriment of the named person.

 on: May 13, 2014, 08:21:06 AM 
Started by pommy - Last post by Catherine
It is 'allowed' because anyone can put anything on a personal Ancestry tree - and there is a vast amount of incorrect stuff on that vast number of trees many of which are owned by name collectors who never check anything and have no interest in accuracy.  I had the same experience.  I contacted the owner of the tree and asked him to change my mother's status to 'living' which he agreed to do.  He later contacted me and asked me how to do it!  The owner of the tree has to find the profile of the living individual and change the status.   Only the owner of the tree can do it though, and Ancestry themselves will not be remotely interested.

 on: May 13, 2014, 07:45:32 AM 
Started by DonUS - Last post by SteveInEssex
Hi Don,

Are you aware that the posting of obituaries in local papers is pretty uncommon, here in the UK, unless the person was notable in some way.

Usually the most you will find is a notice that someone has died, and even those were less common when communities were closer than they are today.


Pages: 1 ... 6 7 [8] 9 10