Newsletter – 21st
February 2024
Last chance to save wills! ENDS FRIDAY
1941 National Farm Survey to go online
Royal Mail pension records NEW
Bury St Edmunds Record Office to close
Knocking down ‘brick walls’ OFFER ENDS 29TH
Fewer cousins – but is it a problem?
The LostCousins
newsletter is usually published 2 or 3 times a month. To access the previous issue
(dated 8th February) click here; to find earlier articles use the customised Google search between
this paragraph and the next (it searches ALL of the newsletters since February
2009, so you don't need to keep copies):
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!
Last chance to save wills! ENDS FRIDAY
The
Ministry of Justice (MoJ) are proposing to destroy wills and other original
documents, most of which have never been available for inspection by family
historians – we’ve had to make do with copies of office copies, and rarely – if
ever – get to see the supporting documents.
For
example, this is part of the 1870 will of my great-great-great-great
grandmother Catherine Shearing (née Marcey or Marsey):
If
the handwriting seems familiar, it’s because this is the same style of
handwriting that we see for pre-1858 wills – in other words, this isn’t the
original will, it is the registered copy. Even though my ancestor was unable to
sign her own name, let alone write a will, I’d still prefer to see the original
will – but that wasn’t an option, and may never be an option if the MoJ get
their way.
You
can view or download a copy of the consultation document here.
And to make it easier to respond I’ve turned the form on which to list your
personal details into a Word document, which you can download by clicking here (you’ll probably find
it in your Downloads folder – look for PersonalInfo.docx).
I
decided not to answer every question in the consultation – many of them are
aimed at lawyers rather than genealogists. Here’s what I have written so far:
Question 2: Are there any reforms you would suggest to
the current law enabling wills to
be inspected?
ALL original documents should be available for inspection (subject
to privacy safeguards) – this is not possible at the moment.
Question 3: Are there any reasons why the High Court
should store original paper
will documents on a permanent basis, as opposed to just
retaining a digitised copy
of that material?
No. But that does not mean they can be destroyed – once they
have fulfilled their statutory role they should be available
for inspection by researchers.
Question 4: Do you agree that after a certain time
original paper documents (from 1858 onwards) may be destroyed (other than for
famous individuals)? Are there any
alternatives, involving the public or private sector, you
can suggest to their being
destroyed?
This is not just about wills. Documents should never be routinely
destroyed simply because they are no longer required for administrative
purposes. Ideally documents held by government which relate to members of the
public (living or not) should be transferred to the National Archives for
safekeeping.
If this is not possible they should
not be destroyed, but returned to the individuals they relate to (if still living),
otherwise to their personal representatives, their descendants, or other living
relatives.
If this is not possible (or not feasible) the documents
should be offered for sale, either as a whole to an organisation that will make
them available for inspection at a reasonable cost, or individually – in which
case preference should be given to the individuals concerned or their living
relatives.
Note that many of the documents it is proposed to destroy
are NOT currently available for inspection by members of the public. It would be
ludicrous to destroy them without first making them available for inspection.
Question 5: Do you agree that there is equivalence
between paper and digital copies of wills so that the ECA 2000 can be used?
The consultation paper does not indicate whether it is proposed to
digitise the ORIGINAL WILLS and related documents, or whether the intention is
to digitise the OFFICE COPIES – there is an important distinction because the
office copies of earlier wills are not facsimiles but handwritten copies, and for
later wills they are monochrome copies, often of poor quality.
Although I contacted the Ministry of Justice at the end of December they refused to add to the inadequate description
of the digitisation process in the consultation document.
If the original wills and supporting documents are not transferred
to The National Archives or another public body for preservation
then they must ALL BE SCANNED IN FULL COLOUR and subjected to a rigorous
quality control process to ensure that no information is lost.
Question 8: If the Government moves to digital only
copies of original will documents, what do you think the retention period for
the original paper wills should be? Please give reasons and state what you
believe the minimum retention period should be and whether you consider the
Government’s suggestion of 25 years to be reasonable.
For family historians the older documents are, the more interesting
they become! To destroy documents because they are no longer required for legal
or administrative purposes ignores their heritage value.
Many of the documents it is proposed to destroy are NOT currently
available for inspection by members of the public. It would be ludicrous to
destroy them without first making them available for inspection.
Question 9: Do you agree with the principle that wills of
famous people should be
preserved in the original paper form for historic
interest?
There should be no discrimination.
There seems to be a misunderstanding regarding pre-1858 wills
held by The National Archives – the primary reason that the original wills of
famous (or infamous) people have been digitised is practical, ie to minimise the need for scholars to handle the physical
documents. However ALL original wills have been
retained and are available for inspection – NONE have been destroyed.
Question 11: Do you agree that the Probate Registries
should only permanently retain wills and codicils from the documents submitted
in support of a probate application?
Documents should not be destroyed – see my response to
Question 4.
You
certainly shouldn’t copy what I’ve written – instead use it as a guide to some
of the key issues that need to be addressed. You can also see what the Society
of Genealogists have submitted here.
IMPORTANT:
you do NOT need to be a UK citizen or UK resident to respond to the consultation.
1941
National Farm Survey to go online
According
to this article
by Sarah Williams, editor of Who Do You Think You Are? magazine the
National Archives are planning to digitise the wartime National Farm Survey,
taken between 1941 and 1943.
This
research
guide on the National Archives website provides a lot of information about the
survey, which included farms and smallholdings of 5 acres or more in England
& Wales – over 300,000 of them. A more limited survey was carried out in
Scotland.
Royal Mail pension records NEW
Last
month Ancestry added a new dataset entitled UK, Royal Mail Pension and
Gratuity Records, 1860-1970 – but what with one thing and another I’ve only
just got around to looking at what it contains.
The
first thing I noticed was that there were gratuities paid to ladies who married
– and that these give the surname of the spouse, which could prove useful if
you’re trying to track what happened to one of your female relatives.
Early
retirements on the grounds of ill-health are also recorded. My 2nd
cousin twice removed Marguerite Florence Popert began
working for the Post Office as a ‘Girl Clerk’ in September 1900, just before
her 18th birthday.
Her
salary was on a scale from £35 to £40 per annum, so around 13 shillings a week –
hardly a fortune, but in 1901 she was still living at home with her parents and
8 siblings, so she’d have been able to contribute towards her keep.
But
things seem to have gone wrong when her father died in 1919 and her mother the following
year, coinciding with an increasing number of sick days:
As a result it was recommended that she
be allowed to retire on a full pension – though whether this came to pass I’m
not sure, as in the 1939 Register she is shown as ‘Clerk – Civil servant –
Money Orders’, which is the same job recorded in the 1921 Census. She lived to
the ripe old age of 85, but her name doesn’t appear in the Probate Calendar, so
she can’t have had many possessions when she died. She also appears never to
have married – whereas all of her siblings did with
the exception of Kate, who also worked for the Post Office.
Those of you who were fortunate to hear Professor Rebecca Probert
speak earlier this month will be interested to know that two of Marguerite’s
sisters, one older and one younger, married the same man – in 1909 and 1914 respectively.
Marriage to a dead wife’s sister had been legalised in 1907.
Post Office Tower sold
One of London’s most iconic sights, the Post Office Tower (or BT
Tower, as it became) has been sold to an hotel company according to this BBC
News article,
published just as I was finalising this newsletter.
Though it now looks out of date, when it was built in the early 1960s
it seemed futuristic. Later that decade the first men walked on the moon, and
science fiction addicts like me were looking forward to a colony being
established on Mars. I’m still waiting – though it does at least look as if
mankind might get back to the moon after an absence of 50 years.
Bury
St Edmunds Record Office to close
Suffolk County Council have confirmed that the Record Office in
Bury St Edmunds and the limited facilities at Lowestoft are to close, with all
of the records transferred to The Hold in Ipswich (see this local newspaper report).
I have spent many, many days at Bury, mostly trawling microfiche
of parish registers. Despite countless visits to the city over the past 20-odd
years I haven’t once visited the abbey, any of the restaurants, or even the
Greene King brewery – which just goes to show how dedicated I am to the study
of my ancestors!
Understandably there are many researchers in Suffolk who are up in
arms, though having seen how the number of visitors to other county record
offices has dropped off when their parish registers have gone online – as Suffolk’s
will in the next couple of years – I’m not adamantly opposed to the proposals. Indeed,
for family historians it can be simpler when all of the records for a county
are in one place – especially if they don’t live in the county,
and aren’t as familiar with the geography as locals.
The researchers who will be hit hardest are local historians, not family
historians – though I appreciate that some readers of this newsletter are both.
David recently sent me this excellent example of a clerical error:
© London Metropolitan Archives. All Rights Reserved. Images used
by kind permission of Ancestry
Although vicars and curates are sometimes referred to as ‘Clerks in
Holy Orders’ there’s plenty of evidence that many of them were not very keen on
record-keeping and, perhaps because of their lack of enthusiasm, errors were
rather more common than they should have been.
This particular error is glaringly obvious – in entry No.971 the daughter’s
name has been entered in place of the mother’s. But
ponder this – surely it’s only obvious because there
was another child baptised on the same day?
I wouldn’t be surprised if for every obvious error there are 5 or
10 less obvious errors. I can think of at least two examples where the wrong
mother is shown for one of my direct ancestors. For example, my great-great-great
grandmother Maria Shearing, daughter of James & Catherine (whose will we peeked
at earlier) is recorded in the baptism register as the daughter of James
Shearing and MARY his wife.
Even before I found that baptism entry, which is missing from the copy
register at the London Metropolitan Archives, I had suspected that Maria was
the daughter of James & Catherine – there was a glaring gap in the sequence
of baptisms to James & Catherine, and there were no other children baptised
to James & Mary. But it was only when my hypothesis was confirmed by multiple
DNA matches that I considered the ‘brick wall’ to have been knocked down.
Knocking down ‘brick walls’ OFFER ENDS 29TH
Talking of ‘brick walls’ there are some good tips for knocking them
down in my Masterclasses (there’s a list of all the Masterclasses on the Subscribers
Only page), but when Mark Bayley spoke to competition winners recently he came up with some techniques which make use of the unique
features of The Genealogist. I’ve now got permission from Mark to share
the recording of the session with readers, and you will find it on YouTube here.
I’ve also got permission to open up the subscription offer he arranged
to all LostCousins members – you will find it here.
But please don’t delay because it only lasts until the end of February (just as
well it’s a Leap Year!).
Note: because of the cost of postage, if you’re outside the UK you’ll
be offered digital extras of a similar value.
Father or grandfather – does it matter?
This article,
about a child in Barnsley whose grandfather might be his biological father, raises
all sorts of issues – though I’m inclined to believe that the judge made the
right decision given all the circumstances.
But what do you think – and have you come across anything similar
during your research?
Fewer cousins – but is it a problem?
I don’t know about your family tree, but in mine the size of
families has shrunk considerably since the 19th century. Between them
my grandparents had 36 siblings – or to put it another way, they came from
families with, on average, 10 children. I never met any of my great uncles and
aunts on my father’s side – in fact I’ve never actually met a relative of my father,
but there were plenty enough on my mother’s side, far too many for me to keep
track. Fast forward a generation, and my parents had only 4 siblings between
them – and 2 of them didn’t marry.
Marie in Canada sent me this link to
an article on the CBC website which reports research which shows that families are
shrinking the world over. But I’m not sure it’s a problem – the researchers
project that the average Canadian 15 year-old in 2095
will have 3.6 first cousins, which is MORE than the 3 first cousins that I had
when I was 15 in 1965.
This is where any major updates and corrections will be
highlighted - if you think you've spotted an error first reload the newsletter
(press Ctrl-F5) then
check again before writing to me, in case someone else has beaten you to
it......
I’ll be sending out invitations shortly for the last three Zoom
presentations of this season, on 1st, 2nd, and 8th
March – please make sure that you have indicated your interest on your My
Prizes page.
Peter Calver
Founder, LostCousins
© Copyright 2024 Peter Calver
Please do NOT copy or republish any part of this newsletter without permission - which is only granted in the most exceptional circumstances. However, you MAY link to this newsletter or any article in it without asking for permission - though why not invite other family historians to join LostCousins instead, since standard membership (which includes the newsletter), is FREE?
Many of
the links in this newsletter and elsewhere on the website are affiliate links –
if you make a purchase after clicking a link you may be supporting LostCousins
(though this depends on your choice of browser, the settings in your browser,
and any browser extensions that are installed). Thanks for your support!