I'm trying to find information on the ship registers that came over from UK to 'murica in 1869 and 1871. Ancestry.com has become a major pain in the ass on this now. (I found it easily last time I was on the site.)
I know you do this stuff. Help me!
if ancestry.com is a pain in the ass you're doing it wrong.
I don't follow, Meri. You're having trouble finding the registers?
Do you have a paid membership on Ancestry?
I bet she wants your login :P
USERNAME: I LIKE BIG BOOBS
PASSWORD: MOTORBOAT
:lol:
Quote from: Caliga on October 02, 2014, 06:39:08 PM
I don't follow, Meri. You're having trouble finding the registers?
Do you have a paid membership on Ancestry?
Yes. And I know when my great-grandfather came over. But it's not showing up on any of the searches.
Did you start here?
http://search.ancestry.com/search/category.aspx?cat=40 (http://search.ancestry.com/search/category.aspx?cat=40)
I found it last night. I was putting too much information in, and so it was being dropped in the searches.
My great-grandfather was known as Matey, though his given name was Meredith. In my tree, I have him as Meredith E (Matey) Williams, and each time I did the search, Ancestry.com would include the whole thing. Once I dropped the E and the Matey, I found him. City of Brussels in 1871 as an infant.
Interesting thing. They list his "sister" as Mary J Williams, 3, traveling with them. Except that's actually his first cousin, Mary Jane Evans, 3, traveling with them. His sister, Eliza Wm Williams, 3, must have been standing with his aunt and uncle, who also traveled over on the same boat, because she's listed as Eliza W Evans. :D On top of that, Mary Jane's mother must have been pregnant on the crossing because her brother, also named Matey, was born in October 1871 in the US. It took a lot of digging into census records in both Wales and Iowa to put the pieces together, including trying to remember some of the family lore about all of it.
I really wish the Welsh had been just a *bit* more creative in their naming conventions.... :rolleyes:
Almost all my ancestors were here in North America by the 1700s. Really tough to find much good info on their trips across the Atlantic. My uncle found the ship record for our direct paternal ancestor's voyage, at least.
I found the ship's register of my great-something or other-grandfather who came over in 1635. He was a 14-year-old orphan, his parents having died the year before.
It helps a great deal that that particular line - my maternal grandfather's line - came over and stayed for the next 380 years in pretty much the same place, New London, Connecticut. It also helps that New London, CT, kept incredible records from the very beginning. I actually have pictures of each of the tombstones for each male in that line, along with information on their spouses and parents. All of it is kept with the grave markers.
My ancestors killed your ancestors.
My ancestors stole your ancestors' sheep.
My ancestors likely raped the sheep. There is some unsavory characters in my family tree.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 03, 2014, 05:55:04 PM
My ancestors stole your ancestors' sheep.
And katmai's ancestors stole their sunglasses. :(
Is ancestry.com worth the cost*? I've always though the idea interesting / with various free online resources didn't get back past early 20th century (parents of my great great grandfather who was in Stanford's opening class).
*and if so, what level/sort of subscription?
I think it is pretty awesome if you are just starting. It is a gold mine and does alot of the heavy lifting for you. I say yes, and you can save money by just getting access to the US stuff.
If you are a vet you can get by using free internet resources (like familysearch.org) and family tree software like family tree maker.
Quote from: garbon on October 03, 2014, 07:37:46 PM
Is ancestry.com worth the cost*? I've always though the idea interesting / with various free online resources didn't get back past early 20th century (parents of my great great grandfather who was in Stanford's opening class).
*and if so, what level/sort of subscription?
You never struck me as the kind of person who would knowingly give money to the Church of Latter Day Saints.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 04, 2014, 12:42:47 PM
You never struck me as the kind of person who would knowingly give money to the Church of Latter Day Saints.
Its owned by a British investment company :lol:
Quote from: Valmy on October 04, 2014, 01:40:31 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 04, 2014, 12:42:47 PM
You never struck me as the kind of person who would knowingly give money to the Church of Latter Day Saints.
Its owned by a British investment company :lol:
Sure, maybe now on paper. But it still reeks of Mormontardism.
Maybe, but all the money goes to London capitalists.
Quote from: Valmy on October 04, 2014, 01:40:31 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 04, 2014, 12:42:47 PM
You never struck me as the kind of person who would knowingly give money to the Church of Latter Day Saints.
Its owned by a British investment company :lol:
even worse.
Quote from: HVC on October 04, 2014, 08:18:45 PMeven worse.
The capitalists of London are largely responsible for the modern world...oh I get it now.
Quote from: Valmy on October 04, 2014, 08:07:09 PM
Maybe, but all the money goes to London capitalists.
But all the material's being handled by Mormons, ready to baptize all your dead relatives.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 04, 2014, 08:21:10 PM
Quote from: Valmy on October 04, 2014, 08:07:09 PM
Maybe, but all the money goes to London capitalists.
But all the material's being handled by Mormons, ready to baptize all your dead relatives.
It already was handled by them. I think the site was first largely about giving digitizing their giant dead relative baptizing resource library.
Quote from: Valmy on October 04, 2014, 08:24:19 PM
It already was handled by them.
So what's your point?
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 04, 2014, 08:29:52 PM
Quote from: Valmy on October 04, 2014, 08:24:19 PM
It already was handled by them.
So what's your point?
1. My Relatives are all doomed to enternal Mormonhood anyway might as well find out who they were.
2. All my money goes to evil London Bankers while doing so.
Quote from: Valmy on October 04, 2014, 08:20:35 PM
Quote from: HVC on October 04, 2014, 08:18:45 PMeven worse.
The capitalists of London are largely responsible for the modern world...oh I get it now.
All this time I thought it was Bilderbergers. :(
Mormons are fine people. Ignore Squeelus on that issue.
Quote from: Caliga on October 04, 2014, 10:53:45 PM
Mormons are fine people. Ignore Squeelus on that issue.
They have an incredibly retarded, racist, and sexist belief system. Besides that they are alright. Still never living in Utah.
Their beliefs are kooky, but not more so than any Christians IMO. They get more flak cause they are unorthodox and a 'new' religious movement.
Quote from: Caliga on October 04, 2014, 11:00:50 PM
Their beliefs are kooky, but not more so than any Christians IMO. They get more flak cause they are unorthodox and a 'new' religious movement.
Their beliefs are pretty explicitely racist and sexist. If they were simply kooky that would be one thing.
I mean I am not going to hold it against them too much, lots of people have shit beliefs. But don't say I am giving them shit for being new and unorthodox. That is freaking stupid why would I care about orthodoxy or newness? Besides by now they are almost 200 years old that is hardly new. Plenty of new and unorthodox religions do not have those qualities so do not get flak from me.
dude relax... And that's why I put new in quotes. :blurgh:
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 04, 2014, 12:42:47 PM
Quote from: garbon on October 03, 2014, 07:37:46 PM
Is ancestry.com worth the cost*? I've always though the idea interesting / with various free online resources didn't get back past early 20th century (parents of my great great grandfather who was in Stanford's opening class).
*and if so, what level/sort of subscription?
You never struck me as the kind of person who would knowingly give money to the Church of Latter Day Saints.
Sheesh. Forgive me for asking a question. :rolleyes:
Quote from: Caliga on October 04, 2014, 11:00:50 PM
Their beliefs are kooky, but not more so than any Christians IMO.
No, definitely more so.
Quote from: Valmy on October 04, 2014, 11:03:56 PM
Quote from: Caliga on October 04, 2014, 11:00:50 PM
Their beliefs are kooky, but not more so than any Christians IMO. They get more flak cause they are unorthodox and a 'new' religious movement.
Their beliefs are pretty explicitely racist and sexist. If they were simply kooky that would be one thing.
I mean I am not going to hold it against them too much, lots of people have shit beliefs. But don't say I am giving them shit for being new and unorthodox. That is freaking stupid why would I care about orthodoxy or newness? Besides by now they are almost 200 years old that is hardly new. Plenty of new and unorthodox religions do not have those qualities so do not get flak from me.
One of my criminal justice professors back in community college told some long, drawn-out story of his days with the Los Angeles County sheriff's department that concluded with his belief (from one of his investigations) that the Mormon church was behind the smuggling of narcotics into the U.S. using the body bags of Vietnam KIAs, and that his investigation was suppressed. :P
He also seemed to believe that pretty much all cops were corrupt (I guess he thought his teaching criminal justice at a CC could be the change to fix all that), and that people who join the military cannot function in real society. :)
Quote from: Tonitrus on October 05, 2014, 05:10:42 PM
One of my criminal justice professors back in community college told some long, drawn-out story of his days with the Los Angeles County sheriff's department that concluded with his belief (from one of his investigations) that the Mormon church was behind the smuggling of narcotics into the U.S. using the body bags of Vietnam KIAs, and that his investigation was suppressed. :P
Those investigations are always suppressed. :mad:
QuoteHe also seemed to believe that pretty much all cops were corrupt (I guess he thought his teaching criminal justice at a CC could be the change to fix all that), and that people who join the military cannot function in real society. :)
I would find it difficult to disagree on both counts.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 05, 2014, 05:18:29 PM
QuoteHe also seemed to believe that pretty much all cops were corrupt (I guess he thought his teaching criminal justice at a CC could be the change to fix all that), and that people who join the military cannot function in real society. :)
I would find it difficult to disagree on both counts.
:ultra:
Mission-specific and task-oriented, yes. Ability to think for oneself and question authority, not so much. But that's why employers love you so much, they give you preference. :hug:
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 05, 2014, 05:23:11 PM
Mission-specific and task-oriented, yes. Ability to think for oneself and question authority, not so much. But that's why employers love you so much, they give you preference. :hug:
I rage against The Man all of the time. :)
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 04, 2014, 12:42:47 PM
You never struck me as the kind of person who would knowingly give money to the Church of Latter Day Saints.
FamilySearch.org is the one that's put together by the LDS Church. :contract:
They're all nuttier than squirrel shit.
Salt Lake City has a surprisingly decent variety of gay bars.
Oh, I just bet the LDS are all about the cock.
Quote from: Valmy on October 04, 2014, 10:56:53 PM
They have an incredibly retarded, racist, and sexist belief system.
Like you average GOP politician?
One nominee proposed reclassifying single parenthood as child abuse. (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/29/us/politics/midterm-elections-house-republicans.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&version=HpSum&module=first-column-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=1)
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 05, 2014, 05:23:11 PM
Mission-specific and task-oriented, yes. Ability to think for oneself and question authority, not so much.
:huh: Maybe for lower enlisted, but for NCO ranks on up, there is a lot of emphasis placed on decentralized leadership and decision-making. It's not the Soviet Army.
The biggest issue for ex-military in the civilian world IMO is that they lived in a bubble.
Quote from: derspiess on October 06, 2014, 10:24:22 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 05, 2014, 05:23:11 PM
Mission-specific and task-oriented, yes. Ability to think for oneself and question authority, not so much.
:huh: Maybe for lower enlisted, but for NCO ranks on up, there is a lot of emphasis placed on decentralized leadership and decision-making.
Sometimes. But even ex-junior officers don't always question their leadership to the degree necessary around the conference table.
Except maybe Anchorclanker, I'm sure he tells the King of Jordan what the score is these days.
QuoteThe biggest issue for ex-military in the civilian world IMO is that they lived in a bubble.
Depends on the environment they're in. Structured and among each other, sure. But there's chafing if it's too fluid and wide open.