Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 24

Thread: Peach

  1. #11
    David_H
    Guest

    Default

    I presume AJH was dead when his death was registered.
    Whereas on 23 June 1816 he used his usual signature when he was a witness at a Wedding.
    While Antonÿ was alive, the spelling Anthony was certainly not "a fact that" he "should be prepared to accept" (to quote your words).
    He had no control over how officialdom spelled the surnames of his children - one was even named Huffman by the vicar. One small victory against officialdom was the birth certificate of his grandson James Antony Stanford born 27 April 1850 who has no "h" in his middle name.

    I noticed in a long study that I took of other ancestors of mine (I was researching records in Herefordshire Records Centre) that the family spelling shifted from Wilks to Wilkes and back to Wilks with every change of vicar. But if a person can sign their name, then I prefer their spelling and not that given by a cleric or a local government official (I am talking about the identical name so far as the ear is concerned). AJH signed his name on his marriage certificate and the only other example of his signature that I have found was the same as the first (I even searched the Wesleyan Methodist, the Presbytarian and the Congregation of Independent registers of Christenings for a third signature because of what his daughter said about his attraction to Methodism - but of no avail).

    When it comes to facts I prefer these to come from Birth, Marriage and Death Certificates (I have bought 800 of these in the last 33 years) but I much prefer sitting down in a County Records Office and searching the actual Baptism, Marriage and Burial records because there you have the actual handwriting and the actual spelling of the owners of the names. I made one link when I noticed that the groom's signature on one marriage record matched the witness signature on another marriage record.

  2. #12
    Mutley
    Guest

    Default

    I cannot find Elizabeth, sorry.

    I keep thinking about Martha though. Martha Handly Peach. Which of the names was she born with?

    If she was Martha Handly then she was, I presume, related to Elizabeth.
    Perhaps she was Elizabeth's sister and also married into the Peach family?
    If she was Martha Peach and a member of Thomas's family then how did Elizabeth's surname get into the middle?
    If she was Thomas and Martha's daughter, combining the names of her parents, which is usually the case, then she would hardly be a witness to their marriage?

    Was there an earlier Handly to Peach marriage? Did the families intermarry in the middle 1700s?

    As a witness to the marriage she was, I would have thought as a start, at least 20 years old and there are a few Martha Handleys born 1780 +/- 10. There are also a few Martha Peaches born about the same time in the 1841 and 1851 census for the Cheshire and Derbyshire areas. But I cannot find a Martha Handl/e/y Peach?

    Do you have any census entries for any of the people you are searching for?

    Sorry to ask so many questions but without questions it is not possible to find answers.

  3. #13
    Mutley
    Guest

    Default

    OK, forgive me, I think I have now followed the thread. I confused the Elizabeths.
    John Peach married Elizabeth Handly/Handley between 1782 and 1787 and their children were probably
    Elizabeth and Martha Peach.

  4. #14
    David_H
    Guest

    Default

    Test number one
    first move photo to bucketshop and then click on the "select files" to choose an image, then click in the bottom box which is alleged to auto copy to clip board.
    Then Ctrl V here
    I did that and what was displayed on this page was the password that I had used to get into bucketshop. Therefore the bucketshop procedure for me today with this computer does not get an image into my clip board.

    Now I change to Go Advanced. I won't waste time with Ctrl V because it is already established that the clipboard did not have the image. On the top row there is the icon of an envelope, just to the right of it is an icon which my 80-year old eyes say is a tree in a picture frame. If I move the cursor over this icon I get the message "insert Image". I do that and I get a frame that is headed
    Peach - Reply to Topic - Webpage Dialog
    the it says "Please enter the URL of your image"
    and even prompts me with the words in the writing box starting with
    https://


    I have twice been prompted to use the procedure that Mary Young proposed in 2007
    And talking about Mary Young, I see that she has her photo in the left hand margin. Now I have uploaded my photograph and it can be seen on British-Genealogy "My Profile" - so why then does it not appear in the left hand margin of my postings?

    After I have uploaded another photo to bucketshop I find that half-way down the page is in small blue letters "Choose action" which is a pulldown menu and if from this I choose "Generate link codes for selected" I then see some mind-boggling stuff that includes the following words (which I interpret as the URL link to photos on my pc). I feel as if I was lost in the desert.



    Well that works - it converts one and two thirds of a line of gobbledegook into a picture. So there is a way. Maybe there is a simpler way - even one that allows one to have bigger images on the posting.

  5. #15
    David_H
    Guest

    Default

    Pottoka has put his finger on a fundamental flaw when he points out "If you don't have a baptismal entry for this Elizabeth, you cannot know for sure that she was 60 when she died". This is where I was about three years ago, but then it got worse. A correspondent on Ancestry pointed out to me that within living memory the boundary between Leicestershire and Derbyshire was of no great interest to the average person and therefore statements such as which county someone was born in are unreliable. So the only two things we know about Elizabeth is "y" in the 1841 Census which means born in Leicestershire, and "60" which means probably born in 1786 or less likely born in 1787. The argument in favour of abandoning any hope is simple - first the date of birth is uncertain and might be in error by five years - secondly the County of birth is uncertain.

    This is why I am interested in the parents of Martha Handley Peach who was baptised on 23 May 1791 to John and Elizabeth Peach in St Helens Church Ashby de la Zouch. Martha could sign her name and her signature has no "e" in Handly. She had a brother William baptised 2 December 1787 and a sister Ruth baptised 17 October 1794. Before that date there is in 1778 the marriage of John Peach & Elisabeth Holbrooke in AdlZ and three children baptised as children of John Peach (until 28 December 1812 babies in AdlZ were found under gooseberry bushes by men who brought them to be baptised - the only exception being illegitimate children who had a mother but no father). Just as family tree builders find it convenient to attribute my Elizabeth Peach to the Derbyshire Thomas Peach and Elizabeth Peach (née Heape), so too is Martha usually attributed to John Peach & Elisabeth Peach (née Holbrooke). I have two arguments against this.

    First there are two babies called William and no burial of a William between the two baptisms. The first baptism is William Peach 19 May 1782 (son of John Peach), the second baptism is William Peach 2 December 1787 (son of John & Elisabeth Peach). There is no burial of a William Peach between those two dates. We are at the edge of knowledge here - no burials before 1813 in AdlZ have an age stated in the burial record - but age would only have mattered if there were a William buried between the critical dates.

    My second argument is that when Ruth's sister married, Ruth called herself Ruth Handley Peach. Ruth (unlike her sister) was illiterate and the officiating cleric wrote her name. Ruth was baptised Ruth Peach (ie no Handly/Handley). Nevertheless Handley as a name shouts out. [For those who are interested Ruth married a French Prisoner of War who then deserted her, Ruth remarried but did not use the word Handley at that marriage nor in any Census. Ruth was unlucky with both marriages, her second husband Amos Wragg deserted her and eventually married his housekeeper whose name was Ann Durose. This year, a living descendant is setting up in business in Scotland, running what she calls an Ancestral Tourism venture.]

    My only hope of finding the baptism of my ancestor Elizabeth Peach is the hunch that somewhere there is a marriage between "John Peach" and "Elizabeth Handley". If such a Parish exists I will go through the Records of that Parish and will list every Peach that was ever baptised, married or buried there - and hope that this analysis might reveal that Martha and my Elizabeth are Cousins.

    For several years I have belonged to Ancestry.co.uk and also to Genes Renuited and have corresponded with all members who have commonality of ancestors with me. I am now trying British-Genealogy.com, and my experience so far confirms my initial impression that it is a first class forum.

  6. #16
    Procat
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by David_H View Post
    Now I have uploaded my photograph and it can be seen on British-Genealogy "My Profile" - so why then does it not appear in the left hand margin of my postings?
    You need to go to Quick Links/User CP/Left side look for my Profile/Select Edit Avatar then select the picture you want to use.

    Quote Originally Posted by David_H View Post
    Maybe there is a simpler way - even one that allows one to have bigger images on the posting.
    Clicking on the image you have uploaded opens a larger version - so it has worked though in a convoluted way.

  7. #17
    David_H
    Guest

    Default

    Excellent Procat - but I thought that an Avatar was a fiendish monster.

    So far as what I achieved with the second bit - well it was merely a thumbnail with the lack of detail that thumbnails have. It is also a link to a better picture on the photobucket page. But I have seen photographs on some postings in your forum. There surely is a way, I hope someone will tell me what to do, and use simple words and phrases so that anyone can understand and follow the instructions.

    This by the way is Concorde as seen by some Goddess
    https://www.h1932.com/Concorde/
    and again it a hyperlink and not an image (not that I would have expected this different way to produce anything other than a hyperlink)
    Last edited by David_H; 18-09-2012 at 9:04 AM. Reason: Addition of Concorde

  8. #18
    Mutley
    Guest

    Default



    This big enough?

  9. #19
    David_H
    Guest

    Default

    Yes that is perfect - so perfect that it is actually too big.
    Is the procedure reasonably straightforward? If so can you put together some words to explain how it can be done. It is not just for my benefit, so you could put it (just a suggestion - there may be a better place) within
    FAQs/"General Forum Usage"
    an item (it would be addition to the other ten) maybe called "How do I put images into a Posting?"

    Does your procedure allow control over the size of the image - and show how it looks in "Preview Post" mode? Because knowing what it will look like is actually very important.

  10. #20
    Mutley
    Guest

    Default

    It really is a matter of experimenting.
    I waved the mouse over the image in your link and just above the picture is a small row of options.
    File, edit, share etc.
    edit allows you to make it a bit bigger.
    Then I copied the direct link in the choices of Links on the right of your screen.
    Then I pasted the link into the little picture of a tree icon on BG.

    You can Go Advanced on BG and preview before you hit the submit button.

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Select a file: