- 1st June 2015
Baroness Scott proposed BMD change EXCLUSIVE
The LostCousins newsletter is usually published
fortnightly. To access the previous newsletter (dated 20th May) click here, for an index to articles from 2009-10
click here, for a list of articles from 2011
click here and for a list of articles from
2012-14 click here. Or use the customised Google search below
(that's what I do):
links are included to the websites or articles mentioned in the newsletter
(they are highlighted in blue or purple and underlined, so you can't miss
them). If one of the links doesn't work this normally indicates that you're
using adblocking software - you need to make the
LostCousins site an exception (or else use a different browser, such as
To go to the main LostCousins website click the
logo at the top of this newsletter. If you're not already a member, do join -
it's FREE, and you'll get an email to alert you whenever there's a new edition
of this newsletter available!
Why Baroness Scott proposed BMD
of us have tried over the years to persuade the General Register Office and the
Government to create a service more appropriate to the needs of modern family
historians, but it was only when Baroness Scott of Needham Market proposed an
amendment to the Deregulation Bill towards the end of last year that we could
at last see the light at the end of the tunnel.
legislation passes through Parliament many amendments are proposed - but few
are accepted. However in this instance the case she made was so convincing that
the Government decided to support it - and the rest is (family) history!
Scott graciously accepted my invitation to write an article for this newsletter
to explain why she started researching her own family history - and what the
next step will be, now that the Deregulation Act has become law.
I guess that I must be one of many thousands of people
who have been inspired to start researching their family by the BBC's "Who
Do You Think You Are?" programme. It was only some three years ago that I
began what has turned out to be one of the most rewarding activities I have
ever been involved with.
Of course, some of my colleagues in the
House of Lords have their family history at their fingertips; descended from
some of the oldest families in the country, their lineage
is a matter of public record. But I am from a more modest family, my father
from a long line of West Yorkshire textile workers, my mother from the marriage
of a Welsh mother and Irish father.
I started with my father's family, not
least because Leadbeater seemed like a more promising
avenue to explore than my maternal grandmother born Mary Jones in Cardiff!
Thanks to the digitisation carried out
by the West Yorkshire Archive Service, I had managed to do a lot of work on my
father's side without having recourse to paying for the copy certificates,
although there were a couple of points where, rather grudgingly, I had to. My
great-great grandfather's birth certificate dated 1883 gave his mother's maiden
name as Whitecomens, a name so unusual that I
couldn't find another example of it anywhere. Ordering his younger sister's
birth certificate revealed that in fact it was White-Cummings!
But it was researching my mother's Welsh
ancestry which proved the value, and highlighted the expense, of using BMD
certificates. My granny's birth certificate showed her father, John Jones, was
a master mariner and her mother Jane, nee Roberts. He did not appear on any
census during their married life, so I had no idea of his birthplace or
parentage. From the 1911 census I knew roughly when they had married, and found
around 16 marriages between John Jones and Jane Roberts in the right timeframe.
For about 6 months I resisted taking the next step, but finally, started
ordering the certificates, one at a time, and on the 6th attempt, I found one which
recorded a mariner. Using the address given for Jane, and with the father's
name given, I was quickly able to confirm that I had the right one.
This isn't an expense which everyone can
meet, and it made me determined to try to change the legislative framework in
order to allow a cheaper and less onerous way for genealogists to get the
By coincidence, it wasn't exactly a new
issue to me. More than a decade ago, long before I started my research, I had
been a member of the House of Lords committee which looked at deregulation
proposals. This had been put forward then by the GRO, but they had also put
forward a number of other proposals which would have had a big impact on modern
registration, and we felt that the package was too far reaching for the
regulatory reform procedure to be appropriate.
When I spotted that the Government were
bringing forward a Deregulation Bill in 2014, I spotted an opportunity to deal
with the issue, as the regime for historic certificates is a classic example of
regulation which hasn't kept pace either with demand, or modern technology.
It became clear to me early on that in
order to get Government to agree to do this, the GRO would have to be fully on
board, and that the best approach would be to introduce what is known as
legislation. What this means is that my
amendment sets out the outcome we seek to achieve i.e. that the information
from historical records can be issued in a form other than watermarked
certificates, but the detail of how it's done is left to secondary legislation
drawn up after extensive consultation by the GRO.
So that is where we are now. The GRO
have a duty introduced by the 2015 Deregulation Act, to come forward with
proposals relating to historic certificates, and I look forward to seeing the
consultation on all the different options. It's really important that we all
engage with that process so that the final legislative changes really reflect
the way family historians use the certificates.
So many people around the world can
trace their roots to English and Welsh ancestors, and I believe it's right for the UK Government to make it as easy as
possible for them to do their research.
Copyright © 2015 Baroness Scott of
When we find new cousins one of the
first things most of us do is exchange copies of the BMD certificates in our
collection - but is it strictly legal to do this?
There's a useful guide to the Reproduction of birth, death and marriage
certificates on the National Archives website - you'll find it here.
The good news is that provided you don't attempt to pass the copy off as an original
certificate you can pretty much do what you want so long as you acknowledge
Crown Copyright, and comply with both the Data Protection Act and the
Human Rights Act.
The Data Protection Act primarily
protects individuals against the misuse of their personal data by
organisations; as a private individual you are not bound by the letter of this
particular law, but I would suggest that you consider yourself bound by the
spirit of the law, especially if you plan to publish personal
An infant child cannot give permission
for their personal details to be published - so was it morally wrong for
newspapers (and this newsletter) to publish the birth certificates of Prince
George and Princess
Charlotte? In those instances the information on the certificate was
already in the public domain - what made them interesting was seeing how it was presented. For example,
someone wrote to ask why no surname was shown - a very good question, and one
that I was only able to answer definitively after referring to the Royal
Family's own website.
no matter how convinced you are that you're right, I'd suggest that you don't
post information on online forums unless you have verified it against a
credible source - and ideally provide a link to that source so that others can
check it themselves. This adds credence to your post and reduces the chance of
spreading misinformation, which is a common problem with forums - although not
the LostCousins Forum, which is carefully moderated (check your My Summary page to see whether
you have been invited to join).
A couple of years ago I wrote
about the increase in baptisms prior to the introduction of Civil Registration
on 1st July 1837, so I was interested to see that there was an extensive
article on this topic in the latest issue of the Genealogists' Magazine (the Journal of the Society of Genealogists).
The author, Gwyneth Wilkie,
reported research which showed that
there were 41,757 baptisms in February
1837, compared to an average of 28,328 in the previous 5 years (two of which were
leap years), and that in June 1837 the figure was 44,898 compared with an
average of 31,463. The fact that there were two surges can be accounted for by
the fact that the original date set for the introduction of Civil Registration
was 1st March, and it was only on 24th February that the Home Secretary, Lord
John Russell announced that it would be delayed until 1st July.
(Sadly this delay
meant that the second marriage of my 4G grandfather on 12th June 1837 was
recorded in the old-style registers, so the name of his father was not recorded.)
Why did parents rush to have their
children baptised? It seems that some of the clergy circulated misleading
information about the new registration system - or, at least, information that
could interpreted incorrectly - but as you can see from this article from the Manchester Courier of 4th March 1837,
which is part of the newspaper collection at Findmypast,
there were also rumours that the fee for baptisms was to rise dramatically,
figures of 5 shillings, 7 shillings, and even 8s 6d being quoted (at that time the
fee for registering a baptism typically ranged from 1s to 2s 6d).
Image © THE BRITISH
LIBRARY BOARD. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
Used by permission of Findmypast.
The misinformation also resulted in some
parents failing to register the births of children who were born after 1st July
1837 - it seems that some were under the impression that baptism and
registration of a birth were alternatives. This might seem ludicrous to us now,
but when you consider that marriage in a register office was being introduced
as an alternative to marriage in a church it's not really surprising that this
mistake was made.
Lord Russell, the Home Secretary who oversaw the introduction of Civil
Registration in 1837, was the grandfather of Bertrand Russell, the philosopher,
and helped to bring him up after the child's father (his eldest son), died. He
became Earl Russell in 1861, and died in 1878; second son George inherited the title -
you may recall that in the last newsletter I mentioned
his conviction for bigamy!
Glancing through articles from the Manchester Courier in the British Newspaper
Archive I noticed that I November 1834 a coach-builder and two of his employees appeared
before magistrates for "exercising their worldly calling on his premises
on the Sabbath-day". The employees were fined 5s each, plus costs, and the
employer had to pay 27s.
Most of us grew up in a culture where it
was the norm for wives to adopt their husband's surname on marriage - but
according to this BBC article
this hasn't always been the case in England. At one time married women had no
surname at all - referring to a court case in 1340, the author of the article says
that when a woman took a husband, she lost every surname except 'wife of'.
The article implies this is a direct
quote, but I haven't been able to verify this (and I'm not convinced that the
word 'surname' would have been used in 1340). Nevertheless, we've probably all
seen parish registers entries along the lines of "Elizabeth, wife of William
XXX" or even "the wife of William XXX was this day buryed".
In the US the pioneer of women's rights,
Lucy Stone (1818-93), refused to take her husband's surname when they
married in 1855; one could imagine
Eleanor Roosevelt doing the same had her husband's surname not also been
Roosevelt (Franklin Delano Roosevelt was her father's 5th cousin; she was a
niece of Theodore Roosevelt). It has long been the fashion for married women in
the US to retain their maiden name as a middle name, for example 'Hillary Rodham
Clinton', and there's an unfortunate tendency for family historians from the US
to retrospectively, but incorrectly, apply this convention to their English
I used to wonder how the well-known genealogist Megan Smolenyak
Smolenyak got her name - it turns out she married a
previously unrelated gentleman with the same surname.
In modern England there are many
different approaches (some of them are listed here), though
as recently as 1994 a survey showed that 94% of married women had taken their
husband's surname. When a double-barrelled (ie
hyphenated) surname is adopted the order of the names is a matter of choice,
although traditionally it's the maiden surname that comes first. Whether the
husband adopts the same combination or retains his own surname also varies.
Nowadays many more women retain their
maiden name, as did my wife when we married, although sometimes only in their
professional life. Far less common is for the husband to adopt his wife's surname, though I have an example in my own tree of a couple
who did this when they married in 1951 (I can't provide details because living
people are involved). Also in my tree is a husband who changed his name by deed
poll prior to his marriage - because his future wife refused to marry him
unless he did!
Sometimes you'll see a gravestone where
the wife is recorded under her maiden surname, perhaps followed by
"beloved wife of....". This seems to happen
most often where the wife's family was sufficiently prominent to have their own
area in the churchyard, but I haven't carried out any formal research into the
matter. But beware middle names that are also surnames
- you might think that the inscription "Mary Stables..... wife of William Aldam" is
telling you that Mary's maiden name was Stables, but in fact it's her mother's
maiden name. (This Wikipedia page does little to
dispel the confusion.)
in Scotland things were quite different: see, for example, this article
I'm sure that, like me, you've often
wondered what proof of identity couples were required to present to the
registrar - or the vicar - prior to their marriage. It seems that until very
recently they weren't required to provide anything.....
One of the fascinating discoveries that I made when reading Professor Rebecca Probert's latest book Divorced, Bigamist, Bereaved?was that, until section 28A was added to the Marriage Act 1949 by the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, a registrar had no power to request couples to submit evidence as to their name, age, or marital status. It's snippets of information like this that make books like this so useful!
If you decide to buy Rebecca's latest book (or any
of her previous works - Marriage Law for
Genealogists is another classic) you can support LostCousins by using one
of the following links :
The words 'Friend' and 'Like' seem to
have lost all meaning since they were appropriated by Facebook - but that's not
all we need to worry about. As this week's New
Scientist editorial says:
Facebook was a country it would be the world's most populous nation... Other
social media giants would also appear in the top 10.
what kind of countries would these be? In Facebookland
the authorities choose what news you see and suppress updates they consider to
be unsuitable... the statute book is vague about what constitutes an offence
and the sanctions meted out seem arbitrary and draconian. Summary exile is
sounds like a police state."
The author argues that we need to rebuild
online social networks as real communities, and quotes the words of Thomas
Paine, the Norfolk-born philosopher who inspired the American Revolution:
"We have it in our power to begin the world over again."
This is certainly something I aimed for
when I opened the LostCousins Forum on a trial basis more than 2 years ago: my
vision was of a community where people take care in their communications, help
rather than harangue, and accept that - even though we have a shared interest
in family history - others are likely to have very different backgrounds,
aspirations, and priorities.
Of course, most of the people who use
Facebook and similar sites are just like you and me. However, the way we behave
on the Internet isn't always the way we would behave if we met the same people
face to face, partly because we often have difficulty communicating our
thoughts in writing - research
conducted 10 years ago found that we over-estimate our ability to do so (surprisingly
the use of emoticons, or smilies, seems not to help,
perhaps because they can be ambiguous). This isn't a new phenomenon - even
before the advent of the Internet it was well-known that much of the
information we communicate is non-verbal.
When we're communicating with cousins we've
never met we need to be particularly careful. Our cousins may share our
ancestors, but their family trees will look very, very different from ours -
because even a 1st cousin only shares half of our ancestors, and the proportion
halves each time the common ancestor is pushed back a generation (thus a 4th
cousin only shares 1/16th of our ancestors). This is one of the reasons I recently
enhanced the My Contact page at
LostCousins (see this article
from the last issue): if we only look at things from our own perspective it
becomes much harder to communicate and co-operate.
Special guardianship is a long-term
placement, and can be an alternative to adoption or care for children whose parents
neglect or abuse them - but what isn't clear to me is whether children will
have the same level of access to their records in the future as they would if
they had been adopted.
In April New Scientist revealed
that doctors in Boston were planning to sequence the genomes of healthy newborn babies (this was predicted in a 2008 article in The Guardian, although sadly their
prediction that the cost of full-genome sequencing would have fallen to just
$100 by 2012 didn't come true).
Is it possible to have too much
information? There are certainly some who would argue that having more won't
necessarily lead to a better outcome, and this is more likely to be true if the
patient (or, in this case, the patient's parents) aren't able to properly
interpret the data.
This seems to have been the reasoning by
the FDA's decision to stop 23andMe marketing DNA tests for medical purposes in
the USA - however in Britain, Canada, and certain other countries you can still
get this information, along with genealogical matches. Follow this link
to find out more if you live in Canada, the UK, Ireland, the Netherlands,
Denmark, Sweden, or Finland; if you live in the USA follow this link
for a purely genealogical DNA test.
Not so long ago the question would have
been "Should you test your DNA?". But
nowadays it's hard to understand why anyone would want to ignore the valuable
contribution that DNA evidence can make to our knowledge of our ancestry.
I think it's wonderful that there are
two completely separate frameworks that we can use to construct our family
tree: one based on the written evidence that has survived, and the other based
on the traces of our ancestors' genes that we carry in our own bodies.
However, although most of us accept that
DNA evidence is important, few family historians really understand how to use DNA tests. It's perhaps not surprising,
because whilst the concept behind the inheritance of DNA is simple, for a long
time many testing laboratories marketed their DNA tests in a way that made them
appear more complicated (some still do, I'm afraid).
My advice is to forget about ethnicity:
in a very few cases DNA testing may help to support a family story, but those
instances are few and far between. Forget too about mtDNA
tests - the ones that track your direct maternal line. Unless you test your
full mtDNA sequence (which is expensive) and get an
EXACT match you may struggle to find your common ancestor - because she could
have lived 500 years ago, and relatively few of us have been able to trace our
maternal line back that far (it's the most difficult line of all to trace,
because the surname changes with every generation). If you do want to take a
full mitochondrial sequence test you won't have much choice about who to test
with - Family
Tree DNA are the only major company offering these tests.
Y-DNA test are great in one respect -
because Y-DNA passes from father to son there's a correlation with surnames,
which are usually inherited in the same way. So if you get a reasonably close
match with someone who has the same surname as you, you can be fairly certain
that the two of you are cousins (though the connection could be a long way
back). Y-DNA tests are ideal if you are running a One-Name Study, or if - like
me - you want to find out as much as you can about the origins of your surname.
If you have an illegitimate ancestor in
your direct male line you might be able to deduce the surname of the man who
sired the unfortunate child - and by finding the right person to take the test
you'll sometimes be able to do the same for other illegitimate male ancestors. Family Tree
DNA are now the only major company offering Y-DNA tests to family
historians - but they would be the best choice in any case, because they have
by far the biggest database of past results to match you against. Don't even
consider using a company like Oxford Ancestors - at £199 their test is extremely
expensive, and it only covers 15 markers, too few for genealogical purposes. At
Family Tree DNA you can test 37 markers for just $169 (£110).
The test which has come to the fore in
recent years is the Autosomal DNA (atDNA) test.
Autosomal DNA is inherited from both parents, which means that it has the potential
to help you to knock down 'brick walls' in any part of your tree, and as with
Y-DNA tests you can find out more by getting your cousins to test as well.
However, even if you're the only person to test, there's a good chance of
identifying new cousins (I've already found two confirmed cousins and another that
I'm virtually certain about), which is not bad for a test that can cost as
little as $99 (about £70).
The reason you'll get lots of matches
when you take an atDNA test is because, in effect, every
part of your ancestral tree is being matched against every part of everyone
else's tree (everyone who has tested, that is). In fact, the challenge is not
to find matches, but to figure out how
you’re related to the person you've been matched with. Ancestry
DNA aim to help by comparing your uploaded tree with other trees uploaded
by other Ancestry users who have tested - but I've yet to find out how well
that works as I don't have my test results back yet. Ancestry has a large
database of results (over 700,000), but it is heavily-dominated by people who
live in the USA, as until recently their test was only available there - so if
you live in Europe you're less unlikely to find close cousins.
As I mentioned earlier in this
newsletter 23andMe offer additional information for testers who live outside
the US - but you'll also be paying more for the privilege. Follow this link
if you live in the USA, or this link
if you live elsewhere. They also have a very large database (over 900,000) but
many of those who tested will have done so for medical purposes, so may not be
researching their family tree.
Tree DNA have the smallest database (about 140,000) but they have a much
higher proportion of testers from outside the USA - my first two confirmed
matches are with cousins in Australia. For those who live outside the USA their
Finder test is also the cheapest, by a significant margin, so their
database is likely to continue to grow. However, if you test with Ancestry you
can transfer your results to Family Tree DNA for $39, giving you access to both
All my results and matches so far have been
from Family Tree DNA, but whichever of the three big companies you choose for
your atDNA test you can also upload your results to
the free GEDmatch
website. In fact, PLEASE do this since otherwise half your cousins won't be
able to find you!
a genealogy expert who writes for the Irish
Times has analysed Irish births from 1864-1913, taking all six million
births listed in the GRO birth indexes over the 50 year period, and mapping all
the surnames against the 136 Superintendent Registrars’ Districts. You can
search by surname here.
The timing is perfect - next month 390,000
images of Catholic parish registers from 1,091 parishes across Ireland will be
made available online, but they won't be indexed, so having some indication of
the area your ancestors might have come from will be crucial.
Over 1.2 million records from Lancashire
Quarter Sessions covering the period 1648-1908 are now available at Ancestry.
Your ancestors don't need to have been charged with an offence to be included -
they may have been a witness, or a petitioner.
Patient and staff records from London's
Royal Bethlem Hospital (better known as Bedlam) for
the period 1683-1932 are online at Findmypast - you can search them here.
The cost of a 24 hour subscription to
the parish registers and wills online at Essex Ancestors will
double from £5 to £10 with effect from Monday 8th June - the cost of other
subscriptions is not changing: for example, it will still cost £30 for a month
or £85 for a year.
Essex Ancestors is a service provided by
Essex Record Office - there are 585,000 images from registers for over 400
parishes; there are 175,000 images of wills from Essex and eastern Hertfordshire
which cover the period 1400-1858.
On the Europeana
1914-1918 website I discovered a letter
written by a mother to her son which was never
delivered - because, unbeknown to her, he had been killed two weeks earlier.
Were the kisses on the final page written at the same time, or were they later
added by the distraught mother? I suspect the latter, but we'll probably never
Much of the material we see from the
Great War comes from official sources, so I was interested to discover some notebooks
and diaries from the Great War Archive at the University of Oxford (one of the institutions
involved in Europeana). But there's much, much more
on the site - over a million items, in fact (to view some of them you'll need
to follow a link to the site of the partner institution).
It has been reported
in the financial press that Ancestry.com has been put up for sale by its controlling
owners, the private equity firm Permira. Ancestry's subscription
revenues have increased by two-thirds since the company last changed hands in
2012, and there are now more than 2.1 million subscribers. The price that is
being suggested values those subscribers at over $1000 each!
Would a change of ownership affect
subscribers? Probably not - Ancestry has been controlled by investors for many
years. However if the company were to be bought by a large media concern we
might see some changes - hopefully positive ones.
Over-60s are being challenged to come up
with tales of adventurous holidays for a travel book to be published later this
year - and since there are people reading this newsletter in over 100 countries
around the world I'm sure many of you will have some very interesting tales to
tell. You can find details of the competition here
- the closing date is 14th June (be sure
to check out the full terms and conditions).
I've mentioned on a number of occasions
in the past that I'm planning to defer my UK State Pension when I reach 65
later this year, and suggested that others who have already qualified, or will
do so before 5th April 2016 might want to consider doing the same. It was
therefore interesting to see an article in the April 2015 issue of Significance magazine (which is
published by the Royal Statistical Society) confirming how advantageous this
can be, given certain assumptions.
There is a government guide here
that gives all the facts, but please bear in mind that everyone's position is
different - seek independent financial advice if you are in any doubt.
Daddy of all Mysteries, Jess Welsby's book about
her search for the father she never knew is now available in Kindle format (you
can see my review here). You
can support LostCousins if you use one of the following links (even if you end
up buying something completely different):
After my last newsletter a member asked
me whether it was right to buy from Amazon in view of their apparent reluctance
to pay UK taxes - then just a few days later Amazon announced that they are
restructuring their European operations in a way that will lead to them paying significantly
more UK tax. (I'd love to tell you that they were responding to pressure from
me, but it seems this is something they've been working on for a long time!)
If you followed my tip about the Amazon
Fire Phone, which was on sale without a contract at £99 (a saving of £200
on the usual price), I hope you've been as impressed as I have. We don't have
4G where I live, but when I went into London recently I was amazed by the
difference in speed (I had my previous phone with me for comparison). As
anticipated I was able to use a GiffGaff SIM, even though the phone is locked to
O2 - that's because GiffGaff runs on the O2 network. If you want to try out
GiffGaff yourself follow this link to get a
free SIM (you'll get £5 extra credit when you top up).
By the way, one of the great things
about GiffGaff is that calls between GiffGaff users are free (within the UK),
just so long as you have topped up within the last 3 months - and since most of
my calls are to my wife this makes a BIG difference to our costs. Incidentally GiffGaff
came top - yet again - in the Which? magazine survey, which I feel is just as important as the
Any updates or corrections will be
© Copyright 2015 Peter Calver
MAY link to this newsletter or email a link to your friends and relatives
without asking for permission in advance - but why not invite them to join