Genealogy from [charsley.ged]News and links from the Genealogy from [charsley.ged] sitehttp://family.charsley.org.uk/2012-05-21T11:02:55+00:00Phil Charsley (c) 2012FeedCreator 1.8.0-dev (http://www.phpgedview.net)On This Day ...2012-05-21T11:02:52+00:002012-05-21T11:02:52+00:00http://family.charsley.org.uk/calendar.php?action=todayPhil Charsleyhttp://family.charsley.org.uk/Charsley, Douglas Death - 21 May 1983 (29 year anniversary) - Poole, Dorset, EnglandHill, Daniel Cheasley, Sarah Marriage - 21 May 1859 (153 year anniversary) - Paddington, Middlesex, EnglandCheasley, Phoebe Baptism - 21 May 1797 (215 year anniversary) - Gatton, Surrey, EnglandCheesley, Jane Burial - 21 May 1786 (226 year anniversary) - Deptford, Kent, EnglandChaseley, Benjamin Baptism - 21 May 1743 (269 year anniversary) - Ewell, Surrey, EnglandEarles, Charles Charsley, Mary Marriage - 21 May 1728 (284 year anniversary) - Westminster, Middlesex, EnglandCharsley, John Burial - 21 May 1680 (332 year anniversary) - Uxbridge, Middlesex, EnglandChersley, Jone Burial - 21 May 1638 (374 year anniversary) - Uxbridge, Middlesex, EnglandCrane, Thomas Charsley, Ann Marriage - 21 May 1632 (380 year anniversary) - City of London, England]]>Charsley, Douglas Death - 21 May 1983 (29 year anniversary) - Poole, Dorset, EnglandHill, Daniel Cheasley, Sarah Marriage - 21 May 1859 (153 year anniversary) - Paddington, Middlesex, EnglandCheasley, Phoebe Baptism - 21 May 1797 (215 year anniversary) - Gatton, Surrey, EnglandCheesley, Jane Burial - 21 May 1786 (226 year anniversary) - Deptford, Kent, EnglandChaseley, Benjamin Baptism - 21 May 1743 (269 year anniversary) - Ewell, Surrey, EnglandEarles, Charles Charsley, Mary Marriage - 21 May 1728 (284 year anniversary) - Westminster, Middlesex, EnglandCharsley, John Burial - 21 May 1680 (332 year anniversary) - Uxbridge, Middlesex, EnglandChersley, Jone Burial - 21 May 1638 (374 year anniversary) - Uxbridge, Middlesex, EnglandCrane, Thomas Charsley, Ann Marriage - 21 May 1632 (380 year anniversary) - City of London, England]]>GEDCOM Statistics - Genealogy from [charsley.ged]2012-02-09T00:00:00+00:002012-02-09T00:00:00+00:00http://family.charsley.org.uk/index.php?ctype=gedcom#gedcom_statsPhil Charsleyhttp://family.charsley.org.uk/9 February 2012 8041 - Individuals 2565 - Families 8882 - Sources 5 - Other records Earliest birth year - 1280 Latest birth year - 2012 Person who lived the longest - 100 Average age at death - 47 Family with the most children12 - Peter Lowe + Katherine Harriet Eliza Charlotte Cheasley (F1412) Marriage April 1875 West Ashford, Kent, England Average number of children per family - 1.45 Most Common Surnames Chadley; Chadsey; Chadsley; Charsley; Charsly; Chaseley; Chasely; Chasley; Cheasley; Cheeseley; Cheesley; Cheesly; Chersley; Chesley; Chisley]]>9 February 2012 8041 - Individuals 2565 - Families 8882 - Sources 5 - Other records Earliest birth year - 1280 Latest birth year - 2012 Person who lived the longest - 100 Average age at death - 47 Family with the most children12 - Peter Lowe + Katherine Harriet Eliza Charlotte Cheasley (F1412) Marriage April 1875 West Ashford, Kent, England Average number of children per family - 1.45 Most Common Surnames Chadley; Chadsey; Chadsley; Charsley; Charsly; Chaseley; Chasely; Chasley; Cheasley; Cheeseley; Cheesley; Cheesly; Chersley; Chesley; Chisley]]>Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)2012-04-09T10:10:17+00:002012-04-09T10:10:17+00:00http://family.charsley.org.uk/index.php?ctype=gedcom#article36Phil Charsleyhttp://family.charsley.org.uk/
Phil]]>
Phil]]>First Update of 20122012-02-09T14:34:45+00:002012-02-09T14:34:45+00:00http://family.charsley.org.uk/index.php?ctype=gedcom#article35Phil Charsleyhttp://family.charsley.org.uk/
I have continued my task of reviewing each record in turn, and have now made it up to record 4000. Almost half way! Recently this review has alowwed me to merge quite a number of records, by identifying ladies whose deaths were recorded, but where I had not found their maiden names. This merging has brought the number of individuals down from 8136 last time to 8041 this time. I am sure there are still more duplicates to find. I have also started to review Ancestry\'s latest database, Electoral Rolls for London, going back to about 1880. This is another source of addresses, and has been helpful in following peoples moves around London, especially between Census years. It is amazing how often many people moved a hundred years ago. You will also note that we have a new youngest entry (latest birth date) Congratulation to father Barron, my informant. If you know of any recent births marriages or deaths please let me know (checking of course that those near to them are happy for the information to appear!)
Phil]]>
I have continued my task of reviewing each record in turn, and have now made it up to record 4000. Almost half way! Recently this review has alowwed me to merge quite a number of records, by identifying ladies whose deaths were recorded, but where I had not found their maiden names. This merging has brought the number of individuals down from 8136 last time to 8041 this time. I am sure there are still more duplicates to find. I have also started to review Ancestry\'s latest database, Electoral Rolls for London, going back to about 1880. This is another source of addresses, and has been helpful in following peoples moves around London, especially between Census years. It is amazing how often many people moved a hundred years ago. You will also note that we have a new youngest entry (latest birth date) Congratulation to father Barron, my informant. If you know of any recent births marriages or deaths please let me know (checking of course that those near to them are happy for the information to appear!)
Phil]]>Christmas 2011 Update2011-12-17T17:56:11+00:002011-12-17T17:56:11+00:00http://family.charsley.org.uk/index.php?ctype=gedcom#article34Phil Charsleyhttp://family.charsley.org.uk/
I have at last completed my first review of the London Parish Records on Ancestry.co.uk. I am sure I have not yet found everything, but I did use my list of over 160 variant spellings. I am just not confident that it is exhaustive! I have also spent the last month checking individual records to see if they are as accurate and complete as I can make them. So far I am about one third of the way through this review, having got to Individual No 3000 of just over 9000! It has allowed me to weed out some of the duplicates, and also to use the power of the Ancestry website to find spouses from the early 19th century through to 1901. At that time the spouses name was not listed in the marriage register, and the only certain way was to buy a marriage certificate at about £7 each. This is not within my means, so an alternative approach is needed. The register page lists up to 4 couples, i.e. 4 husbands and 4 wives, but does not say who married whom! However, by searching the next census it is often possible to find the appropriate spouse, especially if one or other has an unusual Christian name. This has helped me to find quite a few additional families!
The results of this work can be seen in the table, where Total Trees counts trees of one or more persons, whereas the next line excludes single unrelated people. The next lines indicate the numbers of related people in each of the 8 largest trees.
--------------------------------April--------December----February-------December
--------------------------------2010--------2010-----------2011-----------2011
Total Individuals----------7702---------7500----------7668------------8136
Total Trees ----------------1908---------1838----------1896------------2066
Trees over 1 person----1156---------1131----------1147------------1246
Charsley (Bucks)-----------913-----------912------------913-------------933
Charsley (Middx)-----------606-----------603------------603-------------624
Cheesley (Surrey)---------366-----------366------------366-------------366
Cheesley (Wilts)-----------168-----------202------------168-------------168
Cheasley (Middx)----------217-----------217------------217-------------273
Cheesley (Wilts 2)--------144-----------161------------144-------------144
Cheasley (Middx 2)-------112------------135-----------112-------------118
Cheasley (N London)--------------------------------------------------------111
The 8 largest trees include all those with more than 100 individuals, but there are another 10 trees with between 30 and 82 people in them, so it would be good to see if I can link these. They are all Cheasley or Cheesley, but there are 2 unlinked Charsley trees (30 and 29 members) and both are in South Africa!
I still intend to see what further links I can forge in these trees, but it is quite a challenging task, with such a large database. At least my Rootsmagic program allows me to look at all the events in a particular location, and see if I have individuals entered as two separate people when they should be one!
One of my greatest difficulties is the variability of spelling of surnames in the 16th and 17th centuries. Often I find a single family where the surname is spelled 3 or 4 different ways at birth, marriage and baptism of the children. This is easy to spot if the first names are unique, but really hard when they are all Williams! Once again the advantage of using Rootsmagic is that you can enter alternative names (although being an American program it calls the “alternate names”!). Then you can get individuals listed by all their names, and comparing entries becomes a bit easier.
I do not really look forward to the dark evenings as winter approaches, but at least they give me a bit more time for this hobby, and the work on my allotment garden is easier to resist.
Phil Charsley
19 December 2011]]>
I have at last completed my first review of the London Parish Records on Ancestry.co.uk. I am sure I have not yet found everything, but I did use my list of over 160 variant spellings. I am just not confident that it is exhaustive! I have also spent the last month checking individual records to see if they are as accurate and complete as I can make them. So far I am about one third of the way through this review, having got to Individual No 3000 of just over 9000! It has allowed me to weed out some of the duplicates, and also to use the power of the Ancestry website to find spouses from the early 19th century through to 1901. At that time the spouses name was not listed in the marriage register, and the only certain way was to buy a marriage certificate at about £7 each. This is not within my means, so an alternative approach is needed. The register page lists up to 4 couples, i.e. 4 husbands and 4 wives, but does not say who married whom! However, by searching the next census it is often possible to find the appropriate spouse, especially if one or other has an unusual Christian name. This has helped me to find quite a few additional families!
The results of this work can be seen in the table, where Total Trees counts trees of one or more persons, whereas the next line excludes single unrelated people. The next lines indicate the numbers of related people in each of the 8 largest trees.
--------------------------------April--------December----February-------December
--------------------------------2010--------2010-----------2011-----------2011
Total Individuals----------7702---------7500----------7668------------8136
Total Trees ----------------1908---------1838----------1896------------2066
Trees over 1 person----1156---------1131----------1147------------1246
Charsley (Bucks)-----------913-----------912------------913-------------933
Charsley (Middx)-----------606-----------603------------603-------------624
Cheesley (Surrey)---------366-----------366------------366-------------366
Cheesley (Wilts)-----------168-----------202------------168-------------168
Cheasley (Middx)----------217-----------217------------217-------------273
Cheesley (Wilts 2)--------144-----------161------------144-------------144
Cheasley (Middx 2)-------112------------135-----------112-------------118
Cheasley (N London)--------------------------------------------------------111
The 8 largest trees include all those with more than 100 individuals, but there are another 10 trees with between 30 and 82 people in them, so it would be good to see if I can link these. They are all Cheasley or Cheesley, but there are 2 unlinked Charsley trees (30 and 29 members) and both are in South Africa!
I still intend to see what further links I can forge in these trees, but it is quite a challenging task, with such a large database. At least my Rootsmagic program allows me to look at all the events in a particular location, and see if I have individuals entered as two separate people when they should be one!
One of my greatest difficulties is the variability of spelling of surnames in the 16th and 17th centuries. Often I find a single family where the surname is spelled 3 or 4 different ways at birth, marriage and baptism of the children. This is easy to spot if the first names are unique, but really hard when they are all Williams! Once again the advantage of using Rootsmagic is that you can enter alternative names (although being an American program it calls the “alternate names”!). Then you can get individuals listed by all their names, and comparing entries becomes a bit easier.
I do not really look forward to the dark evenings as winter approaches, but at least they give me a bit more time for this hobby, and the work on my allotment garden is easier to resist.
Phil Charsley
19 December 2011]]>Second update of 20112011-07-10T22:01:52+00:002011-07-10T22:01:52+00:00http://family.charsley.org.uk/index.php?ctype=gedcom#article33Phil Charsleyhttp://family.charsley.org.uk/
Have a good summer one and all!]]>
Have a good summer one and all!]]>First Update of 20112011-04-23T21:32:13+00:002011-04-23T21:32:13+00:00http://family.charsley.org.uk/index.php?ctype=gedcom#article32Phil Charsleyhttp://family.charsley.org.uk/
The first two months of the year were spent downloading images of London births, marriages and deaths from Parish Records indexed by Ancestry.co.uk. It was a mammoth task, and my rough count of new sources amounts to 294 for Charsley, 143 for Cheasley, 99 for Cheesley and 135 for other spellings. I still have not finished the “other spellings” but will soldier on!
The results of this work can be seen in the table, where Total Individuals counts trees of one or more persons, whereas the next line excludes single unrelated people. The next lines indicate the numbers of related people in each of the 7 largest trees.
------------------------------April-2010---December-2010----February-2011
Total-Individuals-----------7702--------------7500------------------7668
Total-Trees-----------------1908--------------1838------------------1896
Trees-over-1-person-----1156--------------1131------------------1147
Charsley-(Bucks)----------913---------------912--------------------913
Charsley-(Middx)----------606---------------603--------------------603
Cheesley-(Surrey)---------366--------------366--------------------366
Cheesley-(Wilts)-----------217--------------202--------------------168
Cheasley-(Middx)----------168--------------217--------------------217
Cheesley-(Wilts-2)---------144-------------161--------------------144
Cheasley-(Middx-2)--------112-------------135--------------------112
Some of the new records have given me links I did not have before, such as fathers on marriage records. Unfortunately the earliest marriage records do not list relatives, so for early records it is only baptisms that really help.
It is some time since I looked to see if I could link any of the trees, so I will make that a task for this year!
I hope to meet some of our Charsley users at the Charsley Family Meeting on 9th July, which has been organised through the Charsley Group on facebook. It is at the Duke of Devonshire Pub in Balham, London. Please either Join the group or email me for more information!
Phil Charsley
16 April 2011]]>
The first two months of the year were spent downloading images of London births, marriages and deaths from Parish Records indexed by Ancestry.co.uk. It was a mammoth task, and my rough count of new sources amounts to 294 for Charsley, 143 for Cheasley, 99 for Cheesley and 135 for other spellings. I still have not finished the “other spellings” but will soldier on!
The results of this work can be seen in the table, where Total Individuals counts trees of one or more persons, whereas the next line excludes single unrelated people. The next lines indicate the numbers of related people in each of the 7 largest trees.
------------------------------April-2010---December-2010----February-2011
Total-Individuals-----------7702--------------7500------------------7668
Total-Trees-----------------1908--------------1838------------------1896
Trees-over-1-person-----1156--------------1131------------------1147
Charsley-(Bucks)----------913---------------912--------------------913
Charsley-(Middx)----------606---------------603--------------------603
Cheesley-(Surrey)---------366--------------366--------------------366
Cheesley-(Wilts)-----------217--------------202--------------------168
Cheasley-(Middx)----------168--------------217--------------------217
Cheesley-(Wilts-2)---------144-------------161--------------------144
Cheasley-(Middx-2)--------112-------------135--------------------112
Some of the new records have given me links I did not have before, such as fathers on marriage records. Unfortunately the earliest marriage records do not list relatives, so for early records it is only baptisms that really help.
It is some time since I looked to see if I could link any of the trees, so I will make that a task for this year!
I hope to meet some of our Charsley users at the Charsley Family Meeting on 9th July, which has been organised through the Charsley Group on facebook. It is at the Duke of Devonshire Pub in Balham, London. Please either Join the group or email me for more information!
Phil Charsley
16 April 2011]]>3rd Update of 20102010-12-17T11:42:39+00:002010-12-17T11:42:39+00:00http://family.charsley.org.uk/index.php?ctype=gedcom#article31Phil Charsleyhttp://family.charsley.org.uk/
I started the year with good intentions, and managed my second update in April. However, the summer is never a good time for family history, what with work on my allotment, and visits to our holiday home in Norfolk, not to mention a week in Corfu!
This autumn I did manage to put some time in, and have completed a review of the National Probate Register on Ancestry.com. They have now put up the 1911 census, so I will start work on that next. I had used the index before, but did not pay to look at the entries, so I expect to find more useful information.
Progress on the database has continued, as shown by the following table, where Total Individuals counts trees of one or more persons, whereas the next line excludes single unrelated people. The next lines indicate the numbers of related people in each of the 7 largest trees.
------------------------------- July 09--------February 10---------December 10
Total Individuals-----------7331-------------7509------------------7500
Total Trees-----------------1890-------------1844------------------1838
Trees over 1 person-----1170-------------1136------------------1131
Charsley (Bucks)------------892---------------912--------------------912
Charsley (Middx)------------579---------------596--------------------603
Cheasley (Surrey)----------360---------------366--------------------366
Cheesley (Wilts)------------160---------------202--------------------202
Cheasley (Middx)-----------148---------------161--------------------168
Cheesley (Wilts 2)---------126---------------135--------------------161
Cheasley (Middx)-----------107---------------111--------------------135
As you can see, the individuals increase from newly identified people, but fall as I remove duplicates. The total trees fall as I manage to link them, but there are still an awful lot of small trees and unlinked individuals. I suppose this is inevitable, as so many early records have either disappeared or not been indexed. Still I fight on.
Have a good Christmas one and all, and a happy and successful 2011!
Phil Charsley
17 Dec 2010]]>
I started the year with good intentions, and managed my second update in April. However, the summer is never a good time for family history, what with work on my allotment, and visits to our holiday home in Norfolk, not to mention a week in Corfu!
This autumn I did manage to put some time in, and have completed a review of the National Probate Register on Ancestry.com. They have now put up the 1911 census, so I will start work on that next. I had used the index before, but did not pay to look at the entries, so I expect to find more useful information.
Progress on the database has continued, as shown by the following table, where Total Individuals counts trees of one or more persons, whereas the next line excludes single unrelated people. The next lines indicate the numbers of related people in each of the 7 largest trees.
------------------------------- July 09--------February 10---------December 10
Total Individuals-----------7331-------------7509------------------7500
Total Trees-----------------1890-------------1844------------------1838
Trees over 1 person-----1170-------------1136------------------1131
Charsley (Bucks)------------892---------------912--------------------912
Charsley (Middx)------------579---------------596--------------------603
Cheasley (Surrey)----------360---------------366--------------------366
Cheesley (Wilts)------------160---------------202--------------------202
Cheasley (Middx)-----------148---------------161--------------------168
Cheesley (Wilts 2)---------126---------------135--------------------161
Cheasley (Middx)-----------107---------------111--------------------135
As you can see, the individuals increase from newly identified people, but fall as I remove duplicates. The total trees fall as I manage to link them, but there are still an awful lot of small trees and unlinked individuals. I suppose this is inevitable, as so many early records have either disappeared or not been indexed. Still I fight on.
Have a good Christmas one and all, and a happy and successful 2011!
Phil Charsley
17 Dec 2010]]>2nd Update for 20102010-04-22T17:39:52+00:002010-04-22T17:39:52+00:00http://family.charsley.org.uk/index.php?ctype=gedcom#article30Phil Charsleyhttp://family.charsley.org.uk/
I have also completed my first pass of the London Parish Records form the London Metropolitan Archives now indexed on Ancestry.com. The next challenge is to review the unindexed records available prior to 1800! One of my correspondants has already supplied me with some data from a personal search, but this needs real dedication to seach entry by entry and page by page. It will go on my to-do list!
Currently i have set myself the task of reviewing all the emails I have had in the last year, to check that I have done the appropriate updates. This will probably take a month or two, so do not hold your breath!
Phil]]>
I have also completed my first pass of the London Parish Records form the London Metropolitan Archives now indexed on Ancestry.com. The next challenge is to review the unindexed records available prior to 1800! One of my correspondants has already supplied me with some data from a personal search, but this needs real dedication to seach entry by entry and page by page. It will go on my to-do list!
Currently i have set myself the task of reviewing all the emails I have had in the last year, to check that I have done the appropriate updates. This will probably take a month or two, so do not hold your breath!
Phil]]>1st Update of 20102010-02-01T23:59:17+00:002010-02-01T23:59:17+00:00http://family.charsley.org.uk/index.php?ctype=gedcom#article29Phil Charsleyhttp://family.charsley.org.uk/
Since my Christmas update I have started work on the recent London Parish Record data that Ancestry.com have transcribed and scanned for the London metropolitan Archives (LMA). I had visited the LMA in the past, but it was hard work finding entries by scrolling through microfilm fiches on a viewer, unless you knew the church where you would find the entries. I had searched Hendon for my ancestors and close family, but had pretty much stopped at that. Now the whole of the data from about 1800 onwards is easy to access, and the scans are there to check for transcription completeness and errors. So far I have checked baptisms, marriages and burials for Charsley, and am a good way through with Cheasley and Cheesley.
Due to this, and other information contributed by various correspondents, the number of people in the database has expanded, as have the sizes of the main family groups. Taking the July 2009 update for comparison, the statistics now show that I have 7509 Individuals (7331 in October), total trees, including unlinked people 1844 (1890), trees excluding unlinked people 708 (720). The largest 5 trees link the following numbers of individuals: Charsley (originally from Buckinghamshire) 912 (892), Charsley (originally from Middlesex) 596 (579), Cheasley (originally from Surrey) 366 (360), Cheesley (originally from Wiltshire) 202 (160), and Cheasley (originally from Middlesex) 168 (148).
We still have 114 users listed for the website, but I have managed to do some clearing out of the list, and about 10 duplicate entries have been removed, and all but one of these 114 have signed on at some time. Several people have sent me data recently, and I hope it is all included in the update. If not, please remind me what you sent!
Phil Charsley 2 Feb 2010
]]>
Since my Christmas update I have started work on the recent London Parish Record data that Ancestry.com have transcribed and scanned for the London metropolitan Archives (LMA). I had visited the LMA in the past, but it was hard work finding entries by scrolling through microfilm fiches on a viewer, unless you knew the church where you would find the entries. I had searched Hendon for my ancestors and close family, but had pretty much stopped at that. Now the whole of the data from about 1800 onwards is easy to access, and the scans are there to check for transcription completeness and errors. So far I have checked baptisms, marriages and burials for Charsley, and am a good way through with Cheasley and Cheesley.
Due to this, and other information contributed by various correspondents, the number of people in the database has expanded, as have the sizes of the main family groups. Taking the July 2009 update for comparison, the statistics now show that I have 7509 Individuals (7331 in October), total trees, including unlinked people 1844 (1890), trees excluding unlinked people 708 (720). The largest 5 trees link the following numbers of individuals: Charsley (originally from Buckinghamshire) 912 (892), Charsley (originally from Middlesex) 596 (579), Cheasley (originally from Surrey) 366 (360), Cheesley (originally from Wiltshire) 202 (160), and Cheasley (originally from Middlesex) 168 (148).
We still have 114 users listed for the website, but I have managed to do some clearing out of the list, and about 10 duplicate entries have been removed, and all but one of these 114 have signed on at some time. Several people have sent me data recently, and I hope it is all included in the update. If not, please remind me what you sent!
Phil Charsley 2 Feb 2010
]]>Christmas 2009 Newsletter2009-12-08T17:51:59+00:002009-12-08T17:51:59+00:00http://family.charsley.org.uk/index.php?ctype=gedcom#article28Phil Charsleyhttp://family.charsley.org.uk/
Updates this year have been many and varied, but I still have not been able to keep up with the emails I have received, so if you have sent me information that does not yet appear please accept my apology, and remind me again!
If you are a Charsley descendant, and have a Facebook account, but have not yet joined the Facebook Charsley group, please do so, and chat to the rest of us. I admit (and have been told) that I am too old for Facebook, and this is evident to me from all the chatting that goes on among the younger members. However, it is good to chat, they tell me, and I have found it helpful for asking family history questions (like who are you?)
If you are a Cheasley or Cheesley or Chesley descendant, why not set up a Facebook Group for your name, and invite the people you know to join. You can also search for people of your name already on Facebook and ask them to join. Please let me know if you do this! We might even set up a Ch?ley Group.
I am still considering a DNA study, to see if we can prove whether the names all come from the same stock, so if you would be willing to take part, please let me know.
I am quite pleased to have achieved 4 updates this year, while also selling my holiday home in France and buying one in Norfolk. The 12 hour journey to St Pierre de Chartreuse was getting a bit too much, so our new journey of only 2 hours means that we can go more often, and Amy can take School friends for the weekend.
If you have not visited the website for some time, please do so, and confirm that all the information about your close family agrees with what you know.
And have a good family Christmas one and all!
Phil
]]>
Updates this year have been many and varied, but I still have not been able to keep up with the emails I have received, so if you have sent me information that does not yet appear please accept my apology, and remind me again!
If you are a Charsley descendant, and have a Facebook account, but have not yet joined the Facebook Charsley group, please do so, and chat to the rest of us. I admit (and have been told) that I am too old for Facebook, and this is evident to me from all the chatting that goes on among the younger members. However, it is good to chat, they tell me, and I have found it helpful for asking family history questions (like who are you?)
If you are a Cheasley or Cheesley or Chesley descendant, why not set up a Facebook Group for your name, and invite the people you know to join. You can also search for people of your name already on Facebook and ask them to join. Please let me know if you do this! We might even set up a Ch?ley Group.
I am still considering a DNA study, to see if we can prove whether the names all come from the same stock, so if you would be willing to take part, please let me know.
I am quite pleased to have achieved 4 updates this year, while also selling my holiday home in France and buying one in Norfolk. The 12 hour journey to St Pierre de Chartreuse was getting a bit too much, so our new journey of only 2 hours means that we can go more often, and Amy can take School friends for the weekend.
If you have not visited the website for some time, please do so, and confirm that all the information about your close family agrees with what you know.
And have a good family Christmas one and all!
Phil
]]>3rd Update of 20092009-07-31T20:06:15+00:002009-07-31T20:06:15+00:00http://family.charsley.org.uk/index.php?ctype=gedcom#article27Phil Charsleyhttp://family.charsley.org.uk/
Due to this, and other information contributed by various correspondents, the number of people in the database has expanded, as have the sizes of the main family groups. Taking the October 2008 update for comparison, the statistics now show that I have 7331 Individuals (6938 in October), total trees, including unlinked people 1890 (1950), trees excluding unlinked people 720 (1204). The largest 5 trees link the following numbers of individuals: Charsley (originally from Buckinghamshire) 892 (800), Charsley (originally from Middlesex) 579 (468), Cheasley (originally from Surrey) 360 (358), Cheesley (originally from Wiltshire) 160 (122), and Cheasley (originally from Middlesex) 148 (101). In addition, there are two more trees with over 100 people.
We now have 114 users listed for the website, but several have never signed on, so we obviously need some clearing out of the list. I will endeavour to do this before the next update, and to encourage those who are genuine relatives to actually sign on and check the data that they can. Expect a personal email to say what I would like you to check or supply!
Phil Charsley 22 July 2009]]>
Due to this, and other information contributed by various correspondents, the number of people in the database has expanded, as have the sizes of the main family groups. Taking the October 2008 update for comparison, the statistics now show that I have 7331 Individuals (6938 in October), total trees, including unlinked people 1890 (1950), trees excluding unlinked people 720 (1204). The largest 5 trees link the following numbers of individuals: Charsley (originally from Buckinghamshire) 892 (800), Charsley (originally from Middlesex) 579 (468), Cheasley (originally from Surrey) 360 (358), Cheesley (originally from Wiltshire) 160 (122), and Cheasley (originally from Middlesex) 148 (101). In addition, there are two more trees with over 100 people.
We now have 114 users listed for the website, but several have never signed on, so we obviously need some clearing out of the list. I will endeavour to do this before the next update, and to encourage those who are genuine relatives to actually sign on and check the data that they can. Expect a personal email to say what I would like you to check or supply!
Phil Charsley 22 July 2009]]>First Update of 2008 for www.family.charsley.org.uk2008-10-10T19:45:17+00:002008-10-10T19:45:17+00:00http://family.charsley.org.uk/index.php?ctype=gedcom#article26Phil Charsleyhttp://family.charsley.org.uk/
As a measure of the change since December, the statistics below show figures now, with December figures in brackets: Individuals 6938 (6907), unlinked trees, including single people 1950 (1995), trees excluding unlinked people 1204 (1217). The largest 5 trees link the following numbers of individuals: Charsley (originally from Buckinghamshire) 800 (756), Charsley (originally from Middlesex) 468 (447), Cheasley (originally from Surrey) 358 (357), Cheesley (originally from Wiltshire) 122 (97), and Cheasley (originally from Middlesex) 101 (84).
Alan Watts did lots of work in the past on Buckinghamshire parish registers, but no one has tried the same for Wiltshire (Cheesley), Surrey (Cheasley) or London and Middlesex (Charsley). If anyone has a hundred hours or so to spare, please let me know!
I am setting my own next objective as identifying key birth or marriage certificates to purchase that might link trees or just individuals to trees. My family know that I don’t throw money around when I can avoid it, but it becomes harder and harder to believe that someone alive today might remember the name of their grandfather’s grandfather!
Please remember to check that all the facts that you know are on the website. If you have not logged on for some time please do so. If you have never activated your account on the site, please do so now, as we will be removing accounts that have never been accessed within a couple of months!
Keep happy!
Phil]]>
As a measure of the change since December, the statistics below show figures now, with December figures in brackets: Individuals 6938 (6907), unlinked trees, including single people 1950 (1995), trees excluding unlinked people 1204 (1217). The largest 5 trees link the following numbers of individuals: Charsley (originally from Buckinghamshire) 800 (756), Charsley (originally from Middlesex) 468 (447), Cheasley (originally from Surrey) 358 (357), Cheesley (originally from Wiltshire) 122 (97), and Cheasley (originally from Middlesex) 101 (84).
Alan Watts did lots of work in the past on Buckinghamshire parish registers, but no one has tried the same for Wiltshire (Cheesley), Surrey (Cheasley) or London and Middlesex (Charsley). If anyone has a hundred hours or so to spare, please let me know!
I am setting my own next objective as identifying key birth or marriage certificates to purchase that might link trees or just individuals to trees. My family know that I don’t throw money around when I can avoid it, but it becomes harder and harder to believe that someone alive today might remember the name of their grandfather’s grandfather!
Please remember to check that all the facts that you know are on the website. If you have not logged on for some time please do so. If you have never activated your account on the site, please do so now, as we will be removing accounts that have never been accessed within a couple of months!
Keep happy!
Phil]]>All Change Again2008-01-04T13:33:14+00:002008-01-04T13:33:14+00:00http://family.charsley.org.uk/index.php?ctype=gedcom#article1Phil Charsleyhttp://family.charsley.org.uk/
I hope everyone should be able to access the data they could previously access, if not then email me and I\'ll see if I can fix the problems.
Not everything is currently working, so if you get any odd messages please email me and I\'ll get them removed.
Enjoy the experience.
Nick (c)]]>
I hope everyone should be able to access the data they could previously access, if not then email me and I\'ll see if I can fix the problems.
Not everything is currently working, so if you get any odd messages please email me and I\'ll get them removed.
Enjoy the experience.
Nick (c)]]>Happy Christmas 20072007-12-25T17:54:10+00:002007-12-25T17:54:10+00:00http://family.charsley.org.uk/index.php?ctype=gedcom#article25Phil Charsleyhttp://family.charsley.org.uk/
The major input for this update has been the on-line sources from “Family History On-line”. Some of these I already had from Alan Watts, and I have simply changed them to note the original source. We have moved forward a bit on the families front, but the number of families has fallen from 2248 families last time to only 1995 this time, despite a lot of new people having been added. I have worked hard to identify and remove duplicate people, and this has also allowed me to do some linking. The biggest Charsley tree has risen from 709 members to 756! I am particularly proud of the research that has allowed my own Charsley tree to rise from 383 members to 447 members, and I write about that below. I am still stuck with the biggest Cheasley/Cheesley tree having 357 members, and will take it as a challenge to do something to improve this next year!
Last Christmas I was struggling to prove that Edward Charsley, who married Margaret Irvine in Edinburgh in 1869 was the same person as Edward Charsley, son of John James Charsley and Eliza Marchetti. The first Edward emigrated to South Africa, and started a dynasty, some of whom are on my email list. The second one was the grandson of my third great grandfather. I had tried to prove the two Edwards were one by checking the marriage certificate, but it was not conclusive. I could not find either Edward on the 1871 census, and was close to deciding that DNA testing was the only way forward. However, I decided a few weeks ago to have one last shot at paper records. I believed that Edward and Margaret Irvine had 2 children in 1870 and 1872. Agnes Eliza M was the first, and the second was another Edward, recorded in IGI as a child of the marriage. Since the Marriage Certificate listed Margaret’s mother as Agnes, it seemed possible that Agnes Eliza was named for her two grandmothers. Imagine my delight when the certificate arrived, to reveal that Agnes Eliza’s third initial stood for Marchetti! I know this is not absolute proof, but it is as good as it gets! IGI only lists 17 entries for the surname Marchetti, and only about 6 of them are different people. Thus I am pleased to say “Hi Cousin” to about 20 people in Southern Africa. Fourth Cousin once removed is still a blood link, however diluted!
Phil Charsley
19 Dec 2007]]>
The major input for this update has been the on-line sources from “Family History On-line”. Some of these I already had from Alan Watts, and I have simply changed them to note the original source. We have moved forward a bit on the families front, but the number of families has fallen from 2248 families last time to only 1995 this time, despite a lot of new people having been added. I have worked hard to identify and remove duplicate people, and this has also allowed me to do some linking. The biggest Charsley tree has risen from 709 members to 756! I am particularly proud of the research that has allowed my own Charsley tree to rise from 383 members to 447 members, and I write about that below. I am still stuck with the biggest Cheasley/Cheesley tree having 357 members, and will take it as a challenge to do something to improve this next year!
Last Christmas I was struggling to prove that Edward Charsley, who married Margaret Irvine in Edinburgh in 1869 was the same person as Edward Charsley, son of John James Charsley and Eliza Marchetti. The first Edward emigrated to South Africa, and started a dynasty, some of whom are on my email list. The second one was the grandson of my third great grandfather. I had tried to prove the two Edwards were one by checking the marriage certificate, but it was not conclusive. I could not find either Edward on the 1871 census, and was close to deciding that DNA testing was the only way forward. However, I decided a few weeks ago to have one last shot at paper records. I believed that Edward and Margaret Irvine had 2 children in 1870 and 1872. Agnes Eliza M was the first, and the second was another Edward, recorded in IGI as a child of the marriage. Since the Marriage Certificate listed Margaret’s mother as Agnes, it seemed possible that Agnes Eliza was named for her two grandmothers. Imagine my delight when the certificate arrived, to reveal that Agnes Eliza’s third initial stood for Marchetti! I know this is not absolute proof, but it is as good as it gets! IGI only lists 17 entries for the surname Marchetti, and only about 6 of them are different people. Thus I am pleased to say “Hi Cousin” to about 20 people in Southern Africa. Fourth Cousin once removed is still a blood link, however diluted!
Phil Charsley
19 Dec 2007]]>Christmas Update 20072007-12-25T17:50:50+00:002007-12-25T17:50:50+00:00http://family.charsley.org.uk/index.php?ctype=gedcom#article24Phil Charsleyhttp://family.charsley.org.uk/
GEDCOM Statistics
Charsley Genealogy
This GEDCOM was created using RootsMagic 2.0 on 19 December 2007
6805 Individuals, 2272 Families, 6832 Sources, 2 Other Records
Most Common Surnames
Chadsley, Charsley, Chaseley, Chasley, Cheasley, Cheesley, Chersley, Chesley
nick (c) ]]>
GEDCOM Statistics
Charsley Genealogy
This GEDCOM was created using RootsMagic 2.0 on 19 December 2007
6805 Individuals, 2272 Families, 6832 Sources, 2 Other Records
Most Common Surnames
Chadsley, Charsley, Chaseley, Chasley, Cheasley, Cheesley, Chersley, Chesley
nick (c) ]]>Update at last2007-10-14T19:23:47+00:002007-10-14T19:23:47+00:00http://family.charsley.org.uk/index.php?ctype=gedcom#article23Phil Charsleyhttp://family.charsley.org.uk/
The new Gedcom has quite a few more people, but also quite some rationalisation, thanks to input from a number of new sources. I have had input from June Tilley, a Cheesley descendant; Gill Fox, a Cheasley descendant, and Elizabeth Anne Charsley from USA. My Ancestry.co.uk subscription ran out a few months ago, so I recently decided to check that I had everything from “Family Search”, and found that I was up to 5 years behind with their new entries! I am now working on new on-line sources from “Family History On-line”, and finding quite a few sources and people I had not entered. However, relatively few of these allow me to connect any families, so we still stand with 2248 families, but only 3 of these have more than 100 members (2 Charsley trees of 709 and 383 members, and one Cheasley/Cheesley tree with 357 members). It would be really good to be able to report next year that we had a tree with more than 1000 people in it! Perhaps my retirement will help, but any link that any of you can provide could reduce the number of unlinked trees below the current 1936!
]]>
The new Gedcom has quite a few more people, but also quite some rationalisation, thanks to input from a number of new sources. I have had input from June Tilley, a Cheesley descendant; Gill Fox, a Cheasley descendant, and Elizabeth Anne Charsley from USA. My Ancestry.co.uk subscription ran out a few months ago, so I recently decided to check that I had everything from “Family Search”, and found that I was up to 5 years behind with their new entries! I am now working on new on-line sources from “Family History On-line”, and finding quite a few sources and people I had not entered. However, relatively few of these allow me to connect any families, so we still stand with 2248 families, but only 3 of these have more than 100 members (2 Charsley trees of 709 and 383 members, and one Cheasley/Cheesley tree with 357 members). It would be really good to be able to report next year that we had a tree with more than 1000 people in it! Perhaps my retirement will help, but any link that any of you can provide could reduce the number of unlinked trees below the current 1936!
]]>Another Update2007-10-05T14:16:26+00:002007-10-05T14:16:26+00:00http://family.charsley.org.uk/index.php?ctype=gedcom#article22Phil Charsleyhttp://family.charsley.org.uk/
The GEDCOM update has been compleated and so it now stands as follows
Charsley Genealogy
This GEDCOM was created using RootsMagic 2.0 on 27 September 2007
6678 Individuals, 2248 Families, 6577 Sources, 2 Other Records
Most Common Surnames
Chadsley, Charsley, Chaseley, Chasley, Cheasley, Cheesley, Chersley, Chesley
Nick (c)]]>
The GEDCOM update has been compleated and so it now stands as follows
Charsley Genealogy
This GEDCOM was created using RootsMagic 2.0 on 27 September 2007
6678 Individuals, 2248 Families, 6577 Sources, 2 Other Records
Most Common Surnames
Chadsley, Charsley, Chaseley, Chasley, Cheasley, Cheesley, Chersley, Chesley
Nick (c)]]>New Affiliate Partnerships2007-06-10T20:49:00+00:002007-06-10T20:49:00+00:00http://family.charsley.org.uk/index.php?ctype=gedcom#article21Phil Charsleyhttp://family.charsley.org.uk/
However we all know that hosting a website costs, and there is time and effort that goes into updating and maintaining it.
To help cover some of these costs I''ve signed up with a selection of Affiliates who I hope will be of interest to visitors to this site. We''ve used Google AdSence for quite a long time now, and to this we''ve added: www.Ancestry.co.uk, Burke''s Peerage & Gentry, OneGreatFamily and Simply Find Breaks.
A really good place to start online reasearch. But remember to always backup online research with the actual records. Burke''s Peerage & Gentry
The definitive historical and genealogical guide to the major British, Irish and American families. OneGreatFamily
An online tree bulider, that uses the data entered to merge different trees. Simply Find Breaks
Book Short Break holidays, or Hotels to visit those hard to reah research locations. ]]>
However we all know that hosting a website costs, and there is time and effort that goes into updating and maintaining it.
To help cover some of these costs I''ve signed up with a selection of Affiliates who I hope will be of interest to visitors to this site. We''ve used Google AdSence for quite a long time now, and to this we''ve added: www.Ancestry.co.uk, Burke''s Peerage & Gentry, OneGreatFamily and Simply Find Breaks.
A really good place to start online reasearch. But remember to always backup online research with the actual records. Burke''s Peerage & Gentry
The definitive historical and genealogical guide to the major British, Irish and American families. OneGreatFamily
An online tree bulider, that uses the data entered to merge different trees. Simply Find Breaks
Book Short Break holidays, or Hotels to visit those hard to reah research locations. ]]>2006-11-19T20:25:06+00:002006-11-19T20:25:06+00:00http://family.charsley.org.uk/index.php?ctype=gedcom#article20Phil Charsleyhttp://family.charsley.org.uk/
Charsley Genealogy
This GEDCOM was created using RootsMagic 2.0 on 19 November 2006
6247 Individuals, 2094 Families, 6050 Sources, 2 Other Records
Most Common Surnames
Chadsley, Charsley, Chaseley, Chasley, Cheasley, Cheesley, Chersley, Chesley.
Nick (c) ]]>
Charsley Genealogy
This GEDCOM was created using RootsMagic 2.0 on 19 November 2006
6247 Individuals, 2094 Families, 6050 Sources, 2 Other Records
Most Common Surnames
Chadsley, Charsley, Chaseley, Chasley, Cheasley, Cheesley, Chersley, Chesley.
Nick (c) ]]>Coming Soon2006-11-19T10:02:35+00:002006-11-19T10:02:35+00:00http://family.charsley.org.uk/index.php?ctype=gedcom#article19Phil Charsleyhttp://family.charsley.org.uk/
Phil ]]>
Phil ]]>Charsley.org update February 20062006-02-18T14:57:50+00:002006-02-18T14:57:50+00:00http://family.charsley.org.uk/index.php?ctype=gedcom#article18Phil Charsleyhttp://family.charsley.org.uk/
Please remember that you can help me, at least by telling me of anything that I have wrong, but better by offering to help! ]]>
Please remember that you can help me, at least by telling me of anything that I have wrong, but better by offering to help! ]]>Now is the Time to Connect Everyone!2005-10-24T15:03:25+00:002005-10-24T15:03:25+00:00http://family.charsley.org.uk/index.php?ctype=gedcom#article16Phil Charsleyhttp://family.charsley.org.uk/www.charsley.org. However, the biggest job remains, and this is to link all the people we can. Are you related to anyone in the database? If so, please contact us, and provide whatever information you can to link up people. I have used all the available census information from 1861 through to 1901, but this still leaves a lot of people unlinked. Short of buying all the birth, marriage and death certificates, the major source of free information is your memories, intuition and documents. Can you help?
I have a database of addresses from the UK Electoral Register, although it is a bit old. I contacted all the Charsleys a couple of years ago, but now plan to do the same with Cheasleys and Cheesleys. This costs time, but not a lot of money, as there are about 100 of each, and by the time I sort them into households, it means about 100 letters in total. I hope to get this done before Christmas, so some people may get an unexpected Christmas card!
If you are outside UK this clearly will not get to you, so please e-mail!
Phil Charsley ]]>www.charsley.org. However, the biggest job remains, and this is to link all the people we can. Are you related to anyone in the database? If so, please contact us, and provide whatever information you can to link up people. I have used all the available census information from 1861 through to 1901, but this still leaves a lot of people unlinked. Short of buying all the birth, marriage and death certificates, the major source of free information is your memories, intuition and documents. Can you help?
I have a database of addresses from the UK Electoral Register, although it is a bit old. I contacted all the Charsleys a couple of years ago, but now plan to do the same with Cheasleys and Cheesleys. This costs time, but not a lot of money, as there are about 100 of each, and by the time I sort them into households, it means about 100 letters in total. I hope to get this done before Christmas, so some people may get an unexpected Christmas card!
If you are outside UK this clearly will not get to you, so please e-mail!
Phil Charsley ]]>Happy Birthday2005-08-01T12:06:16+00:002005-08-01T12:06:16+00:00http://family.charsley.org.uk/index.php?ctype=gedcom#article15Phil Charsleyhttp://family.charsley.org.uk/ The next stage should see us add a fully functioning message board, where I hope people will be able to share not only information on relatives, but also hints on how they have managed to overcome brick walls, good points of call for on-line and off-line research. I hope we can produce a real on-line community.
My intention was always to provide this as a ‘free’ site both in access to information and payment, the only restriction being that it should be for family members. The upgraded site will be no different, although the restriction of being ‘family’ will be relaxed on some of the community pages. The provision of data will still be on a restricted basis.
However (didn’t we just know there would be a but :) the provision of this site and the time taken to maintain it does cost, not a lot, but it still does. We are lucky that so many people are willing to pass on the results of their labour, and help to build the data on the site. I am still adamant that this will not be a charged for site, so I would like to request support from the visitors to this site.
Last September I organised a team from my work to take part in Byte Night an event that raises funds for homeless children in the UK. Last year our team of five had a target of £4000 to raise, and with the help of our employer (Barclaycard) matching our funds pound for pound we achieved it. This year it looks like we will manage to enter 2 teams of five, with a target of £5000 per team. The following link will take you to the site where you can if you wish make a contribution, if you are able to donate, please indicate in the comments that you are doing it in respect of the charsley.org site. Also please keep your fingers crossed for good weather on the 23rd September.
Nick Charsley]]> The next stage should see us add a fully functioning message board, where I hope people will be able to share not only information on relatives, but also hints on how they have managed to overcome brick walls, good points of call for on-line and off-line research. I hope we can produce a real on-line community.
My intention was always to provide this as a ‘free’ site both in access to information and payment, the only restriction being that it should be for family members. The upgraded site will be no different, although the restriction of being ‘family’ will be relaxed on some of the community pages. The provision of data will still be on a restricted basis.
However (didn’t we just know there would be a but :) the provision of this site and the time taken to maintain it does cost, not a lot, but it still does. We are lucky that so many people are willing to pass on the results of their labour, and help to build the data on the site. I am still adamant that this will not be a charged for site, so I would like to request support from the visitors to this site.
Last September I organised a team from my work to take part in Byte Night an event that raises funds for homeless children in the UK. Last year our team of five had a target of £4000 to raise, and with the help of our employer (Barclaycard) matching our funds pound for pound we achieved it. This year it looks like we will manage to enter 2 teams of five, with a target of £5000 per team. The following link will take you to the site where you can if you wish make a contribution, if you are able to donate, please indicate in the comments that you are doing it in respect of the charsley.org site. Also please keep your fingers crossed for good weather on the 23rd September.
Nick Charsley]]>Site Upgrade2005-06-18T11:03:22+00:002005-06-18T11:03:22+00:00http://family.charsley.org.uk/index.php?ctype=gedcom#article14Phil Charsleyhttp://family.charsley.org.uk/ There are some oddities (error messages), caused by the Upgrade I''m working hard to track them down and eradicate them. They don''t appear to stop the site working, but are a bit ugly!
if you come across a serious problem then please do email me using the technical support link.
Nick Charsley]]> There are some oddities (error messages), caused by the Upgrade I''m working hard to track them down and eradicate them. They don''t appear to stop the site working, but are a bit ugly!
if you come across a serious problem then please do email me using the technical support link.
Nick Charsley]]>Another Step Forward2005-06-08T21:08:37+00:002005-06-08T21:08:37+00:00http://family.charsley.org.uk/index.php?ctype=gedcom#article13Phil Charsleyhttp://family.charsley.org.uk/ If you have any new relations, or relations not entered yet, please let me know.
Phil Charsley]]> If you have any new relations, or relations not entered yet, please let me know.
Phil Charsley]]>At Last!2005-04-26T07:00:49+00:002005-04-26T07:00:49+00:00http://family.charsley.org.uk/index.php?ctype=gedcom#article12Phil Charsleyhttp://family.charsley.org.uk/ I am not sure what my next move is, but I don''t expect I will be idle for long!
Phil ]]> I am not sure what my next move is, but I don''t expect I will be idle for long!
Phil ]]>Slow Progress2005-02-27T20:42:25+00:002005-02-27T20:42:25+00:00http://family.charsley.org.uk/index.php?ctype=gedcom#article11Phil Charsleyhttp://family.charsley.org.uk/ Phil]]> Phil]]>Charsley.org New Year Newsletter2005-01-13T19:40:33+00:002005-01-13T19:40:33+00:00http://family.charsley.org.uk/index.php?ctype=gedcom#article10Phil Charsleyhttp://family.charsley.org.uk/ The Names Charsley, Cheasley, Cheesley and Chadsley are all registered with the Guild of One Name Studies, as from the beginning of this year. This might mean a lot more activity on the website, and a lot more queries to field. We shall see! At last I have completed adding sources to the records on the site, and can say goodbye (almost) to my old program. It is “almost” because I am sure I have missed a few of the sources I should have put in. When you are using the site, if you come across an event or fact that does not have a source, please report it to me, and I will investigate.
Over Christmas and New Year I have started to add all the Cheasley and Cheesley folks from Free BMD, and from the 1871, 1881 and 1891 Census records from Ancestry.com. This is a large task, and will probably take a couple of months to complete.
Thanks to several contributors who have provided new information or corrections. In the last month I have had contributions from:- Phyl Howard (related to the husband of Letitia Charsley), Sarah Leighton (I3700) (soon to be related to a child of Sharon Zeqiri, nee Charsley), Alan Frank Charsley (I583), Ann-Marie Charsley (3358), and Rhoda Murray (nee Charsley) (I1467), who is checking my data against that collected over many years by John Gilbert (I1469).
The site now has 23 registered users, but 5 of these have not yet logged on. I will ask Nick to remind them that their registration is complete. If you are related to anyone on the site, why not register, and receive newsletters?
Nick has also plans to add a forum to the site, so that anyone can communicate comments and ask questions of all users.
Watch this space! ]]> The Names Charsley, Cheasley, Cheesley and Chadsley are all registered with the Guild of One Name Studies, as from the beginning of this year. This might mean a lot more activity on the website, and a lot more queries to field. We shall see! At last I have completed adding sources to the records on the site, and can say goodbye (almost) to my old program. It is “almost” because I am sure I have missed a few of the sources I should have put in. When you are using the site, if you come across an event or fact that does not have a source, please report it to me, and I will investigate.
Over Christmas and New Year I have started to add all the Cheasley and Cheesley folks from Free BMD, and from the 1871, 1881 and 1891 Census records from Ancestry.com. This is a large task, and will probably take a couple of months to complete.
Thanks to several contributors who have provided new information or corrections. In the last month I have had contributions from:- Phyl Howard (related to the husband of Letitia Charsley), Sarah Leighton (I3700) (soon to be related to a child of Sharon Zeqiri, nee Charsley), Alan Frank Charsley (I583), Ann-Marie Charsley (3358), and Rhoda Murray (nee Charsley) (I1467), who is checking my data against that collected over many years by John Gilbert (I1469).
The site now has 23 registered users, but 5 of these have not yet logged on. I will ask Nick to remind them that their registration is complete. If you are related to anyone on the site, why not register, and receive newsletters?
Nick has also plans to add a forum to the site, so that anyone can communicate comments and ask questions of all users.
Watch this space! ]]>Merry Christmas to all our readers!2004-12-24T14:01:13+00:002004-12-24T14:01:13+00:00http://family.charsley.org.uk/index.php?ctype=gedcom#article9Phil Charsleyhttp://family.charsley.org.uk/ At present there are relatively few relations entered that do not carry a family name. However, this is not my final aim, so if you would like to provide information on the families of “Charsley/ Cheasley/Cheesley” ladies and their offspring, please send the information, and I will put it up. I do not think we are yet approaching any limit on our site data file size, but if we all work really hard we might!
Christmas is a good time to tax the memories of aged relatives, and pass on the information they provide, or the doubts they have of the validity of information I have! All information will be considered, so please pas it all on!
I hope you all have a pleasant family Christmas, and a peaceful 2005!
Phil Charsley]]> At present there are relatively few relations entered that do not carry a family name. However, this is not my final aim, so if you would like to provide information on the families of “Charsley/ Cheasley/Cheesley” ladies and their offspring, please send the information, and I will put it up. I do not think we are yet approaching any limit on our site data file size, but if we all work really hard we might!
Christmas is a good time to tax the memories of aged relatives, and pass on the information they provide, or the doubts they have of the validity of information I have! All information will be considered, so please pas it all on!
I hope you all have a pleasant family Christmas, and a peaceful 2005!
Phil Charsley]]>Another Upload2004-12-12T08:55:13+00:002004-12-12T08:55:13+00:00http://family.charsley.org.uk/index.php?ctype=gedcom#article8Phil Charsleyhttp://family.charsley.org.uk/ Phil ]]> Phil ]]>Another Milestone2004-11-20T10:15:44+00:002004-11-20T10:15:44+00:00http://family.charsley.org.uk/index.php?ctype=gedcom#article7Phil Charsleyhttp://family.charsley.org.uk/ Phil ]]> Phil ]]>What''s in a name?2004-11-02T18:30:45+00:002004-11-02T18:30:45+00:00http://family.charsley.org.uk/index.php?ctype=gedcom#article6Phil Charsleyhttp://family.charsley.org.uk/“A Dictionary of English Surnames” (Oxford Press) has the following:
“Charsley, Chartesley, Cheasley: from Chearsley, Buckinghamshire. Geoffrey de Chardesle 1279.”
A reference found by Alan Charsley says the following: “The surname CHARSLEY is locative in origin, that is to say derived from the name of a place – Chearsley in Buckinghamshire. The name consists of two elements, the Old English personal name Ceolred and the Old English leah, a word corresponding to Old High German loh “grove”. The original meaning of leah was “open place in a wood.” Chearsley occurs in the Domesday Book of 1086 as Cerleslai and Cerdeslai, and in a charter of the reign of Henry II as Cherdeslea. Robert de Cherdesle and Geoffrey de Chardesle are recorded in Oxfordshire Hundred Rolls of 1273 and 1279 respectively, whilst 3 centuries later, in 1575, William Chearsleye is found in the Marriage Register of St Michael’s, Cornhill, London.”
I have not included in my database any Carsley variants, unless they are from the home counties. Again “A Dictionary of English Surnames” (Oxford Press) has the following: “Carslaw, Carsley, Caselaw, Casley, de Casley, Cassley, Kearsley, Keasley, Kersley: from Keresley (Warwickshire), pronounced Carsley, or Kearsley (Lancashire or Northumberland).”
I have also excluded Charley, as “A Dictionary of English Surnames” says: “Charley, Charly: from Charley (lei) or Charly Farm in Stanstead St Margarets, Hertfordshire.”
Phil ]]>“A Dictionary of English Surnames” (Oxford Press) has the following:
“Charsley, Chartesley, Cheasley: from Chearsley, Buckinghamshire. Geoffrey de Chardesle 1279.”
A reference found by Alan Charsley says the following: “The surname CHARSLEY is locative in origin, that is to say derived from the name of a place – Chearsley in Buckinghamshire. The name consists of two elements, the Old English personal name Ceolred and the Old English leah, a word corresponding to Old High German loh “grove”. The original meaning of leah was “open place in a wood.” Chearsley occurs in the Domesday Book of 1086 as Cerleslai and Cerdeslai, and in a charter of the reign of Henry II as Cherdeslea. Robert de Cherdesle and Geoffrey de Chardesle are recorded in Oxfordshire Hundred Rolls of 1273 and 1279 respectively, whilst 3 centuries later, in 1575, William Chearsleye is found in the Marriage Register of St Michael’s, Cornhill, London.”
I have not included in my database any Carsley variants, unless they are from the home counties. Again “A Dictionary of English Surnames” (Oxford Press) has the following: “Carslaw, Carsley, Caselaw, Casley, de Casley, Cassley, Kearsley, Keasley, Kersley: from Keresley (Warwickshire), pronounced Carsley, or Kearsley (Lancashire or Northumberland).”
I have also excluded Charley, as “A Dictionary of English Surnames” says: “Charley, Charly: from Charley (lei) or Charly Farm in Stanstead St Margarets, Hertfordshire.”
Phil ]]>Sources2004-10-06T11:23:28+00:002004-10-06T11:23:28+00:00http://family.charsley.org.uk/index.php?ctype=gedcom#article5Phil Charsleyhttp://family.charsley.org.uk/IGI - available at www.familysearch.org FRC - Family Record Centre, London, but most now available at www.FreeBMD.rootsweb.com These I have only found in the list, and have not read the certificate unless that is also listed as a source. AW - Information from Alan Watts, that I have not checked myself. BB - Information from Brian Beesley that I have not checked myself. There is also some information from others, including Ray M Charsley, but the source is given by full name.
Phil ]]>IGI - available at www.familysearch.org FRC - Family Record Centre, London, but most now available at www.FreeBMD.rootsweb.com These I have only found in the list, and have not read the certificate unless that is also listed as a source. AW - Information from Alan Watts, that I have not checked myself. BB - Information from Brian Beesley that I have not checked myself. There is also some information from others, including Ray M Charsley, but the source is given by full name.
Phil ]]>October upload2004-10-02T08:58:20+00:002004-10-02T08:58:20+00:00http://family.charsley.org.uk/index.php?ctype=gedcom#article4Phil Charsleyhttp://family.charsley.org.uk/ Phil ]]> Phil ]]>Latest Upload2004-09-19T09:05:08+00:002004-09-19T09:05:08+00:00http://family.charsley.org.uk/index.php?ctype=gedcom#article3Phil Charsleyhttp://family.charsley.org.uk/ Phil ]]> Phil ]]>About this website2004-08-31T20:52:30+00:002004-08-31T20:52:30+00:00http://family.charsley.org.uk/index.php?ctype=gedcom#article2Phil Charsleyhttp://family.charsley.org.uk/ As you probably know, the “official” derivation of Charsley is from the Village of Chearsley in Buckinghamshire, and not surprisingly the largest branch of the family originate there (look at descendants of Alice Birch, who married John Charsley in 1733). I have yet to find any link to my branch, the second largest (start at Martha Miller, who married William Charsley in 1775).
You will find that not all the sources are yet in the database, and I think this will be true for a couple of years yet, as it is a slow process to transcribe the information from one computer program to another, something I must do because the original program I used (Ultimate Family Tree) went wrong, and is no longer supported, and will not export data any longer! I am now using Roots Magic, and I shall be updating the information about every month if work allows, but do not hold your breath, as I am only semi-retired (see http://www.consultpc.co.uk/)!
Some sources only give AW as the bibliography, and some BB. This means the information comes from Alan Watts or Brian Beasley, but I have not (yet) been able to check it. FRC means Family Record Centre (London), where all the birth, marriage and death data can be inspected. Some of it is also on the net at www.freebmd.rootsweb.com. IGI is the International Genealogical Institute (The Mormon Church), and this data is on the web at www.familysearch.org
Our site has a privacy policy. Information on people who might be alive is not open to people who have not registered and logged in. This means the word “private” will appear after their name. If you would like a password, please follow the instructions on the site. At present our intention is to give passwords to anyone in the database. However, I will not enter any contact information for living people, unless they are happy to have this information included.
I hope you find the site useful. Please let me know any suggestions for improving the site, and also any errors in the data, or information that could be added. Happy surfing!
Phil Charsley]]> As you probably know, the “official” derivation of Charsley is from the Village of Chearsley in Buckinghamshire, and not surprisingly the largest branch of the family originate there (look at descendants of Alice Birch, who married John Charsley in 1733). I have yet to find any link to my branch, the second largest (start at Martha Miller, who married William Charsley in 1775).
You will find that not all the sources are yet in the database, and I think this will be true for a couple of years yet, as it is a slow process to transcribe the information from one computer program to another, something I must do because the original program I used (Ultimate Family Tree) went wrong, and is no longer supported, and will not export data any longer! I am now using Roots Magic, and I shall be updating the information about every month if work allows, but do not hold your breath, as I am only semi-retired (see http://www.consultpc.co.uk/)!
Some sources only give AW as the bibliography, and some BB. This means the information comes from Alan Watts or Brian Beasley, but I have not (yet) been able to check it. FRC means Family Record Centre (London), where all the birth, marriage and death data can be inspected. Some of it is also on the net at www.freebmd.rootsweb.com. IGI is the International Genealogical Institute (The Mormon Church), and this data is on the web at www.familysearch.org
Our site has a privacy policy. Information on people who might be alive is not open to people who have not registered and logged in. This means the word “private” will appear after their name. If you would like a password, please follow the instructions on the site. At present our intention is to give passwords to anyone in the database. However, I will not enter any contact information for living people, unless they are happy to have this information included.
I hope you find the site useful. Please let me know any suggestions for improving the site, and also any errors in the data, or information that could be added. Happy surfing!