Find Ancestors

Top tip - using the Genes Reunited community

Welcome to the Genes Reunited community boards!

  • The Genes Reunited community is made up of millions of people with similar interests. Discover your family history and make life long friends along the way.
  • You will find a close knit but welcoming group of keen genealogists all prepared to offer advice and help to new members.
  • And it's not all serious business. The boards are often a place to relax and be entertained by all kinds of subjects.
  • The Genes community will go out of their way to help you, so don’t be shy about asking for help.

Quick Search

Single word search


  • New posts
  • No new posts
  • Thread closed
  • Stickied, new posts
  • Stickied, no new posts

Irritations & Moans ***THREAD CLOSED***

Page 5 + 1 of 16

  1. «
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. 8
  10. 9
  11. 10
  12. »
ProfilePosted byOptionsPost Date

Richard in Perth

Richard in Perth Report 1 Apr 2005 07:52

Helen I believe that Noah was the captain, so of course he isn't on the passenger lists! You need to contact the company (Gopherwood Line) - I think that their employee records go back that far, though I hear that they are quite water damaged. Alternatively you could try the maritime library at Greenwich - at least there you could check the vessel specifications in Lloyds register (supposedly 40 cubits by 60 cubits by 80 cubits, but would be worth checking). Richard


Unknown Report 1 Apr 2005 07:55

Richard Silly me! So easy to overlook the obvious, isn't it? Thanks for your valuable suggestion about Lloyd's. I will definitely check it out. nell


Conan Report 1 Apr 2005 08:51

Further to my earlier post can I just say that yesterday I asked two members to do two different look ups for me. They both came back very quickly with the information I asked for, plus a bit more. You don't get 'customer service' like that anywhere else anymore, even when you pay for it ( and, before you ask, yes I did express my gratitude to them ). For us still learning to swim it is you guys who are life saver's. Yes I know some people are downright ignorant and treat you as part of the 'GR Service'. Just forget them, move on and bask in the adulation from the rest of us. By the way, Geoff, David, Laird, Richard, Gwynne, Nell, Sharyn....... Are you lot o.k. You sound to me like you need a prescription for a couple of weeks away in the sun somewhere ( preferably not all in the same place at the same time ). Take it easy for a while Regards to all Keith


Janet Report 1 Apr 2005 09:16

Hi everyone - I've just trawled through all 8 pages of this thread - very entertaining! However, I am also a bit worried now in case I am one of those causing offense. I only started looking at the Message Boards a couple of weeks ago, found them addictive so now check the Tips and Records daily. I admit that I replied directly to two people who kindly answered my first query - simply because I hadn't grasped the idea of threads etc. Sorry about that, I now know better. I am most reluctant to nudge anyone, not wanting to upset the person who offered their research services, so could you please tell me how long I should wait before doing so? Could my request get pushed off the thread if I don't nudge it up? I live in France so visiting any local records offices is not an option. I have joined every genealogy online site that I know of and have traced most of my ancestors and my husband's back to at least the 1871 Census and a few of them back to the 1837 records start. I can't wait until 1837-Online adds more counties to the 1861 census posting. It is now that I really need you experienced people who can help me delve further back. I read all your tips and helpful advice which I try to follow diligently but please forgive me in advance if I end up being one of those who cause you to be irritated or to moan ! Do please keep offering your help, it is so much appreciated. Sincerely, Janet


Ted Report 1 Apr 2005 09:28

Personally, I think all of you who offer to do look ups are the kindest of people. In my case, I cant get out of the house due to age and sickness and I rely heavily on such kind people. But everybody is different, some know the procedure and the etiquette in asking for look ups, in my case I add a thank you message to every request, whether its the one for me, and ive have many times said 'thanks but I already have that info' thats a natural thing to say, its not rude, but if you hear it a couple of dozen times a day then im sure its get annoying, BUT, and there is always a BUT, if you offer to do the look ups, then I believe that you will expect to get different results from those who ask. PLEASE, PLEASE DONT STOP DOING THE LOOK UPS. WHAT WOULD I DO WITHOUT YOU? I cant thank you all enough. ps you havnt found my LEE family on the 1891 census yet, somewhere in LIVERPOOL. but im not complaining. lol TED.


Unknown Report 1 Apr 2005 11:24

Carrie Exactly! Which is why I no longer open my tree to anyone now, I ask them who they think we might have in common and email little bits of info. If they're genuine and interested they usually come back with information for me, in most cases they don't. Three times in as many months I've been contacted over a shared ancestor. I've shared and not had so much as a thank you for the info I've given them. Needless to say, they gave me nothing in return either. It might sound petty and not in the spirit of genealogy but I've put a lot of time, effort and expense into what's in my tree and I'll willingly share it with anyone who has a genuine interest. But I'm not passing info on to someone simply so they can add it to their tree, claim its their work and not have to put any effort in themselves Lou


Conan Report 1 Apr 2005 14:07

Sharyn I am sorry, I had no idea where you are. Should I have said a couple of weeks OUT of the sun? I like the Adam/Eve analysis ( perhaps I also need a break ). I was thinking of any newspaper reporters etc who might be in earshot if you lot should ever get together to discuss this. The Sunday press over here would have a field day. My sincerest apologies to Marjorie. I drafted my posting in manuscript first and her name was on it, it's my copy typing that's at fault ( if that's what it is still called ). I have a reputation for missing the most important bit, especially in genealogy. Stay Cool, Keith


Unknown Report 1 Apr 2005 14:39

Lou - wanna know the ending <GRIN>


Unknown Report 1 Apr 2005 22:45

Laird You dare and I will avoid you forever! I wasn't sure it was 'my kind of book' at first to be honest. Hubbie bought it for me when I first got sick a couple of weeks ago knowing it was going to be a long one and he just impulse bought it from Tesco! When I told Dad, he rattled off all the books by the same guy that he's read (can't remember all the titles...was Angels & Demons one????) and how brilliant they are and am hooked! Apparantly the Da Vinci Code has been made into a film and is due for release this autumn! Lou

An Olde Crone

An Olde Crone Report 1 Apr 2005 23:48

Keith No offence taken - sadly I have got to that time in a woman's life when she becomes invisible to men, so I'm used to it! LOL. As for this not being exactly what Jools had in mind when she posted her thread, I am quite sure she appreciates the extremely subtle moan we Biblists are making - that of compulsive thread-changers! Mind you, it does seem to be holding its own (the original thread, I mean). Marjorie PS. Now wouldnt I just LOVE to be on TV to debate Genealogy and the Bible!


Conan Report 2 Apr 2005 00:47

Marjorie We have not conversed before but I am already an admirer. Once a Lady, always a Lady, you have my utmost respect. I am sure that Jools will recognize that her thread has developed into the most readable thread on the network ( even for a naive novice like me who is on the receiving end of many of the moans ). As Laird said on the 30th March, 'What a great thread...... Nice balance'. We are looking to Jools, with some help from you and others, not to let it fade away. By the way, stay off the T.V, you'll get slaughtered by Jeremy Paxman. Regards to all Keith P.S. Marjorie. No woman of substance and intellect ever becomes invisible to any man.


Jools Report 2 Apr 2005 09:00

The thread has 'developed' but it's one of the friendliest ones there's been on here for a while - and it's still serving its original purpose. I've no problems with the subtle change in emphasis from time to time as it does tend to come back to square one. Keep up the excellent editorial people - a 'moan' thread that is readable without being grouchy is quite an achievement. :))))))))))))))


Twinkle Report 2 Apr 2005 16:37

People who refuse to use even basic punctuation and do not appear to have a complete grasp of the alphabet. GR's lack of formatting on the initial post does not help matters. It really annoys me when people ask for a 'sinses' look-up or write the whole households' names out without a single comma, so you don't know if you're looking for a Mary, Jane and Sarah, or Mary Jane and Sarah, or even one girl with a very long name.

An Olde Crone

An Olde Crone Report 2 Apr 2005 20:54

Oh Keith! I do like you! Am now wondering if you are a married gentleman?.... David I will have a look at that site, however it will have to go some to beat the one I fell into a few years ago on AWT - Our Many Families - goes back to (nearly) Adam and Eve with a blithe disregard for anything remotely like a fact. My poor 4 x GM is on there, credited with 44 children, some born before her and some born after she died. She gave birth to one, got out of bed, walked 12 miles to the Chapel to have it bapt, went home, gave birth to another one the next day and had that one bapt a few weeks later, 7 miles in the opposite direction. I couldnt help myself, I had to read it all, a few gaps of about 200 years, but nevertheless confidently arrived back at Kunigilde, born 807, Sweden. Oooh, I was ever so impressed. Oh, BTW, my real moan concerns people who possess neither dictionary nor Atlas, nor the wits to google for either one. Marjorie


LindainHerriotCountry Report 2 Apr 2005 21:20

My moan is about my randy ancestors who have cost me all my credits in looking for their marriages. Having the month of birth of their first child, I have counted back nine months and searched for the marriage. Not finding it , I have had to extend the search. Two different lots this evening waited until just a few months before the birth to do the decent thing and tie the knot. All very well, but didn't they realise it would use up all my credits searching all those quarters. Or maybe I am missing something here, was the gestation period shorter in those days? Linda


Phoenix Report 2 Apr 2005 21:44

Lyla There is a rumour that when the historic certificates are reindexed (it's out to tender at the moment) age at death may be included in the new index. re an earlier moan about Origins I got a message from them, apologising for server problems and giving me another 72 hours free access! I am very heavy eyed from downloading masses of census images and have to report that the indexing - at least for 1841 Devon - is vastly superior to anything I've seen on Ancestry or 1901. And no, it isn't April Fools Day.


Conan Report 2 Apr 2005 22:39

JOOLS Spot on. This is the friendliest thread. It seems to attract the more discerning contributor. I have seen the trivial arguments raging elsewhere, if ever this degenerates into anything like the same then you have my support to ' pull the plug '. ALL Keep the moans coming. Seriously, I have learned a lot from this thread and I am sure many others have too. Not only about etiquette, but also about how to get the best response from the help offered by so many fine people on this Board. MARJORIE Married for 30 years I'm afraid. Not sure about the gentleman reference though. I forgot my wife's 50th birthday yesterday ( I sorted out the card and prezzy weeks ago but forgot to hand them over before I rushed off to work ). LINDA I have come across the same thing several times with my family ( no, not the short gestation period ). With changing attitudes in mind, I pity those in years to come who look for birth/marriage certificates only to find that in many cases the knot was never actually tied. Perhaps we should think ourselves relatively fortunate ( are the search fees not tax deductable in such circumstances? ). Take care all, Keith


Jools Report 3 Apr 2005 10:09

Well that's just spoilt the good-tempered nature of this thread:(((( Still - I suppose that over 125 posts before it started to go down the pan is quite an achievement (and more, I suspect, than the general board would have managed from what little I intentionally see of it). If posts continue to degenerate then I'm sorry but I will pull the plug on this thread. Jools


Heather Report 3 Apr 2005 10:29

That would be such a shame Jools, this is a brilliant thread. Heather


Unknown Report 3 Apr 2005 10:51