British (and Irish) Newspaper Archive Special Offer

[At home in NZ]

Before I consider this offer I would like to know more about it. I have looked at the blog but can't find the answer to my questions.

Is there a list of the newspapers included in the website? If so, does it tell you which region/city the paper was published in?

How do you search the site? For example , do you need to know which newspaper to look through or, is there a broad search?

 

[jorghes]

When you sign up, they will send you regular updates of the papers that they are adding to the database. The list of titles can be found here.

So far I have searched using general search terms (such as surnames), but I have also narrowed down the search area by date range, newspaper, country, region and place. You can use any combination of the filters as you want. I think you can also search what is available through FindMyPast.

You can save and label items that you have saved on the site.

I have found birth, marriage and death notices; notices about robberies that my ancestors have been involved in and other information.

The two best discoveries I have made so far have been - discovering a 2nd great granduncle that I didn't know existed who was born in New York and died at the age of 10 in Liverpool and a newspaper article that helped remove a brick from the mystery around my 3x great grandfather.

 

[At home in NZ]

The two best discoveries I have made so far have been - discovering a 2nd great granduncle that I didn't know existed who was born in New York and died at the age of 10 in Liverpool and a newspaper article that helped remove a brick from the mystery around my 3x great grandfather.

I am impressed, and it sounds as though it's well worth a trial at least.
Many thanks for the info

 

[jorghes]

I am impressed, and it sounds as though it's well worth a trial at least.
Many thanks for the info

It's a British attempt at reproducing Trove - but they will have a lot more to digitise, so I can understand why it involves a subscription.

 

[peter]

It's a British attempt at reproducing Trove - but they will have a lot more to digitise, so I can understand why it involves a subscription.

Someone always has to pay - it's just a question of whether it is taxpayers or users (or council taxpayers in the case of library subscriptions).

 

[At home in NZ]

Someone always has to pay - it's just a question of whether it is taxpayers or users (or council taxpayers in the case of library subscriptions).

Our library is free, but yes it is run by the council and we pay council rates. Where I live, the council rates are just about the highest in the country

 

[At home in NZ]

Decided to bite the bullet and subscribe, used Peter's link and started to set myself up as a new member then received a message to say I was already registered. I have absolutely no recollection of it and no record of it in my password keeper. I applied for a new password, used Peter's link and paid so I hope LC does benefit.

 

[peter]

Decided to bite the bullet and subscribe, used Peter's link and started to set myself up as a new member then received a message to say I was already registered. I have absolutely no recollection of it and no record of it in my password keeper. I applied for a new password, used Peter's link and paid so I hope LC does benefit.

If you bought a 3 month subscription then we did, thank you. The key was to click my link again after the interruption - understandably some people don't do this.

 

[Bob Spiers]

The only Newspaper archive I ever found informative was the Australian "Trove" passed on to me by Oz friends in the Forum whilst researching my convict ancestors. I admit to hesitancy in subscribing to the British Newspaper Archive, but after reading postings decided to bite the bullet take a 12 month offer via the Newsletter link. This morning I finally conducted my first search.

I just typed in my wife's grandfather's surname (her mother's father) who was killed in action in 1915 in France. I expected little but after filtering down to the year and just with the surname, nothing more -not even as area filter - up came not only notification of his death in his home town of Northampton, but showing his photo in Military Uniform. EUREKA! What a bonus! My wife and family could never produce a photo for me to include in her Tribal Pages, nor did I find one online even though others have him in their Ancestry Trees. The photo is quite indistinct as Newspaper photos often are (which I may try to get improved later on) but for now I can now put a face to his name, to go with the much researched details about the terrible Battle at Aubers Ridge* Flanders in which he lost his life.

That alone made the subscription worthwhile, and I haven't even started to test it out in other areas.

*Battle of Aubers Ridge 9th May 2015. Extract from "History of War" online source:
The battle of Aubers Ridge fits the popular image of a First World War battle better than most. The British troops went over the top early on the morning of 9 May and were cut down by German machine gun fire. The survivors were pinned down in no mans land. No significant progress was made, and early on 10 May Haig ended the offensive. The British suffered 11,000 casualties in one day of fighting on a narrow front.

 

[peter]

Well done, Bob - your wife must be over the moon!

 

[canadianbeth]

I also decided to "bite the bullet" and subscribed for three months. I hope LC benefits, as I did use the link.
I then decided to enter my great-grandfather's name, to see if there was anything about the alleged prison for neglecting his children, and found a quite different article, regarding the theft of a ring by his sister. But now I am wondering how to save this to something besides what came up - unsorted folder, or new folder. Should I just do a copy/paste and then save it to my own folder?

Edited to add: I did not find anything about his being imprisoned and wonder if Barnardo Homes had it wrong. This is the information they told me regarding my Dad.
"In 1897 the grandparents were imprisoned for neglect and the six children were then admitted to Isleworth Union and were brought up by them." One of whom was my six-year-old grandmother.
But they left those children and promptly had eight more, after moving to Kent from Twickenham.

 

[At home in NZ]

If you bought a 3 month subscription then we did, thank you. The key was to click my link again after the interruption - understandably some people don't do this.

I did buy three months but after spending more time than I wanted to I did not find anything I hoped to and gave up. I've decided to have another go sometime.
I am not sure I understand the searching method as I was getting 'odd' results.
The only sort of useful piece of information I did find was the that the Westport and Louisburgh (County Mayo, Ireland) registration districts were split and given new names. However, I gather my Irish ancestors took no notice because some of them are in the 'wrong' district. although it may be the registrar's fault. In any case Irish records that do exist are not the most accurate when it comes to age and dates of marriage for instance.

 

[peter]

Irish records that do exist are not the most accurate when it comes to age and dates of marriage

It's very common for ages in marriage register entries to be wrong - but the only instances I've come across of the wrong date being given were where the vicar wrote the wrong year. It would be interesting to see some of your Irish examples as my experience is mostly of English records.

 

[At home in NZ]

It's very common for ages in marriage register entries to be wrong - but the only instances I've come across of the wrong date being given were where the vicar wrote the wrong year. It would be interesting to see some of your Irish examples as my experience is mostly of English records.

I didn't express myself very well, note to self...........
I meant number of years married, not wrong marriage dates, sorry.
It's mostly in the censuses where the wrong age is given and not only by people who cannot read or write. I had great 'fun' with the family in the census attached.

James Foye was the father of Patrick Malley's first wife Mary Foy who died in 1897.

When Patrick married Mary Foy in 1883 his declared age was 27.

In the attached 1901 census Patrick's declared age is 40 which is inconsistent with the marriage record, he should have declared 45.

In the 1911 census Patrick's declared age was 58.

In Patrick's death record he is a widower age 75, he died in 1936 and would actually have been abt 80. For interest sake and as an example of an Irish death registration record, it is attached, Patrick is entry number 2.

Patrick's first marriage to Mary Foy is also attached and you will see there isn't any discernible difference from the English parish registers.

About Irish birth records.

I would not be able to find an example right now but I do know there are instances in my tree where the birth date in the registration is later than the date of baptism.
Michael, in the attached census age 15 is entry number 42 in the birth record for 1885, attached

 

[At home in NZ]

An Irish Catholic baptism record from 1865
An Irish Catholic marriage church record from 1872

 

[jorghes]

It's mostly in the censuses where the wrong age is given and not only by people who cannot read or write. I had great 'fun' with the family in the census attached.

I usually presume ages on the censuses are rounded up a year for the most part.

As for the ages, there are also the fun ones when they deliberately change their age. In my tree there is a lady called Ada. She was born in Dec 1873, and for the first three censuses (1881, 1891 and 1901) she sticks with her actual age, and her birth year is given as 1874. From then on, she never gives her real age. In 1911, her birth year is given as 1880, making her only 31 to her future husband’s 22.
On the 1939 Register, it was given as 1888. You could only find her on the 1939 register if you looked for her Italian husband, who didn’t change his age and has a distinctive name.

Ada and her husband were killed in the Blitz in Sep 1940, and her death register entry gives her birth year as 1889. At her death they said she was 51, when she was actually 67.

 

[At home in NZ]

Ada and her husband were killed in the Blitz in Sep 1940

Sad and thanks.
Had a good one today with a name. in an 1861 English census. It was written and transcribed as Durky. After much searching I eventually found his marriage, Durkin. Others from the same area in Ireland are Durkan. It's classic case of how names change over the years.

 

[Bob Spiers]

As for the ages, there are also the fun ones when they deliberately change their age. In my tree there is a lady called Ada.

...and in mine called Bridget, or Biddy as she was known, my Irish Great Grandmother. I know she was born in Galway in 1844 from both her baptismal records (Dec 1844) and confirmed in the 1851 Irish Census extracts where she is recorded aged 6 (and later used by the Pension Office to confirm her dob).

She came over to England with her parents (GGx2) and married my English Great grandfather Henry in 1879 where her age is shown as 27* to her husband's 28 (which correctly mirrored his birth year of 1851). Biddy born 1844 was in fact 6/7 years older than her husband.

In 1881 she is shown as 30 to her husband's 29 so keeping up the near parity and in 1891 Census both are recorded as 39. Henry's age is consistent with the normal Census +/- a year, which Biddy maintains the deception. This is borne out again in 1901 keeps up the pretence where both are recorded as 50.

Henry died in 1911 and I could not find Biddy in the Census of that year. She lived on until February 1927 when she was recorded with the age of 74 although she would have been nearer 81. But I doubt her family would have known of this when registering her death.

I say good luck to Biddy trying to appear younger but have to admit it makes for a deal of confusion when researching. I often thought how much easier it would have been to just accept her admitted birth year of 1851/52, but facts are facts I'm afraid... Sorry Biddy

*Edit: I forgot to check 1871 where she was single and admitting to being 23 (so c 1848), then 8 years later when marrying only advancing 4 years to 27. Clearly this was a practice run!

 

[peter]

I meant number of years married, not wrong marriage dates

Thanks for taking the time to clarify your post - because this is an open area of the forum it's important that we don't inadvertently mislead others who might discover this discussion through Google.

 

[At home in NZ]

Thanks for taking the time to clarify your post - because this is an open area of the forum it's important that we don't inadvertently mislead others who might discover this discussion through Google.

OK, got the point. Did you have time to look at the attachments? What do you think of them?