PCC Wills from "Stepping Stones" - a warning

[Mythology]

From: Stepping Stones
----

New Product - Wills on CD/DVD!
Scanned copies of the original handwritten entries from the Prerogative Court of Canterbury (PCC) Wills series, available in sets for a complete year (1857 includes January 1858 as well, as this was the end of this administration series). The years listed below are available now, with more to follow soon.
----

Basically they are about £15 a year plus postage, and they are currently back to 1850.

Oh, whoopee!
(You might think)
But "original handwritten entries" does not mean "original wills".
Those who know what's what would twig this from the statement further down that says "Film, folio and quire numbers are visible on the images, and the images themselves are listed by folio number", and if you go back into their news pages, sure enough, you find a reference back in June to them being "handwritten copies of the original wills, compiled by the Church Clerks."

These are the PROB11 series PCC registered copies, not the PCC original wills in PROB10.

Value for money?
Could be. If you have a fair number of PCC wills and you're content to use transcripts, or you simply want to rummage to see if any of your people turn up as beneficiaries or witnesses, it's a lot more economical than paying TNA £3.50 per will.

But be aware that you are still getting those sloppy court clerks' transcripts, not the wills.

[Mythology]

Hmmm ....

Having been asked by somebody who was interested but couldn't find these to point them in the right direction, it seems, on prodding around, that the page hasn't just moved, these have evidently been withdrawn from their catalogue.

A "Wills & other items" link in the navigation bar and at the foot of pages on their site still leads to the same address, but the page is just headed "Other items", does not include any wills, and I'm blowed if I can find them elsewhere either.

PURE SPECULATION:
It does occur to me that in May 2006, a batch of surplus microfilms covering PROB11 from 1701 to 1858 was up for grabs from TNA. As yours truly was not the lucky winner, perhaps it's Stepping Stones who got them ... and didn't read the bit that said "Any copyright restrictions on the films or their content will remain after disposal."

[Mutley]

Will be or Will not be?
That is the question? :D :D :D

[busyglen]

Will be or Will not be?
That is the question? :D :D :D

Ah....but what is the answer? ;)

Glenys

[Geoffers]

Ah....but what is the answer?
To suffer the slings and arrows of expensive research

[busyglen]

To suffer the slings and arrows of expensive research

Ouch!! :(

Glenys

[Mythology]

To suffer the slings and arrows of expensive research
Although, if you can get to Kew and do it yourself, not as expensive as it used to be in some cases. I am an extravagant copier - apart from central London ones which I'm in and out of regularly, I don't go to a record office unless I have at least £30 in my pocket, and if I find something I want, I copy everything, even blank covers etc. so that if a query arises later I can look at it and say "No, there's nothing written on the cover" instead of "Oh, perhaps I missed something, I'll have to go back and have another look".

With the self-service overhead scanners now in use at Kew, at 30p for an A3 page, it is now possible to do a number of documents that are not suitable for the ordinary photocopier without handing them over the counter and paying a fortune for TNA to do them for you - even with a few second attempts, the surviving case files for my 1863 divorce only cost me £8.40.

[Copper]

Ah Mythology I am hoping that you can help me. Some months ago I discovered that Sarah Cursue divorced her husband John. The only details that I have from my search are 1st January 1886 and the number 652. I emailed TNA asking how I find any case papers and got no reply :-( What do I do next please? I live in Dorset so a trip to Kew is out of the question at the moment.

[Mythology]

"The only details that I have from my search are !st January 1886 and the number 652."
Assuming that you got that from the index (J78)...

I think the answer is J77/353/0652 - but I must say that I'm glad mine was 1863 when there aren't so many, as unless I'm missing something blindingly obvious, the online catalogue appears to bear no relation to the information given in TNA's leaflet, there being no online version of the list which they refer to, and I've only arrived at that by a process of "pick a number and keep working backwards/forwards as necessary until you get something in the right period with 652 on the end, because that's the file number which will be the last bit of the reference."

[Mythology]

"What do I do next please?"

Sit tight. I won't be at Kew for a good while (need to sort out a certain fellow who, in view of what I eventually found in 1851, is now in my tree as "Thomas Monday Samuel Tuesday Arthur Wednesday Henry Thursday Barfield Friday Anderson Saturday and on the seventh day shalt thou give no name at all") which will tie me up a bit elsewhere, but I will point one of our regular Kew visitors who loves a good divorce in the direction of this thread - can't promise, but I don't think she has that much on at the moment, so she may be able to get it for you.

[Copper]

Thanks very much Mythology. I was a bit stumped when TNA did not reply to my message. This is the first divorce that I have come across.

[Mythology]

"I was a bit stumped when TNA did not reply to my message."

They probably couldn't work it out either! :D

[Copper]

:) I found the information from J78 via the find my past site. Their helpful information on the subject gives the impression that it is easy to find case notes etc (if they have survived). I am glad it was not me being dim.

[Mythology]

It's probably like a lot of things with TNA - dead easy if you're on the spot and can use the paper list, which will tell you which file numbers are in J77/350, which in J77/351 etc., etc. ad infinitum, but a pain in the neck if you're trying to use the online catalogue, especially if you're not familiar with the documents from previous use so aren't sure what you should be expecting to find it listed as!

[Mythology]

The response I got was:
"ooooh YESSSSSSS!!!"

...but as she works full time during the week, doesn't get home until about 6.30, and the forum's been inaccessible all evening until well past her bedtime, she couldn't get on here to tell you. Given the problems we are having at the moment, the same is likely to apply tomorrow, so to save a lot of messing around I've copied the details, will pass them on and you can expect an e-mail from her (another Sue) instead of a reply in the thread here.

[Copper]

Thank you very much Mythology. I can never get here in the evening as it is very slow and eventually gives up. I am glad it isn't just me.

OOoo I am all excited now :D

[Mythology]

You're welcome - I've never known her say "no" where there's a divorce or murder involved, so I figured you were on to a winner there.

Hope yours is as interesting as mine, which, as there were so few in the early years of the new law, I confess that I would not have thought of looking for had a descendant not contacted me via this forum and pointed out that in his potted life history, Robert Owen Fitch makes absolutely no mention of his second wife. There is, of course, a lot of repetitious legalese - the Petition, the Affidavit, the Record, the Court Minutes all saying much the same thing - so I haven't transcribed all the surviving papers, but summarised it thus:

21 June 1864: Marriage dissolved by reason of wife's adultery.
Proceedings in Her Majesty's Court for Divorce and Matrimonial Causes.
Robert petitioned for dissolution of marriage 16 September 1863, alleging that Elizabeth had committed adultery with Henry Wickers, who she had lived with since July 1863. Henry Wickers contested, claiming that Robert and Elizabeth separated 24 March 1860 and Robert, by his wilful neglect of her, conduced to the alleged adultery, but Elizabeth neither submitted a single word in her defence, nor appeared in court when required to do so.
Trial held 10 March 1864, verdict in Robert's favour, Decree Absolute granted 21 June 1864.

[Mythology]

However ...

I am a cynical so-and-so who always assumes that somebody is telling porkies, so I also added this footnote:

Divorce proceedings, 16 September 1863 to 21 June 1864: Robert's solicitor was Abraham Crossfield, the husband of his cousin, Miranda Eliza King. The Co-respondent, Henry Wickers, describes himself as of no 15 Grove Villas Poplar in the County of Middlesex manager of Accounts at the West India Dock. While the only reference to Robert and Elizabeth's address in the proceedings is 2 Brighton Place, Hackney Road, with no suggestion that they later moved, Robert's affidavit gives his address as 36 Sewardstone Road East, Victoria Park. This was his mother's house, and is where he appears as a “Visitor” on the 1861 census. In view of Henry's allegation that Robert and Elizabeth (who seems to be missing completely on the 1861 census) separated in 1860, the question of how long Robert had been “visiting” his mother must be asked.
When combined with Elizabeth's failure to support Henry's claim (initially leaving him facing a £300 damages claim, later struck out by the Judge) or even utter one word in her own defence, the possibility that this was actually a case of mutual separation, the adultery being a cooked-up affair designed to give Robert grounds for divorce so that he could remarry (which he did a mere nine days later), cannot be dismissed.

[Copper]

How interesting. I bet mine won't be half as interesting.

John Cursue married Sarah Carpenter in 1853 in Marylebone. They had one child, a son, John born in 1862. John and Sarah were together in 1871 and 1881. I have not found either of them in 1891. I found Sarah Cursue age 67 and described as a widow in 1901. She was a general servant in Hampstead. I have not found John in 1901. From this I would never had guessed that they divorced. I have yet to find their deaths.

When they divorced in 1886 Sarah would have been about 63 and John about 66. At that age why bother? Maybe there is a scandal.

[Mythology]

Given that, even with the new laws introduced in 1858, the grounds for divorce were still pretty limited compared to today, and it was an expensive business, a divorce at that age does indeed seem a bit strange.

I'll cross my fingers for you - it could turn out to be an interesting one! :)

[Copper]

Mythology - your friend has found the divorce. John had committed adultery. What is odd though is that Sarah and John married in 1852 and he appears to have committed adultery with a witness to his marriage. I wonder how long that had been going on? Sarah didn't do anything about this until 1886.

Your friend has offered to get me copies next Saturday and as an added bonus I will have a copy of their marriage certificate. I did not feel the need to spend £7 for a copy as they are not my direct ancestors.

So once again thanks very much for your help.

[Mythology]

It does sound as though Sarah was either remarkably tolerant until her patience eventually ran out, or a bit slow to catch on, doesn't it?

(If the latter, let me know and I'll see if I can fit her into my tree. ;))

Glad it worked out well for you - I pull her leg something rotten at times, but she's not a bad lass really! :)

[Peter Goodey]

Mythology - your friend has found the divorce.
What was the J 77 reference relating to your case number 652?

[Copper]

J77 reference 353

I would never have found it!

[Peter Goodey]

Thank you.

[Mythology]

Meanwhile, returning to the original topic...

Lord knows what went on, why they disappeared, but the vanishing PCC registered wills are now back in the Stepping Stones catalogue, currently available from 1842 to 1857 - with 1857 including the leftovers which are dated 1858 - as CDs and, in most cases, as DVDs as well.

However, "Stepping Stones" is no longer really Stepping Stones it seems. I notice at the foot of the page that it says "As of 8th June 2007, Stepping Stones is a trading name of S&N."

[Guy Etchells]

Perhaps it has something to do with the fact that Stepping Stones has been taken over by S&N

The situation may sort itself out in the coming months.
Cheers
Guy

[Mike_E]

the surviving case files for my 1863 divorce only cost me £8.40.

Blimey Myth, I thought you were yonger than that? Tell me, what is your secret? Did you find a secret recipe for an elixer for long life way back when you started researching your tree?


Mike

[Mythology]

Curses - I've been rumbled! :eek:

Ah, well, the secret's out so I may as well come clean.

When I was about five years old, my father's younger brother died in his twenties. Father remarked that only the good die young, and simple logic told me that if the good have their life shortened, the bad must surely have their life lengthened. Being in no hurry to feed the worms, I decided, therefore, to postpone the inevitable for as long as I could by being as bad as possible.

You may have noticed an occasional reference to a degenerate scoundrel who I refer to as "my 3x great-grandfather", a certain Thomas Arthur Barfield, born in Saffron Walden, Essex, in 1816, who also used the names "Samuel" and "Augustus" before going bankrupt in 1846, changing his name completely to "Henry Anderson", and going bankrupt again under this name in 1854. After this, while various rather weak theories have been advanced, "we", his "descendants" have been unable to positively trace him.

(continues)

[Mythology]

As you may now have guessed, the alleged relationship is a blind - Thomas Arthur Barfield born 1816 and "Mythology" are, in fact, one and the same!

That is why, as noted earlier, in his potted life history, Robert Owen Fitch makes no mention of his second wife - it is not because he wants to *forget* her existence, it is because he never *knew* of her existence. The "Robert Owen Fitch" who married Elizabeth Burville Best in 1859 and then divorced her in 1863 was not really Robert Owen Fitch at all - I just stole his name when I bigamously remarried, to avoid detection.

As time went on, it became obvious that I would have to be a lot worse than just a waster, a gambler, a conman and a bigamist in order to significantly increase the length of my life, so I have had to be a little more extreme - you may also know me as Jack the Ripper, Adolf Hitler or Idi Amin (you didn't really think that dead body in Saudi Arabia was him, did you?), to mention just a few of my better known aliases. I choose my name according to the time of high tide at London Bridge and, while I'm not foolish enough to invite arrest by letting you know what I'm calling myself at the moment, I can assure you that I will still be here in one disguise or another when even the youngest members of this forum are standing in for Mr Cleese's parrot.

There's always a logical answer... ;)

[Mike_E]

There's always a logical answer... ;)

Great reply, you know how to spin a good yarn :-)


Mike

[Guy Etchells]

I had heard that as well plus the news that Find my past was taking over Family history online
Cheers
Guy

[Bo Peep]

Correct! The FFHS and Findmypast are just finalising the details (S & N were not happy about being left out of the bidding for this!). I believe that several FH Societies are not too enthusiastic about the move.

[Ladkyis]

Hmmmm, I shall mention it at the next Exec meeting of our Society and see what they think.

[Guy Etchells]

Sorry to run off-topic but why has your dog got a blue leg Ladkyis?
Cheers
Guy

[Pam Downes]

Correct! The FFHS and Find my past are just finalising the details (S & N were not happy about being left out of the bidding for this!). I believe that several FH Societies are not too enthusiastic about the move.
As a member of a FHS which has quite a lot of info on family history online, I'm not exactly over-enthusiastic about the move either, unless find my past are going to make it VERY worthwhile for the individual Societies, who currently receive so many pence per look-up from the family history online site.
Pam

[Bo Peep]

As a member of a FHS which has quite a lot of info on family history online, I'm not exactly over-enthusiastic about the move either, unless find my past are going to make it VERY worthwhile for the individual Societies, who currently receive so many pence per look-up from the family history online site.
Pam

From what I have heard, Pam, the societies will get less money per hit, but the FFHS say that as they will get more hits with Find my past than they did with Family history online, they will end up with more money. I believe societies also have to sign up for a three year contract.

[Pam Downes]

From what I have heard, Pam, the societies will get less money per hit, but the FFHS say that as they will get more hits with Findmypast than they did with Familyhistoryonline, they will end up with more money. I believe societies also have to sign up for a three year contract.
I've had an email from a FHS committee member which had sort-of reassured me about the situation, but no mention was made of the 3-year contract, which has sort-of un-reassured me. I think it's the thought that if the little fish can get swallowed by the slightly larger fish, what happens when the Great White Shark comes snapping? Especially if it's in the middle of that three year contract.
Pam

[Ladkyis]

Sorry to run off-topic but why has your dog got a blue leg Ladkyis?


That's not a leg that's a frisbee! Not only that it is Sooty's frisbee and no-one else is allowed to chew it!