John Allen Lechmere Is Told to Reprimand His Son

[Fiver]

There’s a cliche for every situation.

And you appear to have a logical fallacy for every occasion.

In this case you are making an Argument From Silence. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

[QUOTE=MrBarnett;n799043]‘Haven’t been transcribed yet?’ What on earth does that mean? Do you somehow imagine someone somewhere is working their way through transcribing 19thC marriage records and they haven’t reached Northamptonshire or the 1850s yet?[/quote}

I guess you're unfamiliar with geneologocal records. They were recorded on paper documents. These paper documents are then found by modern researchers. These paper documents are then scanned. These scans are then transcribed. These transcriptions are then posted online.

Every one of these steps takes time. And is done by multiple people of varying skill.

So yes, people have been transcribing 19th century marriage records. We don't know if these transcriptions are complete. We know these transcriptions aren't always accurate - look at the number of ways Lechmere is misspelled in online transcriptions. We don't know if all the original records were found.

I’m beginning to think Ally may have a point about about the Lechmere bad blood. It sounds like someone poisoned John Barber. Why not ‘enry, his coat-chucking step-son?

So evil is genetically based? Edward Stow would approve.

But that's bad genetics and bad psychology on both of your parts.

[MrBarnett]

[QUOTE=Fiver;n799096]

And you appear to have a logical fallacy for every occasion.

In this case you are making an Argument From Silence. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

‘Haven’t been transcribed yet?’ What on earth does that mean? Do you somehow imagine someone somewhere is working their way through transcribing 19thC marriage records and they haven’t reached Northamptonshire or the 1850s yet?[/quote}

I guess you're unfamiliar with geneologocal records. They were recorded on paper documents. These paper documents are then found by modern researchers. These paper documents are then scanned. These scans are then transcribed. These transcriptions are then posted online.

Every one of these steps takes time. And is done by multiple people of varying skill.

So yes, people have been transcribing 19th century marriage records. We don't know if these transcriptions are complete. We know these transcriptions aren't always accurate - look at the number of ways Lechmere is misspelled in online transcriptions. We don't know if all the original records were found.



So evil is genetically based? Edward Stow would approve.

But that's bad genetics and bad psychology on both of your parts.

The civil registration of marriages was a legal requirement. The indexes of marriages from 1837 onwards have always been available.

Perhaps you can provide us with some examples of marriages from the 1850s that have only recently been ‘transcribed’.

How much genealogical research have you done?

You don’t seem to get irony, do you.

[Fiver]

[QUOTE=MrBarnett;n799108]

Perhaps you can provide us with some examples of marriages from the 1850s that have only recently been ‘transcribed’.

For FamilySearch here is a list of new and expanded collections for October 2022.

And here is a list of new and updated collections for Ancestry.

Similar lists exist for other geneological sites.

[rjpalmer]

Maybe records for JALs second marriage never existed. Maybe they were lost. Maybe they exist but haven't been transcribed yet.

There's a peculiarity on the parish marriage register in the union between John's widow Ann Lechmere and John Barber, the possibly suicidal shoemaker.

She's listed as a widow but gives her father's name as "Samuel Latchmere/Letchemore."

Almost certainly a mental lapse, because most seem to identify her maiden name as Ann Master or Masters, daughter of Samuel Masters of Catesby.

It just goes to show you can't always trust the names given in these old records, though Ed Stow evidently believes that Emily Lechmere's death certificate (which has the wrong name of her father) is ample proof that she didn't go by the name "Emily Cross" in life.

Great dinosaurs are visualized and constructed from one or two stray bones.

[MrBarnett]

[QUOTE=Fiver;n799123]

For FamilySearch here is a list of new and expanded collections for October 2022.

And here is a list of new and updated collections for Ancestry.

Similar lists exist for other geneological sites.

Indeed, things are being added to these sites all the time, but the indexes of civil registration of births, marriages and deaths were available long before the WWW was a twinkle in Tim Berners-Lee’s eye.

Show me some evidence that they are being newly transcribed.

[MrBarnett]

There's a peculiarity on the parish marriage register in the union between John's widow Ann Lechmere and John Barber, the possibly suicidal shoemaker.

She's listed as a widow but gives her father's name as "Samuel Latchmere/Letchemore."

Almost certainly a mental lapse, because most seem to identify her maiden name as Ann Master or Masters, daughter of Samuel Masters of Catesby.

It just goes to show you can't always trust the names given in these old records, though Ed Stow evidently believes that Emily Lechmere's death certificate (which has the wrong name of her father) is ample proof that she didn't go by the name "Emily Cross" in life.

Great dinosaurs are visualized and constructed from one or two stray bones.

I think the most likely explanation is that the neighbour Mrs Marshsall who was given the task of registering the death either forgot or never knew Emily’s father’s Christian name and had a guess at it, knowing full well that his first born son was named Charles Lechmere. Perhaps she was sworn to secrecy and no one else on Mary Ann Street had a clue that Charles was a Lechmere. Until a couple of years later when the banns were read out in church and the congregation looked at each other in bemusement and asked, ‘Charles who?’

[MrBarnett]

There's a peculiarity on the parish marriage register in the union between John's widow Ann Lechmere and John Barber, the possibly suicidal shoemaker.

She's listed as a widow but gives her father's name as "Samuel Latchmere/Letchemore."

Almost certainly a mental lapse, because most seem to identify her maiden name as Ann Master or Masters, daughter of Samuel Masters of Catesby.

It just goes to show you can't always trust the names given in these old records, though Ed Stow evidently believes that Emily Lechmere's death certificate (which has the wrong name of her father) is ample proof that she didn't go by the name "Emily Cross" in life.

Great dinosaurs are visualized and constructed from one or two stray bones.

Just a point of clarification. It was just the Christian name that was wrong. Emily’s surname and that of her father were given correctly as Lechmere. Emily was a couple of years older than Charles I believe, and was a Lechmere for longer than she could have been a Cross - assuming she ever was one.

[rjpalmer]

Emily was a couple of years older than Charles I believe, and was a Lechmere for longer than she could have been a Cross - assuming she ever was one.

She was baptized in Hereford in March 1847.

Her mother married Thomas Cross in the 1Qt 1858, so she would have been 11 at the time of the marriage and by this time had been abandoned by her father for several years.

In 1861 she is listed as Emily Cross.

She died 3QT 1869--a little over 11 years after the marriage--so it is certainly not true to say "she was a Lechmere for longer than she could have been a Cross." It's a 50/50 split with the slight advantage going to the man her mother married, and away from the man who had abandoned her many years earlier.

In truth, 'Stow' has no idea what name she used during those last 11 years.

[MrBarnett]

She was baptized in Hereford in March 1847.

Her mother married Thomas Cross in the 1Qt 1858, so she would have been 11 at the time of the marriage and by this time had been abandoned by her father for several years.

In 1861 she is listed as Emily Cross.

She died 3QT 1869--a little over 11 years after the marriage--so it is certainly not true to say "she was a Lechmere for longer than she could have been a Cross." It's a 50/50 split with the slight advantage going to the man her mother married, and away from the man who had abandoned her many years earlier.

In truth, 'Stow' has no idea what name she used during those last 11 years.

When was she born?

[MrBarnett]

On the day before her mother went through a form of marriage with Thomas Cross, who did Emily think she was? What name did her friends and acquaintances know her by up to that point? What name would have been on both her Christening certificates? What name was on her death certificate - the one their neighbour brought back from the registrar?

[MrBarnett]

On the day before her mother went through a form of marriage with Thomas Cross, who did Emily think she was? What name did her friends and acquaintances know her by up to that point? What name would have been on both her Christening certificates? What name was on her death certificate - the one their neighbour brought back from the registrar?

Oh, I’d forgotten that someone had given her the surname Cross on a census form she is unlikely to have ever seen. The one where Thomas Cross’s age was bumped up by a decade making him 2 years older than Maria.

[Fiver]

There's a peculiarity on the parish marriage register in the union between John's widow Ann Lechmere and John Barber, the possibly suicidal shoemaker.

She's listed as a widow but gives her father's name as "Samuel Latchmere/Letchemore."

Almost certainly a mental lapse, because most seem to identify her maiden name as Ann Master or Masters, daughter of Samuel Masters of Catesby.

It just goes to show you can't always trust the names given in these old records, though Ed Stow evidently believes that Emily Lechmere's death certificate (which has the wrong name of her father) is ample proof that she didn't go by the name "Emily Cross" in life.

Great dinosaurs are visualized and constructed from one or two stray bones.

And they even got Lechmere wrong in the transcription.

Which is hardly surprising to anyone doing genealogical research. Transcribing cursive records can be challenging as Barnett knows - Thomas Roulston or the lawyer who wrote his will didn't have the best handwriting. And there are records with much worse handwriting, or faded ink, or the paper record has been damaged in some way.

Or the person who recorded the information in the first place got it wrong, like in the example you give. I met a man whose surname is pronounced Sivinski, but it's been spelled Sivinksty since an immigration official botched it several generations ago.

Maybe John Allen Lechmere never married Ann Masters. Maybe he did, but the record hasn't been transcribed on a genealogy site yet. Or maybe they botched the transcription and it's recorded online as James Langford and Ann Marden or something along those lines.