Recording marriage of a sailor
|
John Hanson
I have a marriage, by banns, in Bosham, Sussex in 1915 of a person who was a
sick-bat attendant on HMS Monarch I know that he was on leave at the time - the ship was a dreadnaught class battleship involved in the battle of Jutland and Wikipedia shows that it docked a Devonport on the 4th January that year for repairs, sailing again on the 20th I am toying with how to record his abode at the time of marriage Just HMS Monarch will cause an issue with mapping So, I was thinking of HMS Monarch, Devonport, Devon, England Anyone got any other thoughts? Regards John Hanson FSG |
|
|
|
John,
Please clarify how you have chosen to record Place and Address details. Your example of "HMS Monarch, Devonport, Devon, England" implies you put everything in the Place field and nothing in the Address field. When you talk about "issues with mapping" I guess you mean auto-geocoding. It is perfectly feasible to add mapping Lat/Long values manually to a Place such as just "HMS Monarch". However, that does not make much sense for a ship that moves about! It is only its docked location at Devonport that has a fixed mapping. |
|
|
|
colevalleygirl@colevalleygirl.co.uk
That seems like a good solution to me, John. It would be nice to include
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
(docked at) somewhere, but that will mess with mapping, so a note to clarify matters might help. -----Original Message-----
From: family-historian@groups.io <family-historian@groups.io> On Behalf Of John Hanson via groups.io Sent: 12 November 2022 11:25 To: family-historian@groups.io Subject: [family-historian] Recording marriage of a sailor I have a marriage, by banns, in Bosham, Sussex in 1915 of a person who was a sick-bat attendant on HMS Monarch I know that he was on leave at the time - the ship was a dreadnaught class battleship involved in the battle of Jutland and Wikipedia shows that it docked a Devonport on the 4th January that year for repairs, sailing again on the 20th I am toying with how to record his abode at the time of marriage Just HMS Monarch will cause an issue with mapping So, I was thinking of HMS Monarch, Devonport, Devon, England Anyone got any other thoughts? Regards John Hanson FSG |
|
|
|
Do you have the image of the marriage record? If so I would use whatever he gave as his abode. (He might even have given his family home address.)
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
If it was just 'HMS Monarch' then I would suggest two options, depending on whether you normally include all the address details as part of the place, or normally use separate address and place fields. (1) If you use separate address fields you could record the address as HMS Monarch but leave the Place blank, with a note explaining where the ship happened to be at the time. This avoids the issue of geocoding the place. (2) You could record HMS Monarch as the Place but block the geocoding for that place so that FH never tries to map it. On 12/11/2022 11:25, John Hanson via groups.io wrote:
I have a marriage, by banns, in Bosham, Sussex in 1915 of a person who was a |
|
|
|
I'm off on site locations and await FH allowing media, geocoding and notes on addresses. Regardless of the current limitations within FH the ship is his address at the time and I would enter the port as the place. I have found address associations so indicative to my research and strive to keep my place list clear of superfluous details so can map all the sites associated with a Place. BTW, we still have HMS Caroline in Belfast, I believe she is the last survivor of Jutland. I have a marriage, by banns, in Bosham, Sussex in 1915 of a person who was a |
|
|
|
That should have said "I'm OCD on site locations...."
|
|
|
|
Adrian Bruce
... I am toying with how to record his abode at the time of marriage ...
As Lorna says, a lot depends on what's on the marriage form, but I'd like to throw in my practice for consideration, which is that I don't normally adjust people's residence to account for their military service at all. I leave them resident at their original family address - albeit with a note to say that they were serving overseas (or wherever). I would contend that as far as officialdom was concerned, their residence *was* their permanent home prior to joining up. For instance, my maternal granddad got his vote in 1918 based on his permanent residence in Cheshire - it wasn't based on his temporary billet "somewhere in France". I wouldn't ignore the reference to HMS Monarch but I'd use it as part of my Military Service attribute. Adrian |
|
|
|
Very good point, 'residence' and 'in residence' are two different definitions. On Sat, 12 Nov 2022, 12:22 Adrian Bruce, <abruce6155@...> wrote:
|
|
|
|
Phil Stokes
I agree with Lorna and Adrian. Whatever is stated on the marriage certificate is what I would treat as his abode.
My grandfather was in the navy. On the date of his marriage, he was serving on HMS Caledon, but his abode on the marriage certificate was an address near Eye in Suffolk. The address in Eye is what I recorded as his residence in connection with the marriage fact. His ships and locations are covered by a (long) note attached to his record of military service fact, with a short note attached to the marriage fact explaining that his ship was in dock for repairs and a refit at the time.
In the 1921 census however, I have his residence recorded as “The English Channel approximately 20 miles SW of Weymouth, Dorset, England” with a note explaining that he was aboard HMS Cleopatra, the ship’s position having been recorded at midnight on the date of the census as 50°22' N 2°45' W.
From: family-historian@groups.io <family-historian@groups.io> On Behalf Of Vyger
Sent: 12 November 2022 12:59 To: family-historian@groups.io Subject: Re: [family-historian] Recording marriage of a sailor
Very good point, 'residence' and 'in residence' are two different definitions.
On Sat, 12 Nov 2022, 12:22 Adrian Bruce, <abruce6155@...> wrote:
|
|
|
|
John Hanson
Adrian Thanks for the thoughts
I should have explained that we record all events with a combined address and place and do not use the separate fields
A long story that we will not go into here, but I did cover in my lecture on places/address for the SoG a while ago and will again on Tuesday for Derek Heritage’s group
You can’t Geocode addresses and with so many people living in say Burnley, Lancashire and there are over 6,500 references in the place index (92,000 references in all on 27,000 separate place names) that to be able to map a person’s movements you need address and place in one entry
He was a long serving naval man and the marriage certificate says he was a “sick-bay attendant Royal Navy” and the abode says “HMS Monarch”. Monarch was just one of the many ships that he served on and his naval record on FMP says “transferred to card” in 1929 so I assume that he was discharged after that date – need to do some more research on naval records as mainly been army and this is only a side shoot of the Halstead study
Regards John Hanson FSG Researching the Halstead/Holstead/Alstead names Researcher, the Halsted Trust - https://www.halsted.org.uk Research website - https://www.halstedresearch.org.uk And my own study of FOSKER
From: family-historian@groups.io <family-historian@groups.io> On Behalf Of Adrian Bruce
Sent: 12 November 2022 12:22 To: family-historian@groups.io Subject: Re: [family-historian] Recording marriage of a sailor
On Sat, 12 Nov 2022 at 11:25, John Hanson via groups.io <john.hanson=one-name.org@groups.io> wrote:
...
As Lorna says, a lot depends on what's on the marriage form, but I'd like to throw in my practice for consideration, which is that I don't normally adjust people's residence to account for their military service at all. I leave them resident at their original family address - albeit with a note to say that they were serving overseas (or wherever). I would contend that as far as officialdom was concerned, their residence *was* their permanent home prior to joining up. For instance, my maternal granddad got his vote in 1918 based on his permanent residence in Cheshire - it wasn't based on his temporary billet "somewhere in France".
I wouldn't ignore the reference to HMS Monarch but I'd use it as part of my Military Service attribute.
Adrian
|
|
|
|
John,
“You can’t Geocode addresses and with so many people living in say Burnley, Lancashire and there are over 6,500 references in the place index (92,000 references in all on 27,000 separate place names) that to be able to map a person’s movements you need address and place in one entry”
You are correct and the way you are combining addresses with places is probably the best approach in FH at present. Several programs support the sub-ordinate geocoding, media and notes, I believe FH will follow suit in time, the way you record places now in FH should provide an easy conversion of that valuable data to a relational Address/Place model at a future date.
I have a database of the ~65K Townlands of Ireland all relational to their host parishes, they are all entered as Address within the host parish and all geocoded, very valuable. Incidentally my place report for Belfast which prints Facts and addresses runs to over 300 pages but my place list is clean and easy to manage.
I fully realize that long term users of FH have previously had no other option in this respect but I do hope and believe this must change.
Jackson
From: family-historian@groups.io [mailto:family-historian@groups.io] On Behalf Of John Hanson via groups.io
Sent: 12 November 2022 14:39 To: family-historian@groups.io Subject: Re: [family-historian] Recording marriage of a sailor
Adrian Thanks for the thoughts
I should have explained that we record all events with a combined address and place and do not use the separate fields
A long story that we will not go into here, but I did cover in my lecture on places/address for the SoG a while ago and will again on Tuesday for Derek Heritage’s group
You can’t Geocode addresses and with so many people living in say Burnley, Lancashire and there are over 6,500 references in the place index (92,000 references in all on 27,000 separate place names) that to be able to map a person’s movements you need address and place in one entry
He was a long serving naval man and the marriage certificate says he was a “sick-bay attendant Royal Navy” and the abode says “HMS Monarch”. Monarch was just one of the many ships that he served on and his naval record on FMP says “transferred to card” in 1929 so I assume that he was discharged after that date – need to do some more research on naval records as mainly been army and this is only a side shoot of the Halstead study
Regards John Hanson FSG Researching the Halstead/Holstead/Alstead names Researcher, the Halsted Trust - https://www.halsted.org.uk Research website - https://www.halstedresearch.org.uk And my own study of FOSKER
From: family-historian@groups.io <family-historian@groups.io> On Behalf Of Adrian Bruce
On Sat, 12 Nov 2022 at 11:25, John Hanson via groups.io <john.hanson=one-name.org@groups.io> wrote:
...
As Lorna says, a lot depends on what's on the marriage form, but I'd like to throw in my practice for consideration, which is that I don't normally adjust people's residence to account for their military service at all. I leave them resident at their original family address - albeit with a note to say that they were serving overseas (or wherever). I would contend that as far as officialdom was concerned, their residence *was* their permanent home prior to joining up. For instance, my maternal granddad got his vote in 1918 based on his permanent residence in Cheshire - it wasn't based on his temporary billet "somewhere in France".
I wouldn't ignore the reference to HMS Monarch but I'd use it as part of my Military Service attribute.
Adrian
|
|
|
|
John Hanson
Jackson I have received your personal email and would reply except my ISP seems to have an aversion to sending to gmail at present
I have complained several times but we are getting nowhere in trying to resolve the issue – seems to be the gmail end and it is not sending back sensible answers that they can work with
Would like to discuss it if you can email me with a suggestion – zoom might be a solution if you agree
Regards John Hanson FSG
From: family-historian@groups.io <family-historian@groups.io> On Behalf Of Vyger
Sent: 12 November 2022 15:09 To: family-historian@groups.io Subject: Re: [family-historian] Recording marriage of a sailor
John,
“You can’t Geocode addresses and with so many people living in say Burnley, Lancashire and there are over 6,500 references in the place index (92,000 references in all on 27,000 separate place names) that to be able to map a person’s movements you need address and place in one entry”
You are correct and the way you are combining addresses with places is probably the best approach in FH at present. Several programs support the sub-ordinate geocoding, media and notes, I believe FH will follow suit in time, the way you record places now in FH should provide an easy conversion of that valuable data to a relational Address/Place model at a future date.
I have a database of the ~65K Townlands of Ireland all relational to their host parishes, they are all entered as Address within the host parish and all geocoded, very valuable. Incidentally my place report for Belfast which prints Facts and addresses runs to over 300 pages but my place list is clean and easy to manage.
I fully realize that long term users of FH have previously had no other option in this respect but I do hope and believe this must change.
Jackson
From: family-historian@groups.io [mailto:family-historian@groups.io] On Behalf Of John Hanson via groups.io
Adrian Thanks for the thoughts
I should have explained that we record all events with a combined address and place and do not use the separate fields
A long story that we will not go into here, but I did cover in my lecture on places/address for the SoG a while ago and will again on Tuesday for Derek Heritage’s group
You can’t Geocode addresses and with so many people living in say Burnley, Lancashire and there are over 6,500 references in the place index (92,000 references in all on 27,000 separate place names) that to be able to map a person’s movements you need address and place in one entry
He was a long serving naval man and the marriage certificate says he was a “sick-bay attendant Royal Navy” and the abode says “HMS Monarch”. Monarch was just one of the many ships that he served on and his naval record on FMP says “transferred to card” in 1929 so I assume that he was discharged after that date – need to do some more research on naval records as mainly been army and this is only a side shoot of the Halstead study
Regards John Hanson FSG Researching the Halstead/Holstead/Alstead names Researcher, the Halsted Trust - https://www.halsted.org.uk Research website - https://www.halstedresearch.org.uk And my own study of FOSKER
From: family-historian@groups.io <family-historian@groups.io> On Behalf Of Adrian Bruce
On Sat, 12 Nov 2022 at 11:25, John Hanson via groups.io <john.hanson=one-name.org@groups.io> wrote:
...
As Lorna says, a lot depends on what's on the marriage form, but I'd like to throw in my practice for consideration, which is that I don't normally adjust people's residence to account for their military service at all. I leave them resident at their original family address - albeit with a note to say that they were serving overseas (or wherever). I would contend that as far as officialdom was concerned, their residence *was* their permanent home prior to joining up. For instance, my maternal granddad got his vote in 1918 based on his permanent residence in Cheshire - it wasn't based on his temporary billet "somewhere in France".
I wouldn't ignore the reference to HMS Monarch but I'd use it as part of my Military Service attribute.
Adrian
|
|
|
|
Howard <howard@...>
Perhaps it’s worth adding a small remark with respect to British Royal Navy locations at this point. Not everything beginning ‘HMS’ was a ship on the ocean – the Royal Navy frequently identifies its shore locations as if they were ships. So, for instance, my father was employed for many years by the Admiralty, later referred to as MoD(N), and dealt exclusively with the Royal Navy. Yet he worked at places such as ‘HMS Excellent’ and ‘HMS Vernon’ – both of which are situated in Portsmouth. Anyone with submarine ancestors may come across ‘HMS Dolphin’, a shore-based establishment that was the home of submariners, it was across the water in Gosport.
And, as a footnote, Wikipedia has the rather sad note that ‘HMS Monarch’ was an “Orion-class battleship, served in World War I, sunk as target 1925”.
Howard (Howard Benbrook)
From: family-historian@groups.io <family-historian@groups.io>
On Behalf Of John Hanson via groups.io
Sent: 12 November 2022 14:39 To: family-historian@groups.io Subject: Re: [family-historian] Recording marriage of a sailor
Adrian Thanks for the thoughts
I should have explained that we record all events with a combined address and place and do not use the separate fields
A long story that we will not go into here, but I did cover in my lecture on places/address for the SoG a while ago and will again on Tuesday for Derek Heritage’s group
You can’t Geocode addresses and with so many people living in say Burnley, Lancashire and there are over 6,500 references in the place index (92,000 references in all on 27,000 separate place names) that to be able to map a person’s movements you need address and place in one entry
He was a long serving naval man and the marriage certificate says he was a “sick-bay attendant Royal Navy” and the abode says “HMS Monarch”. Monarch was just one of the many ships that he served on and his naval record on FMP says “transferred to card” in 1929 so I assume that he was discharged after that date – need to do some more research on naval records as mainly been army and this is only a side shoot of the Halstead study
Regards John Hanson FSG Researching the Halstead/Holstead/Alstead names Researcher, the Halsted Trust - https://www.halsted.org.uk Research website - https://www.halstedresearch.org.uk And my own study of FOSKER
From:
family-historian@groups.io <family-historian@groups.io>
On Behalf Of Adrian Bruce
On Sat, 12 Nov 2022 at 11:25, John Hanson via groups.io <john.hanson=one-name.org@groups.io> wrote:
...
As Lorna says, a lot depends on what's on the marriage form, but I'd like to throw in my practice for consideration, which is that I don't normally adjust people's residence to account for their military service at all. I leave them resident at their original family address - albeit with a note to say that they were serving overseas (or wherever). I would contend that as far as officialdom was concerned, their residence *was* their permanent home prior to joining up. For instance, my maternal granddad got his vote in 1918 based on his permanent residence in Cheshire - it wasn't based on his temporary billet "somewhere in France".
I wouldn't ignore the reference to HMS Monarch but I'd use it as part of my Military Service attribute.
Adrian
|
|
|
|
John,
Watch the video link I sent when you have time, I will edit and upload some extracts from a presentation I made a few years back unlisted and send you a link, you will see some of my methods and possibilities.
I do believe this will come to all genealogy software, it sounds like your data entry model will be easily transferred if you choose to split out Addresses.
I’ve been online all day and hopefully out tomorrow weather permitting but Zoom discussion is OK by me and there is no rush before you present on Tuesday.
Hopefully you get your gmail restrictions sorted.
Jackson
From: family-historian@groups.io [mailto:family-historian@groups.io] On Behalf Of John Hanson via groups.io
Sent: 12 November 2022 16:06 To: family-historian@groups.io Subject: Re: [family-historian] Recording marriage of a sailor
Jackson I have received your personal email and would reply except my ISP seems to have an aversion to sending to gmail at present
I have complained several times but we are getting nowhere in trying to resolve the issue – seems to be the gmail end and it is not sending back sensible answers that they can work with
Would like to discuss it if you can email me with a suggestion – zoom might be a solution if you agree
Regards John Hanson FSG
From: family-historian@groups.io <family-historian@groups.io> On Behalf Of Vyger
John,
“You can’t Geocode addresses and with so many people living in say Burnley, Lancashire and there are over 6,500 references in the place index (92,000 references in all on 27,000 separate place names) that to be able to map a person’s movements you need address and place in one entry”
You are correct and the way you are combining addresses with places is probably the best approach in FH at present. Several programs support the sub-ordinate geocoding, media and notes, I believe FH will follow suit in time, the way you record places now in FH should provide an easy conversion of that valuable data to a relational Address/Place model at a future date.
I have a database of the ~65K Townlands of Ireland all relational to their host parishes, they are all entered as Address within the host parish and all geocoded, very valuable. Incidentally my place report for Belfast which prints Facts and addresses runs to over 300 pages but my place list is clean and easy to manage.
I fully realize that long term users of FH have previously had no other option in this respect but I do hope and believe this must change.
Jackson
From: family-historian@groups.io [mailto:family-historian@groups.io] On Behalf Of John Hanson via groups.io
Adrian Thanks for the thoughts
I should have explained that we record all events with a combined address and place and do not use the separate fields
A long story that we will not go into here, but I did cover in my lecture on places/address for the SoG a while ago and will again on Tuesday for Derek Heritage’s group
You can’t Geocode addresses and with so many people living in say Burnley, Lancashire and there are over 6,500 references in the place index (92,000 references in all on 27,000 separate place names) that to be able to map a person’s movements you need address and place in one entry
He was a long serving naval man and the marriage certificate says he was a “sick-bay attendant Royal Navy” and the abode says “HMS Monarch”. Monarch was just one of the many ships that he served on and his naval record on FMP says “transferred to card” in 1929 so I assume that he was discharged after that date – need to do some more research on naval records as mainly been army and this is only a side shoot of the Halstead study
Regards John Hanson FSG Researching the Halstead/Holstead/Alstead names Researcher, the Halsted Trust - https://www.halsted.org.uk Research website - https://www.halstedresearch.org.uk And my own study of FOSKER
From: family-historian@groups.io <family-historian@groups.io> On Behalf Of Adrian Bruce
On Sat, 12 Nov 2022 at 11:25, John Hanson via groups.io <john.hanson=one-name.org@groups.io> wrote:
...
As Lorna says, a lot depends on what's on the marriage form, but I'd like to throw in my practice for consideration, which is that I don't normally adjust people's residence to account for their military service at all. I leave them resident at their original family address - albeit with a note to say that they were serving overseas (or wherever). I would contend that as far as officialdom was concerned, their residence *was* their permanent home prior to joining up. For instance, my maternal granddad got his vote in 1918 based on his permanent residence in Cheshire - it wasn't based on his temporary billet "somewhere in France".
I wouldn't ignore the reference to HMS Monarch but I'd use it as part of my Military Service attribute.
Adrian
|
|
|