Interesting children
Steve Hayes
Can anyone suggest possible meanings of the term "interesting child"?
Could it just have been a class thing - that children of working-class
parents were, by definition, uninteresting?
--- Quoted message ---
From: Dennis Ahern <ah...@world.std.com>
Stephen Hayes <Stephen.Hayesp...@fmlynet.org> wrote:
: DA> DEATHS.
: DA> On Friday morning, at Prospect hill, Limerick, after a
: DA> short illness, of diptheria, aged three years and seven
: DA> months, Emma Jane, fifth child of Mr. David George
: DA> Boyd--the second interesting child who died within the
: DA> last three weeks.
: Did "interesting" mean something different in 1862 from what it means today?
I have no idea, but several times in 19th century death notices I have
seen young deceased children described as having been "interesting". The
age, where given, are usually in a range that is beyond infancy yet
still in single digits.
--- End quote ---
Steve Hayes
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7734/stevesig.htm
Jacqui
> The following exchange took place in a genealogy newsgroup.
>
> Can anyone suggest possible meanings of the term "interesting
> child"?
>
> Could it just have been a class thing - that children of
> working-class parents were, by definition, uninteresting?
First thought: interest as in 'inheritance'? But this example is a
girl, so probably not.
The OED gives a couple of very vaguely plausible options, but none
convincing.
This quote: "let the consolation of her bereaved parents, in her death,
be, the trust that the most affectionate parental care and solicitude
on earth, have been, by the death of his interesting child, transferred
to Him, who better than mortals, knows what is due to innocence and
worthiness." makes me wonder about "his interesting child" - should
that be "His interesting child"? In which case, is it a religious
reference? Something Biblical?
(http://ftp.rootsweb.com/pub/usgenweb/tx/harris/obits/houobi40.txt)
I also wonder if it is merely the same politeness that describes all
babies as "beautiful"? Or is it something spun off from one of those
OED meanings? (related to, concerned with inheritance, and so on).
Jac, intrigued.
nightjar
"Steve Hayes" <haye...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3ef67294...@news.saix.net...
A pregnant woman could also be described as being in an 'interesting'
condition. By association with one of the OED definitions of 'interested'
(and a possibly derived meaning of the verb 'interest'), I wonder whether it
could mean either giving rise to concern or deserving of sympathy.
Colin Bignell
Don Aitken
Here are a few more. US obituary, 1890:
http://www.rootsweb.com/~nynassa2/newspapers/aprilsso.htm
Quackery from 1844 http://womhist.binghamton.edu/dress/doc3.htm
And one from Henry James:
http://www.ourcivilisation.com/smartboard/shop/jamesh/bstnns/chap19.htm
None of these make clear what the phrase is intended to mean, if
anything beyond the literal meaning. Google suggeste that people still
quite often describe their children this way, possibly when they can't
think of anything more positive to say about them.
--
Don Aitken
John Dean
For 'interesting' OED includes ' 3. (to be) in an interesting condition,
situation, state: (to be) pregnant; also, to be interesting; interesting
event: a birth.'
So the euphemism for pregnancy and birth may have been extended into early
childhood
--
John Dean
Oxford
De-frag to reply
Adrian Bailey
Two meanings Chambers gives for "to interest" are "to concern deeply" and
"to awaken concern in".
So could "interesting child" here mean one that gives cause for concern?
Adran
Frances Kemmish
> Two meanings Chambers gives for "to interest" are "to concern deeply" and
> "to awaken concern in".
> So could "interesting child" here mean one that gives cause for concern?
>
Since it's quoted in obituaries, I would have thought it a little late
for concern.
Fran
Adrian Bailey
news:3EF7398C...@optonline.net...
<suppresses a grr>
In the case of an obituary it would mean one that *had been giving* cause
for concern.
Adrian
Marc
>
> Can anyone suggest possible meanings of the term "interesting child"?
>
> Could it just have been a class thing - that children of working-class
> parents were, by definition, uninteresting?
>
>
form the usage that it is a convention of some kind and in both quotes
refers to a recently deceased child. But clearly it does not mean deceased
since that would be redundant.
I do have another speculation. Children spontaneously aborted, stillborn or
dyeing shortly after birth were probably quite common. Perhaps even a
majority of pregnancies ended this way in hard times. They would be named
and buried and counted amongst ones children. However, this may have been
seen as a common and indeed anticipated tragedy. On the other hand the
death of a child who survived birth and was healthy and started growing
would be considered a greater tragedy. Perhaps those that lived beyond
infancy in stable condition and seemed bound for a "normal" development were
distinguished rhetorically from these others by the adjecive "interesting".
In the case of Emma Jane the obituary is stating that she is one of 5
children. Some of whom may have been still born. But she herself had
survived infancy and was expected to live to adulthood. I think it is a way
of tactfuly distinguishing that this is a greater tragedy than the still
born children. In the case of this obituary the writer is letting the
reader know that this family has recently lost two children in whom they had
invested several years of emotion and labor. He is thereby letting the
community know that this family has experienced a far greater ttragedy than
if one or both children were recently born.
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel." Samuel Johnson
"Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all other
countries because you were born in it."
George Bernard Shaw
Marc> http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7734/stevesig.htm
>
Surreyman
Marc <marc...@obongo.com> wrote in message
news:bd7dv3$jvb$1...@agate.berkeley.edu...
Well, maybe. But this one interested me. I've been searching away and found
nothing - strange in itself, especially since the term was used formally.
There must be some hard info somewhere ..............
Surreyman
Eden Smallwood
"interesting" is in this sense a legal term, possibly meaning "in or
potentialy in the line of heirs". After all, an "interest" is also a
"right, claim, or legal share". Of what? Of the estate and name, I
might suppose.
Does anyone have a dictionary of "old" legal terms?
Eden
John Varela
wrote:
> Can anyone suggest possible meanings of the term "interesting child"?
My guess, and it is only a guess, is that "interesting" was a
euphemism for "retarded". Today we say "special".
--
John Varela
Steve Hayes
wrote:
What interests me is that a term that appears to have been in common use 150
years ago has dropped entirely from memory, and is incomprehensible to later
generations.
What will make it more difficult to track down is the fact that the term was
so well-known as to need no explanation. Its meaning was clearly self-evident
to those who used it.
Perhaps someone with access to a library that has contemporary dictionaries
could look it up to see if those dictionaries have it. Otherwise, I'm not sure
how one could find it. Are there any social or linguistic historians who can
suggest possible sources of information?
--
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7734/stevesig.htm
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk
Mekon
"Eden Smallwood" <zeppe...@lafn.org> wrote in message
news:9f7e4cd.03062...@posting.google.com...
OsbournesConcise Law Dictionary (8th Edition) says (inter alia):
"Interest. A person is said to have an interest in a thing when he has
rights, titles, advantages,duties, liabilities connected with it..."
I think perhaps the still born vs viable child proposition might have merit,
all of those "interests" arise with children who live for longer than a few
minutes, and few arise if the child is stillborn.
Mekon
Don Moody
<haye...@yahoo.com> writes
sense of 'interesting' is 'touches'. In the days of my youth (not quite
centuries ago) some kids were referred to as 'touched'. It meant having
severe mental problems of some kind. Epileptics were often referred to
as 'touched'. So were kids who'd now be recognised as schizophrenic. Etc
etc. Even what we'd now call dyslexics were in the rag-bag labelled
'touched'. The tragedy, which was greater for the parents than having a
still-born child, was that these kids would be an ongoing drain on the
family without any hope of being contributive in the fullness of time.
This was in an era before there were social services, or much
understanding of what mentally-disabled kids might be able to do. It was
also at a time when mentally-disabled kids tended to die even younger
than mentally-able kids.
It is not now politically correct to say so, but the 'village idiot'
would be said to be 'touched', and in that sense 'holy'. So long as the
vlllage could afford to support him, they did so without recompense or
expecting any useful work from him.
The euphemism 'interesting' may have come in from Oriental influences.
There is the Chinese curse 'May you live in interesting times.'
Don
--
Dr D P Moody, Ashwood, Exeter Cross, Liverton, Newton Abbot, Devon,
England TQ12 6EY
Tel: +44(0) 1626 821725 Fax: +44(0) 1626 824912
John Cartmell
<XONIv5snBWKx-p...@dialup-171.75.32.159.Dial1.Washington1.Level3.net>,
or even just 'interesting'.
Ask a teacher today for a comment on kids and some may be 'bright', 'slow',
'difficult', 'haed-working', &c and an odd one might be '... interseting'.
A one-off, different, difficult-but-bright or something else that doesn't
quite fit standard descriptions.
--
John Cartmell jo...@cartmell.demon.co.uk FAX +44 (0)8700-519-527
Acorn Publisher magazine & FD Games www.acornpublisher.com
Mike Lyle
Until evidence is produced (in the shape of, for example, texts
showing medical or coroners' usage of the period) I feel almost sure
that this is right. The expression "an interesting condition" for
pregnancy has been mentioned: I too think this may not have been
merely a rather silly euphemism, but evidence for the way the word may
have been used by the profession.
It surprises me that the use we're discussing isn't in OED1; but the
rather wide range of uses OED records for *interest* and its
derivatives makes the interpretation credible. Certainly the other
suggestions don't seem to me to be the kind of information one would
put in an offical record of death, while it would be quite natural --
in fact, advisable -- to record that the death was not sudden or
unexplained.
Mike.
R F
No, I've searched a bit for examples of this "interesting child" usage,
and it's used with young children who die in childhood but years after
birth. My guess is that "interesting" is archaic for "dear, beloved".
The first OED definition, labelled "obsolete", with the last citation
dated 1813, is: "That concerns, touches, affects, or is of importance;
important." That doesn't seem too far from a formulaic equivalent of
"dear" or "beloved" to me (cf. the formulaic language of obituary
notices and conventional gravestone messages). Perhaps it's really
closest to "someone who people cared about a lot".
Surreyman
R F <rf...@sparky.cs.nyu.edu> wrote in message
news:Pine.GSO.4.44.03062...@sparky.cs.nyu.edu...
How's this? I unearthed the following:
"Another interesting child of Benjamin Shivers and Nancy Elks.
Penelope married her first cousin. This is one of those reasons
i feel that this leg of the family has always been avoided in
accurate family documentation. If Penelope was also a guardian
child then this would not have been a blood marriage and then
no need to hide the information. I am looking for a birth certificate
or other record of birth for Penelope besides the family bible.
I am also looking for anyone who may have located any guardian
paperwork besides the papers in Benjamin Shivers probate."
Which all suggests that 'interesting child' meant 'ward' as opposed to a
natural child, which would make a lot of sense.
Surreyman
Linz
"Don Moody" <d...@hyperpeople.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:Q6iSuCdk...@hyperpeople.demon.co.uk...
> The euphemism 'interesting' may have come in from Oriental influences.
> There is the Chinese curse 'May you live in interesting times.'
Are you sure? First appearance seems to be in a novel written in the 1940s
or 50s.
rzed
I've searched around for this usage as well, and from what I've seen,
it isn't necessarily that the children die, but (I think) because they
have reached a certain age. Numerous examples speak of some parent
dying, leaving, say, a wife and four interesting children. In some
cases, it seems that "interesting" means just what it would today, so
that "interesting children" in itself may just mean that they are not
dull. This seems to be true even for articles dating from the 1870's,
which seems to be an era in which this interesting usage often appears
as well. I asked my mother whether she was familiar with this use by
older members of her family, but she was not; her grandparents would
have been of an age to be familiar with the term in some stylized use,
but if so, they evidently didn't use it themselves.
Some more examples:
http://boards.ancestry.com/mbexec/message/an/localities.northam.usa.st
ates.oklahoma.prestatehood.itgideon1901/7
(published in 1901)
In 1868 Mr. VANN was married to Miss Tookah RILEY, but her death
followed shortly after. October 6, 1870, he married Miss Clerinda
ROWE, the daughter of JUDGE David ROWE, of the Saline district. Nine
interesting children have been born to Mr. and Mrs. VANN:
i......Jennie C. VANN, deceased October 1, 1871
ii.....Joseph R. VANN who died June 1, 1874
iii....Maggie E. VANN who died November 10, 1877
iv....Ada VANN who was born December 7, 1879
v.....David W. VANN, Jr. who was born August 24, 1883
vi....Clerinda A. VANN who was born January 24, 1886
vii...William C. VANN who was born August 22, 1888
viii...Jesse C. VANN, (deceased) born February 13, 1891
ix.....Emina E. VANN who was born April 6, 1892
http://linkstothepast.com/marine/captainsMa.html
Mr. and Mrs. Masterson have four interesting children, whose names and
dates of birth are as follows: Edward, Jr., November 2, 1883;
Corinne, June 25, 1887; Mildred, July 15, 1889; and Harry, April 8,
1896. With the exception of the youngest they are all attending
school.
http://www.mnopltd.com/jean/her186-1287.html
In Memoriam: Dated July 29, 1887, Paris. Died in Brooklin, July 18,
after a painful and lingering illness, Mrs. GERALDINE DODGE POWERS,
wife of Capt. E. R. Powers, age about 40. She leaves a most
affectionate husband and four interesting children. She also leaves an
aged mother.
I'm coming to the conclusion that the use of "interesting" meant, more
or less, "worth mentioning", perhaps as a formulaic term in regard to
children of a certain degree of youth. When ages have been specified,
I've seen the term applied to four-year-olds, twelve-year-olds, and
other ages in between.
It does leave me wondering, though, when someone is described as
having left a spouse and three children (with no "interesting"
qualification) just what there is about those kids that distinguishes
them from the interesting ones. Is it just for variety that the phrase
is left out (or inserted)? Or is it an editorial comment of some kind?
--
rzed
Phil C.
>In article
><XONIv5snBWKx-p...@dialup-171.75.32.159.Dial1.Washington1.Level3.net>,
> John Varela <jav...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> On Mon, 23 Jun 2003 03:48:59 UTC, haye...@yahoo.com (Steve Hayes)
>> wrote:
>
>> > Can anyone suggest possible meanings of the term "interesting child"?
>>
>> My guess, and it is only a guess, is that "interesting" was a
>> euphemism for "retarded". Today we say "special".
>
>or even just 'interesting'.
>
>Ask a teacher today for a comment on kids and some may be 'bright', 'slow',
>'difficult', 'haed-working', &c and an odd one might be '... interseting'.
>A one-off, different, difficult-but-bright or something else that doesn't
>quite fit standard descriptions.
My Imperial Dictionary of 1850 doesn't suggest any specialised meaning
for children -
"Interesting, ppr. Giving a share or concern; as by interesting one in a
voyage or banking company. 2 Engaging the affections; as by interesting
a person in ones favour. 3 a. Engaging the attention or curiosity;
exciting or adapted to excite emotions or passions; as an interesting
story."
The entry for the transitive verb and noun "interest" covers the usual
suspects. However, there is a separate entry for a then obsolete
intransitive usage "to affect, to move, to touch with passion".
My guess would be that "interesting children" conveyed a standard
meaning but with rather more intensity and without the hint of irony
that affects modern usage. These days, when we say something/one is
interesting (or "nice") we may just mean that we are reluctant to say
anything more positive. (I recall a fashion journalist who called a new
collection "interesting" and offended the designer.) I suspect, an
interesting child was one that we would call charming or delightful.
--
Phil C.
P J Wallace
but it says nothing about this.
PJW
On Tue, 24 Jun 2003 03:40:27 GMT, haye...@yahoo.com (Steve Hayes)
wrote:
Steve Hayes
>I'm coming to the conclusion that the use of "interesting" meant, more
>or less, "worth mentioning", perhaps as a formulaic term in regard to
>children of a certain degree of youth. When ages have been specified,
>I've seen the term applied to four-year-olds, twelve-year-olds, and
>other ages in between.
Perhaps it means children able to talk. That might make them more interesting
than babies that just lie there and gurgle or yell.
An example of an interesting child under about 18 months or so would disprove
this hypothesis.
>
>It does leave me wondering, though, when someone is described as
>having left a spouse and three children (with no "interesting"
>qualification) just what there is about those kids that distinguishes
>them from the interesting ones. Is it just for variety that the phrase
>is left out (or inserted)? Or is it an editorial comment of some kind?
I think it must have meant something for it to have become a conventional
phrase in the first place.
Isabelle Cecchini
> Perhaps it means children able to talk. That might make them more
> interesting than babies that just lie there and gurgle or yell.
>
> An example of an interesting child under about 18 months or so would
> disprove this hypothesis.
>
Here's one at http://www.rootsweb.com/~kyadair/1598.htm
MARTIN NELL, an infant son of Mr. and Mrs. J.G. EUBANK, died last
Thursday night. It was eight months old and an interesting child.
--
Isabelle Cecchini
oN...@cts.com
of "interesting" which means "affective" or "of concern".
--
From: "harmony" <a...@hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: Indian woman dies on husband's pyre
Message-ID: <ulrbpeo...@corp.supernews.com>
>I am proud to be a member of mommedan parliament.
Roy
> Perhaps someone with access to a library that has contemporary dictionaries
> could look it up to see if those dictionaries have it. Otherwise, I'm not sure
> how one could find it. Are there any social or linguistic historians who can
> suggest possible sources of information?
>
No need for that, I would suggest.
The present day OED gives as one of the various meanings " important -
1813", which seems to fit very nicely with the period too.
Cheers,
Roy
Harvey Van Sickle
That sounds likely. For those without access to it, the full OED1
definition (marked obsolete) is:
Interesting: That concerns, touches, affects, or is of
importance.
and it includes the following quote (from 1769):
In defence of what they thought most dear and interesting to
themselves.
The term seems to have included a sense of having the power to affect
and touch, rather than the restricted modern meaning of "important"
(which can be entirely divorced from any emotional attachment).
--
Cheers, Harvey
Ottawa/Toronto/Edmonton for 30 years;
Southern England for the past 21 years.
(for e-mail, change harvey to whhvs)
Ben Zimmer
Close... the first known appearance is in a short story written in 1950:
"U-Turn" by Duncan H. Munro, aka Eric Frank Russell, first published in
the April 1950 issue of _Astounding Science Fiction_:
For centuries the Chinese used an ancient curse: "May
you live in interesting times!" It isn't a curse any
more. It's a blessing. We're scientific and civilized.
We've got so many rights and liberties and freedoms
that one can yearn for chains for the sheer pleasure of
busting them and shaking them off. Reckon life would be
more livable if there were any chains left to bust.
Eve McLaughlin
>>>> > Could it just have been a class thing - that children of working-class
>>>> > parents were, by definition, uninteresting
My money is on this - the article does not list every child, just the
one)s) whioch would be interesting to readers. Remember the casuaty list
in Henry V - somthing like 'not any one of mark and few of name'.
And casualty lists in later wars tended to be selective - the upper and
midedle classes, not yer common soldier. I have a very selective Boer
War death roll, with no one below Lieutenant
The deaths of unknowns do not concern the readership - only those of
children of their friends or of families who mattered socially.
--
Eve McLaughlin
Author of the McLaughlin Guides for family historians
Secretary Bucks Genealogical Society
R F
Here are some mid-19c uses of "interesting child" from _The New York
Times_:
He leaves her a widow with three young and interesting children to
mourn their irreparable loss.... (1864)
He has left a young and faithful wife, and two interesting
children, to mourn his untimely and undeserved fate.... (1863)
One little fellow, a most interesting child, and son of a most
prominent merchant of the town, was literally torn into fragments.
(1863 -- reference to Vicksburgh battle in U.S. Civil War)
He leaves a beautiful and accomplished wife, who is a native of
this city, and two interesting children. (1862)
She is confined in her own house, in one of the upper stories
[sic], and has the attendance of a servant, besides the company of
her own daughter, an interesting child of some twelve years.
(1862)
"The above plate [a rough wood-cut at the head of the sheet, with
'Health and Happiness' beneath it] represents Dr. Bennett and his
wife, together with their twelve blooming, healthy and
interesting children...." (1858)
In the convalescent ward were many interesting children, and in
that appropriated to acute febrile affections were others. There
was a look of patience, a quiet submissiveness, an absence of
querulousness, imprinted on the countenances of these little
sufferers, that, while it excited for them increased sympathy,
silently enforced a valuable lesson. Each had its little doll.
Our readers must depict the scene as imagination may best enable
them, from these materials for the sketch. There are some mute
appeals to human feelings, which are more eloquent than the most
elaborate language; they suffer from the attempt to delineate or
describe them, to pourtray [sic] that dumb appeal in
the imagery of minute specification and description; and this was
one of them. (1856)
Catharine Murphy, a child 12 years of age, was killed on Sunday
evening, at the residence of her adopted parents, No. 161
Wooster-street, by accidentally falling through the skylight of the
roof to the first floor.... Deceased was a very interesting child,
and the family of Mr. FISHER, her adopted father, was very fond of her.
(1854)
HORRID MURDER.--- We learn that on last Saturday a widow woman
named MARY SIMONS , residing on the North side [of Chicago], was
committed to jail, charged with the murder of her daughter, an
interesting child of 12 years, who was found dead in her house
Saturday morning. It appeared in evidence before the Coroner's
jury, that she was a woman addicted to intemperance, and cruel to
her children. (1853)
I looked a bit for some later examples. Here was an interesting one:
MANY an interesting child has been saved by having DR. BULL's COUGH
SYRUP handy. (1889)
Mr. Seth Barton French, who married Miss Fearn for his second wife
three years ago, and who is now the happy father of a year-old boy
as well as the grandfather of several interesting children of his
daughter, Mrs. Charles Steele, has offered a silver consolation cup
to the players in the invitation golf tournament at the Virginia Hot
Springs next week. (1898)
I tried to find usages after that, but I found that it became difficult
to tell whether "interesting child" simply meant "child who is/was
interesting" in the modern sense.
Anyway, I think I have a decent feel for what "interesting child"
meant. Rzed is right, I think, in suggesting that it's applicable to
children beyond the infant stage; and I'm right, I think, in having
suggested it's something akin to "dear" or "darling". Maybe the best
modern equivalent is actually "cute" or "adorable".
Adrian Bailey
Thanks. A very interesting list. You've come to a conclusion on its basis
but I'd say it's inconclusive. Meanings suggested to me by it include:
"interesting", "ill", "inheriting" and "nice".
Adrian
Anonymous
awful lot of retarded children in these examples. Also it seems improabable
that there would be so many multible retarded children in so many of these
families.
--
"These are the times that try men's souls." Tom Paine
Marc B.
Liz
>
> > The present day OED gives as one of the various meanings "
> > important - 1813", which seems to fit very nicely with the period
> > too.
>
> That sounds likely. For those without access to it, the full OED1
> definition (marked obsolete) is:
>
> Interesting: That concerns, touches, affects, or is of
> importance.
>
> and it includes the following quote (from 1769):
>
> In defence of what they thought most dear and interesting to
> themselves.
>
> The term seems to have included a sense of having the power to affect
> and touch, rather than the restricted modern meaning of "important"
> (which can be entirely divorced from any emotional attachment).
I'm pretty sure you're right, Harvey.
I did a Google on the phrase 'an interesting child' and found a great
many uses of the word in obituaries for nineteenth century children in
the United States. It seems to have had the implied meaning of a child
whose family or friends had invested their own interest in it's future
.... which sounds odd to our ears, since we would assume that is always
the case, but in the days of high infant mortality perhaps a certain
detachment about the young was cultivated ..... with exceptions who were
'interesting' ..... and, moreover this was a recognised phenomena. Its
use in obituaries seems to imply a degree of personal loss to the
parents, over and above the norm, and thus acts as an indication of the
level of response their friends might wish to make.
I wonder if it was a usage that spread from Ireland to America? It does
not seem to have been used so much in England/Wales ... don't know about
Scotland.
Liz (Greenwich UK)
Ben Zimmer
>
> Anyway, I think I have a decent feel for what "interesting child"
> meant. Rzed is right, I think, in suggesting that it's applicable to
> children beyond the infant stage; and I'm right, I think, in having
> suggested it's something akin to "dear" or "darling". Maybe the best
> modern equivalent is actually "cute" or "adorable".
Some sense of what the criteria once were for a child to be considered
"interesting" might be gleaned from this passage about a "neglected
child" in Thomas de Quincey's _Confessions of an English Opium-Eater_
(1821):
http://www.ibiblio.org/gutenberg/etext00/opium10.txt
Apart from her situation, she was not what would be
called an interesting child; she was neither pretty,
nor quick in understanding, nor remarkably pleasing
in manners. But, thank God! even in those years I
needed not the embellishments of novel accessories
to conciliate my affections: plain human nature,
in its humblest and most homely apparel, was enough
for me, and I loved the child because she was my
partner in wretchedness.
But by the mid-19th century, it seems that all children could be
considered "interesting", at least for writers of obituaries and
biographies. As the term lost its value, more aggrandized phrases were
apparently needed-- one common collocation around the turn of the 20th
century was "bright and interesting children", Google reveals. Then,
suddenly, children in the obit/bio genre were no longer "bright" nor
"interesting"-- what happened?
Surreyman
was purely coincidental in suggesting adoption. (Drat!).
After all this, I feel your last sentence is probably it.
Surreyman
dcw
Phil C. <nob...@nowhere.co.uk> wrote:
>My Imperial Dictionary of 1850 doesn't suggest any specialised meaning
>for children -
>The entry for the transitive verb and noun "interest" covers the usual
>suspects. However, there is a separate entry for a then obsolete
>intransitive usage "to affect, to move, to touch with passion".
Todd's 1818 edition of Johnson has exactly this definition, plus
"to gain the affections". No indication that it was obsolete.
I don't know whether it's Todd or original Johnson. You have to
be careful with definitions as old as this -- I guess "affect" may
have been more closely associated with "affection" than it is now
-- but "to gain the affections" seems exactly right here.
David
Mike Lyle
> "R F" <rf...@sparky.cs.nyu.edu> wrote in message
> news:Pine.GSO.4.44.030624...@sparky.cs.nyu.edu...
> >
[...]
> > Anyway, I think I have a decent feel for what "interesting child"
> > meant. Rzed is right, I think, in suggesting that it's applicable to
> > children beyond the infant stage; and I'm right, I think, in having
> > suggested it's something akin to "dear" or "darling". Maybe the best
> > modern equivalent is actually "cute" or "adorable".
>
> Thanks. A very interesting list. You've come to a conclusion on its basis
> but I'd say it's inconclusive. Meanings suggested to me by it include:
> "interesting", "ill", "inheriting" and "nice".
I don't feel good about "ill" any more; and I can't see why
"interesting" would ever be used instead of "interested". That leaves
"interesting", "nice", and RF's "cute" (which I'd translate as
"attractive").
Mike.
Steve Hayes
>I tried to find usages after that, but I found that it became difficult
>to tell whether "interesting child" simply meant "child who is/was
>interesting" in the modern sense.
>
>Anyway, I think I have a decent feel for what "interesting child"
>meant. Rzed is right, I think, in suggesting that it's applicable to
>children beyond the infant stage; and I'm right, I think, in having
>suggested it's something akin to "dear" or "darling". Maybe the best
>modern equivalent is actually "cute" or "adorable".
Thanks - it's an "interesting" list!
But the first example I gave was that the deceased was the "second interesting
child to die this week". That implies that sevberal other children died, but
that the others were not interesting, and, if you are right, not cute or
adorable.
Steve Hayes
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7734/stevesig.htm
Steve Hayes
It looks as though that theory won't work, then.
Steve Hayes
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7734/stevesig.htm
Steve Hayes
wrote:
>
>>>>> > Could it just have been a class thing - that children of working-class
>>>>> > parents were, by definition, uninteresting
>
>My money is on this - the article does not list every child, just the
>one)s) whioch would be interesting to readers. Remember the casuaty list
>in Henry V - somthing like 'not any one of mark and few of name'.
>And casualty lists in later wars tended to be selective - the upper and
>midedle classes, not yer common soldier. I have a very selective Boer
>War death roll, with no one below Lieutenant
> The deaths of unknowns do not concern the readership - only those of
>children of their friends or of families who mattered socially.
That was what I first thought, but some of the other examples given suggest
that that was not the case.
Steve Hayes
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7734/stevesig.htm
Phil C.
>
>Here are some mid-19c uses of "interesting child" from _The New York
>Times_:
(snip interesting examples)
>
>Anyway, I think I have a decent feel for what "interesting child"
>meant. Rzed is right, I think, in suggesting that it's applicable to
>children beyond the infant stage; and I'm right, I think, in having
>suggested it's something akin to "dear" or "darling". Maybe the best
>modern equivalent is actually "cute" or "adorable".
What's interesting about the examples is that there are no negative or
comparative cases. If "interesting" were a legal, medical or other
technical term, might we not expect to hear about children who were "not
interesting" or "more/less interesting" etc? Wouldn't there be cases of
a person having, say, four children of whom two were interesting? If
there are no such cases then I agree with your interpretation. Its
applicability to children beyond the infant stage (if consistent) would
perhaps be cultural - not making too much emotional investment in very
young children because of high mortality rates.
--
Phil C.
Mike Lyle
> >>>> > Could it just have been a class thing - that children of working-class
> >>>> > parents were, by definition, uninteresting
>
> My money is on this - the article does not list every child, just the
> one)s) whioch would be interesting to readers. Remember the casuaty list
> in Henry V - somthing like 'not any one of mark and few of name'.
> And casualty lists in later wars tended to be selective - the upper and
> midedle classes, not yer common soldier. I have a very selective Boer
> War death roll, with no one below Lieutenant
> The deaths of unknowns do not concern the readership - only those of
> children of their friends or of families who mattered socially.
I just don't feel I can buy this. I don't think the Victorians
officially expressed their class-consciousness so blatantly as to
imply that working-class children were "uninteresting": it was the
great age of social reform, after all. I think Richard and Adrian are
on the money. *Henry V* is not only half a millennium ago, but it's
historical fiction, not the London Gazette.
You know better than I the title and provenance of your South African
War list; but it wouldn't be too surprising if in certain contexts
such a list were confined to commissioned officers even today, without
any implication of relative value of the people named. I'd assume that
the RMA Sandhurst house magazine, for example, would not usually name
other ranks killed in action. Surely there must be a unified record of
all those killed in South Africa as well as the one you mention? (I
suppose an all-ranks list might have been issued at the regimental
level, though.) Some local war memorials annoy me by mentioning the
rank of the fallen; but they certainly do include all ranks and
ratings.
Mike.
Stuart Reynolds
"Steve Hayes" <haye...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3ef92140...@news.saix.net...
I actually wonder if it's all rather more simple than that. The reason no
one needed to explain what they meant is because all that they meant was
that the child was interesting, in the same sense in which we understand it
today.
For evidence, Google (searching for -- "interesting child" death --) gives
the two following links:
http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/read/NYNASSAU/2000-06/0961180958
and
http://ftp.rootsweb.com/pub/usgenweb/tx/harris/obits/houobi40.txt
The latter of these is a longish eulogy, praising the child generally for
being so interesting, even though she was only six, while the former (much
shorter) is quoted below:
Death: Elmont
Mr. and Mrs. Theo. VanDine have the heartfelt sympathy of the
community in their bereavement in the death of their little
daughter Inie, who died on Sunday morning of that dread scourge
diphtheretic croup. She was a remarkably bright and interesting
child and intelligent beyond her years.It is entirely possible that a
grieving parent would want their child remembered as "interesting" for any
one of a number of reasons - obviously it would be easier to "prove" for
older children, but I'm sure anyone can justify it for any age child, if
they so chose. And in that day and age, who would break into their grief by
disagreeing with them? It's notable that all these references to interesting
children occur in newspaper and other reports, not in any official papers.
I'm afraid its a rather prosaic reason, but it seems to me to be much more
likely than some of the other conjecture.
Regards,
Stuart
--
Stuart Reynolds (stuart....@remove-me.tesco.net)
Scotland, UK.
--
REYNOLDS / PETERS / WALKER / HARE / BROWN / NAPIER / THOMAS
at www.gencircles.com/users/sjreynolds
and worldconnect.genealogy.rootsweb.com/cgi-bin/igm.cgi?db=sjreynolds143
Paul Collins
news:3fa4d950.03062...@posting.google.com:
> I just don't feel I can buy this. I don't think the Victorians
> officially expressed their class-consciousness so blatantly as to
> imply that working-class children were "uninteresting": it was the
> great age of social reform, after all. I think Richard and Adrian are
> on the money. *Henry V* is not only half a millennium ago, but it's
> historical fiction, not the London Gazette.
Quite. I've seen 'interesting' used of children in social reform and anti-
slavery tracts. It seems to imply nothing more than 'arousing interest' in
the sense of the child being of a pleasant appearance and manner.
John Holmes
> On Tue, 24 Jun 2003 20:41:00 GMT, Roy wrote
>
>
>
>> The present day OED gives as one of the various meanings "
>> important - 1813", which seems to fit very nicely with the period
>> too.
>
> That sounds likely. For those without access to it, the full OED1
> definition (marked obsolete) is:
>
> Interesting: That concerns, touches, affects, or is of
> importance.
>
> and it includes the following quote (from 1769):
>
> In defence of what they thought most dear and interesting to
> themselves.
>
> The term seems to have included a sense of having the power to affect
> and touch, rather than the restricted modern meaning of "important"
> (which can be entirely divorced from any emotional attachment).
The Webster's International, ca 1890, had:
*interesting*: a. engaging the attention; exciting, or adapted to
excite, interest, curiosity or emotion
That could almost be read as a half-way point between the sense
discussed above and a modern definition.
--
Regards
John
nightjar
"Anonymous" <Nobody> wrote in message news:3ef91eae$1...@127.0.0.1...
> I have trouble accepting the "retarded" therory. For one thing this is an
> awful lot of retarded children in these examples. Also it seems
improabable
> that there would be so many multible retarded children in so many of these
> families.
It is also unlikely, in the period, that they would announce such a thing to
the world at large. Having a retarded child would more probably be seen as
something to be ashamed of.
Colin Bignell
R F
> "Adrian Bailey" <da...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<EO6Ka.1361$kg....@news-binary.blueyonder.co.uk>...
> > "R F" <rf...@sparky.cs.nyu.edu> wrote in message
> > news:Pine.GSO.4.44.030624...@sparky.cs.nyu.edu...
> > >
> > > [some mid-19c uses of "interesting child" from _The New York Times_]
> [...]
> > > Anyway, I think I have a decent feel for what "interesting child"
> > > meant. Rzed is right, I think, in suggesting that it's applicable to
> > > children beyond the infant stage; and I'm right, I think, in having
> > > suggested it's something akin to "dear" or "darling". Maybe the best
> > > modern equivalent is actually "cute" or "adorable".
> >
> > Thanks. A very interesting list. You've come to a conclusion on its basis
> > but I'd say it's inconclusive. Meanings suggested to me by it include:
> > "interesting", "ill", "inheriting" and "nice".
>
> I don't feel good about "ill" any more;
Can't be "ill"; I found one quote, maybe one I didn't include, where
someone spoke of his several "blooming and interesting children".
Can't be "inheriting" -- you have examples of children who are poor
orphans and such who are "interesting". "Interesting" is interesting;
I think what may have happened is "interesting" earlier on had a
stronger sense of "arousing one's interest", where "interest" itself
had a stronger sense of "sentiment, affection". Then, over time,
"interesting" weakened to something more like "curious" or "arousing
intellectual curiosity".
Graeme Wall
"Linz" <sp...@lindsayendell.org.uk> wrote:
>
> "Don Moody" <d...@hyperpeople.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:Q6iSuCdk...@hyperpeople.demon.co.uk...
>
> > The euphemism 'interesting' may have come in from Oriental influences.
> > There is the Chinese curse 'May you live in interesting times.'
>
> Are you sure? First appearance seems to be in a novel written in the 1940s
> or 50s.
>
>
First appearance in English, possibly.
It is, of course, the title of one of Terry Pratchett's novels which is based
in the discworld equivalent of China.
--
Graeme Wall
My genealogy website:
<http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/genealogy/index.html>
Marc
come to the conclusion that this term "interesting children" must have
something to do with the context of death, heritage, survival and related
issues. I say "must" because we have all read numerous novels, and or
documents from the 19th century and this term does not commonly appear in
them. If it were some formula in common use for general discussion then we
should have seen it in Clemens, Faulkner, Hawthorn, Thoreau, Blake, Burns,
Shelly, Wordsworth, etc.. In fact I don't ever remember it appearing in
them and I'm sure it would have stood out. Add to that almost all of the
examples posted have been concerned with the death of an interesting child
or the parent of an interesting child.
There are some interesting exceptions. R F posted this:
"Mr. Seth Barton French, who married Miss Fearn for his second wife
three years ago, and who is now the happy father of a year-old boy
as well as the grandfather of several interesting children of his
daughter, Mrs. Charles Steele, has offered a silver consolation cup
to the players in the invitation golf tournament at the Virginia Hot
Springs next week. (1898)"
Note that in this example Mr. French's own 1 yr. old boy is not described as
"interesting". But his four grandchildren through his first marriage are
"interesting".
R F also posted this, " MANY an interesting child has been saved by having
DR. BULL's COUGH SYRUP handy. (1889)"
In this case death or its avoidance is implied.
Of all the examples given only the case of Seth Barton French is unconcerned
with health or death. But even in this case lineage is addressed. This in
itself is pretty strong evidence that the term is not a general description
of a child that is worthy of attention.
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel." Samuel Johnson
"Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all other
countries because you were born in it."
George Bernard Shaw
Marc
Marc
news:3ef99a89$0$13739$afc3...@news.easynet.co.uk...
>
>
> I'm afraid its a rather prosaic reason, but it seems to me to be much more
> likely than some of the other conjecture.
>
would expect to see this formula commonly used in the 19th century
literature we are all familiar with. Also consider that all examples given
with only one certain exception concern death, heritage, linieage, disease
or health. Most of them have concerned the death of an interesting child or
its parent.
Eve McLaughlin
>I just don't feel I can buy this. I don't think the Victorians
>officially expressed their class-consciousness so blatantly
oh, come on! The Victorians were not PC, even those with a social
conscience about the privations of the poor. The poor were a different
class, a different world - and on the whole, they didn't read newspapers
(didn't buy them, anyway, so they were not catered for. Events
concerning poor people are mentioned to shock, to amuse, to titillate -
but the feelings of the poor described are not considered.
as to
>imply that working-class children were "uninteresting":
I think that with more experience, you will realise this is precisely
what was thought.
>You know better than I the title and provenance of your South African
>War list; but it wouldn't be too surprising if in certain contexts
>such a list were confined to commissioned officers even today, without
>any implication of relative value of the people named.
In a public newspaper. So not a private list for one school etc only.
It was the way of things then.
Rick J
"Marc" <marc...@obongo.com> wrote in message Also consider that all
examples given
> with only one certain exception concern death, heritage, linieage,
disease
> or health.
Hard to know what an obituary would be concerned with other than the
above !!!!
> -->
Steve Hayes
wrote:
However, the piece that aroused my curiosity (because it was the first time I
had seen the phrase) said that the child in question was the second
interesting child to die that week.
To me that implies that several more children may have died that week, but
only two were interesting.
--
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7734/stevesig.htm
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk
Don Moody
<airfo...@hotmail.com> writes
The many obits I've read, and the few I've written, were more concerned
with a life that has been lived. They provide an aide memoire for those
still living when drawing lessons for themselves from the life that was
lived.
Don
--
Dr D P Moody, Ashwood, Exeter Cross, Liverton, Newton Abbot, Devon,
England TQ12 6EY
Tel: +44(0) 1626 821725 Fax: +44(0) 1626 824912
Reinhold (Rey) Aman
[...]
> --
> Dr D P Moody, Ashwood, Exeter Cross, Liverton, Newton Abbot,
> Devon, England TQ12 6EY
Speaking of interesting, you have one of those "interesting" British
addresses that defy standard database fields (street, city).
"England," "Devon" and "Newton Abbot" I understand of course, but what
are "Ashwood," "Exeter Cross" and "Liverton" in your address? Are all
of them really necessary in your small town and with your postal code,
TQ12 6EY? This is a serious and polite question.
--
Reinhold (Rey) Aman
Santa Rosa, CA 95402, USA
http://www.sonic.net/maledicta/
Surreyman
Reinhold (Rey) Aman <am...@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:3EFAB92F...@sonic.net...
> Dr Don Moody wrote:
> [...]
> > --
> > Dr D P Moody, Ashwood, Exeter Cross, Liverton, Newton Abbot,
> > Devon, England TQ12 6EY
>
> Speaking of interesting, you have one of those "interesting" British
> addresses that defy standard database fields (street, city).
>
> "England," "Devon" and "Newton Abbot" I understand of course, but what
> are "Ashwood," "Exeter Cross" and "Liverton" in your address? Are all
> of them really necessary in your small town and with your postal code,
> TQ12 6EY? This is a serious and polite question.
>
>
Now that the UK also has post codes (zip codes), often a just a surname and
post code could get a letter delivered. But to save delay at the sorting
office, the address does help the postman!
'Ashwood' is probably the house name and 'Exeter Cross' the street? Liverton
is no doubt a village near Newton Abbot, a larger town.
Thus, without computers, the letter could still be delivered.
But many (most?) of us in the UK are rather more 'patriotic' about our place
names than maybe in the USA.
Especially re counties. So many historic counties no longer officially
exist, yet many (most) of us like to retain them.
Especially in Wales & Scotland, much loved county names have disappeared,
but are still strenuously used!
My English county (Surrey) is still there, thank goodness. But just this
morning a client insisted that I posted material to him, naming his county -
Wigtownshire. Needs an oldish map to find that now! But all strength to his
arm!
Surreyman
Matti Lamprhey
> Dr Don Moody wrote:
> [...]
> > --
> > Dr D P Moody, Ashwood, Exeter Cross, Liverton, Newton Abbot,
> > Devon, England TQ12 6EY
>
> Speaking of interesting, you have one of those "interesting" British
> addresses that defy standard database fields (street, city).
>
> "England," "Devon" and "Newton Abbot" I understand of course, but what
> are "Ashwood," "Exeter Cross" and "Liverton" in your address? Are all
> of them really necessary in your small town and with your postal code,
> TQ12 6EY? This is a serious and polite question.
My address until a year or so ago was of precisely the same form, and
it's not at all uncommon in Britain.
Here is the list of "address elements" in the UK, in the sequence they
might appear in the full address, with an example in each case:
Organisation name QAS Systems Ltd
PO Box PO Box 100
Non-PAF household Room 2
Sub-premise name/number Flat B
Premise name Ocean Towers
Premise number 27
Dependent thoroughfare Gorse View
Thoroughfare Peak Lane
Double dependent locality Kingston Gorse
Dependent locality East Preston
Post town Littlehampton
County West Sussex
Postcode BN16 1RW
These have been taken from a specification issued by QAS Systems Ltd,
who are a prominent supplier of postcode and address software in
Britain.
Dr Moody's address contains premise name, double dependent locality,
dependent locality, post town, county, (state) and postcode.
Addresses without a house number or street name are common in rural
areas, and the locality fields are used instead in such cases. The
double dependent locality may cover a large area but only a handful of
properties, and therefore substitutes for a street name.
Matti
John Cartmell
Reinhold (Rey) Aman <am...@sonic.net> wrote:
> Dr Don Moody wrote:
> [...]
> > --
> > Dr D P Moody, Ashwood, Exeter Cross, Liverton, Newton Abbot,
> > Devon, England TQ12 6EY
> Speaking of interesting, you have one of those "interesting" British
> addresses that defy standard database fields (street, city).
> "England," "Devon" and "Newton Abbot" I understand of course, but what
> are "Ashwood," "Exeter Cross" and "Liverton" in your address? Are all
> of them really necessary in your small town and with your postal code,
> TQ12 6EY? This is a serious and polite question.
The name, first line and post code should be sufficient,
BUT,
the flavour of the address may be essential for everyone to be happy,
NEWTON ABBOTT
is best in uppercase
Devon should not be needed at all
England should be after the postcode
and whilst I appreciate the streamlined addresses from eg The Netherlands
when tryng to fit them into a database (but don't forget to make the lines
much longer!) they are so boring compared to UK addresses.
At a guess you could drop Liverton and Devon and put Newton Abbott in upper
case and it would still get there - but why guess? If you get the post code
wrong and you're hand-writing is bad there is still a good chance of
delivery if the whole lot is present. It's all about making it appropriate
for real people. ;-)
--
John Cartmell jo...@cartmell.demon.co.uk FAX +44 (0)8700-519-527
Acorn Publisher magazine & FD Games www.acornpublisher.com
Jacqui
> England should be after the postcode
"England" shouldn't really be in there at all. If sending from abroad
the appropriate version of "United Kingdom" should be there (although
most of Europe uses a local word for "England" or "Scotland" etc, as
appropriate, it's still not "England"), and if sending from within the
UK it's completely unnecessary.
Jac
Don Moody
<am...@sonic.net> writes
>Dr Don Moody wrote:
>[...]
>> --
>> Dr D P Moody, Ashwood, Exeter Cross, Liverton, Newton Abbot,
>> Devon, England TQ12 6EY
>
>Speaking of interesting, you have one of those "interesting" British
>addresses that defy standard database fields (street, city).
>
>"England," "Devon" and "Newton Abbot" I understand of course, but what
>are "Ashwood," "Exeter Cross" and "Liverton" in your address? Are all
>of them really necessary in your small town and with your postal code,
>TQ12 6EY? This is a serious and polite question.
>
full formal correct postal address in order to increase the probability
that mail will be delivered. The system would then work regardless of
where the address is in the UK and regardless of whether the delivering
postman knew the area or not.
But. There's always a but. In much of the UK (by area but not by
population) there are no street names, and certainly no numbers on
houses in a street. In such country areas the local postman (and the
local doctor, vicar, plumber, ...) tend to remain in place for many
years. They get to know the people of their patch, and often a
remarkable amount about the business of those people. The 'system'
ceases to matter. The postal delivery is done with the aid of one human
knowing another. I regularly get mail (particularly from American
cousins who obviously have the same limited computer program as you)
which is incompletely addressed. But then I do know the postie.
If you want an extreme example of computer-defying addressing I've never
come across one to beat:
The Chief of African Witch Doctors,
Kampala.
That was posted one afternoon in Nigeria. That night was the regular
weekly Pan-Am (when there was such a thing) cross-Africa west-east
flight. The Uganda mail was off-loaded at Entebbe in the early hours and
trucked up to the central post office in Kampala. The sorter put it in
P.O. Box 4884. From where an illiterate porter picked it up, bicycled to
my lab, and laid it on my desk at 8 a.m. Just 20 hours after it was
posted. The job of my lab was to study native medicines.
The comment is, indeed, not about what constitutes an effective postal
address anywhere in the world. It is that computer programs designed by
Americans for mail handling in American cities laid out in a nice grid
of named streets with a sensible progression of property numbers do NOT,
unsurprisingly, work in other - and more chaotic - areas. Areas where
the system of mail delivery grew up naturally over decades before
computers were invented, and where the post was handled by human beings
rather than machines. The remedy is NOT to try to compress old
procedures to fit the Procrustean bed of an unsubtle computer program.
The remedy is to re-write the program to handle all the subtlety.
When you succeed, do give me a shout. One sale practically guaranteed.
In connection with my business I have to communicate with people all
around the world and in many different systems of postal delivery. I
wish I could have a system which handled it all correctly, which would
be searchable on every field and which further would give me some idea
of the proximity of one address to another.
Such a program would, of course, be of immense help in genealogy when it
comes to finding out where and how our ancestors wandered. But then it
would need also to have a 'translator' which would convert old addresses
from documents into their present whereabouts. Over here, anything from
a house to a county can 'disappear' by being re-designated.
Don
--
Dr D P Moody, Ashwood, Exeter Cross, Liverton, Newton Abbot, Devon,
England TQ12 6EY
Phil C.
>
>Reinhold (Rey) Aman <am...@sonic.net> wrote in message
>news:3EFAB92F...@sonic.net...
>> Dr Don Moody wrote:
>> [...]
>> > --
>> > Dr D P Moody, Ashwood, Exeter Cross, Liverton, Newton Abbot,
>> > Devon, England TQ12 6EY
>>
>> Speaking of interesting, you have one of those "interesting" British
>> addresses that defy standard database fields (street, city).
>>
>> "England," "Devon" and "Newton Abbot" I understand of course, but what
>> are "Ashwood," "Exeter Cross" and "Liverton" in your address? Are all
>> of them really necessary in your small town and with your postal code,
>> TQ12 6EY? This is a serious and polite question.
>Now that the UK also has post codes (zip codes), often a just a surname and
>post code could get a letter delivered. But to save delay at the sorting
>office, the address does help the postman!
I've got a non-standard address and I do find some difficulty in knowing
how to enter it in forms etc. It's also got an apostrophe in it which I
just had to "forget" - the databases can't cope with apostrophes. Worse,
I share a postcode with houses over two miles away. It's become an
increasing problem as more and more parcels are sent by private carriers
with frequent staff turnover.
I did once helpfully start including a direction as part of the address
- "2.5 miles down..." Needless to say, this turned into "25 miles
down..."
Sometimes I can help the lost by pointing out the house they want. I
then often have to tell them that although the house is only a mile away
they've now got a round trip of anything up to 15 miles to get to it.
Imagine how pleased they are.
Just to make matters worse, my phone number is not for the area in which
I live (BT did the best they could) and the address was wrongly printed
in the phone book for a while. And my electricity is on a completley
different run from my nearest neighbours in either direction. What fun
we have when there's a power cut.
However, at least the villages in my area are nucleated so people know
when they've found them. Areas with non-nucleated villages (i.e just a
scatter of lanes and houses around the parish) are almost impossible.
People must grow old trying to find addresses in parts of Norfolk and
Suffolk.
--
Phil C.
LizR
Mmm.. I got so interested in this thread (pun intended) that I phoned my mum and
asked her! She has a whole stock of old words and pronunciations, but this one had
her flummoxed. In the end she thought it might be a child who had an interest in
someone's estate. When I said that would be "interested" she countered with... it
would be "interesting" if the interest still applied. Now she's off to ask her big
brother, who is juat a bit older than Methuselah. I'll post if he has anything
"interesting" to say:-)
LizR
Don Moody
<jo...@cartmell.demon.co.uk> writes
>England should be after the postcode
on the notion of proceeding from the lesser to the greater. But
nevertheless it is a mistake. Royal Mail requirements are that the
postcode is the LAST item in the address and should be on a line of its
own (which isn't practicable in a sig for email). My snailmail address
below is in precisely the correct sequence.
>At a guess you could drop Liverton and Devon and put Newton Abbott in upper
>case and it would still get there - but why guess? If you get the post code
>wrong and you're hand-writing is bad there is still a good chance of
>delivery if the whole lot is present.
As I've already explained, if the local postie knows you then swathes of
the 'correct' postal address can be left out. There is in-built
redundancy of information. It is still worth putting in all 'redundant'
information, as a habit, because there are areas where the local postie
does not know his (or her) patch, may not have English as a first
language, and may be changing weekly or even daily. The system is there
to cope with the worst situation. Even with Christmas temps.
Apropos POST TOWN in caps, it tends to look awkward and it is becoming
redundant as the P.O. moves from hand-sorting at POST TOWN sorting
offices to machine sorting at bloody great 'barns' which are simply
sorting machines wrapped in a weather-proof cocoon. TQ is essentially
one sorting machine. 12 and 13 are essentially two bins within that
machine, both of which contain mail which is going through Newton Abbot.
The machine will sort and bag to the next level so TQ12 6 will be sorted
into a different bag than TQ12 n, where n is another digit. Splitting to
'walks' (which in Mail-ese are still 'walks' even if delivered entirely
by van!) and sequencing within walks is done in the sorting office at
Newton Abbot. The postcode helps but the end part, EY in my case, is NOT
necessarily a unique property identifier. Typically it will cover 6 or
so properties. It is up to the local postie to know his walk
sufficiently well to know the sequence of those properties for delivery
purposes when he 'faces up' the correspondence for delivery. Where it is
a street with numbers that is something anyone could do. But where there
are only property names, local knowledge is necessary.
It is, theoretically, possible to have two Mr J Smith in TQ12 6EY so it
is possible that without more initials or a house name post could be
delivered to the wrong address. The risk is minute, but is one of the
reasons why I get niggled about computer programs that allow only one
initial. At one time something addressed to D Moody at a particular
address could have been for one of nine 'people' if the dog, Duke, and
the cat, Dumpit, were included. As four of them were Miss D Moody and
awaiting Valentines or some such, friction tended to ensue. Use of the
second initial, or the full first name, would have differentiated the
sisters.
It is another lesson for genealogists. A single initial plus surname at
a given address does not necessarily refer to one particular person.
Don
>It's all about making it appropriate
>for real people. ;-)
>
Never a truer word. Make the programs fit the people. For those program
writers who believe that people should be constrained to fit the
program, I commend reading what happened to Procrustes.
Don
--
Dr D P Moody, Ashwood, Exeter Cross, Liverton, Newton Abbot, Devon,
England TQ12 6EY
Don Moody
<sirlawren...@hotmail.com> writes
As a Jewish-Irish-Scotsman, with Welsh-American cousins, I find myself
living in 'England'. So I say so.
Don
--
Dr D P Moody, Ashwood, Exeter Cross, Liverton, Newton Abbot, Devon,
England TQ12 6EY
Dave Mayall
>
> In message <4c088d6...@cartmell.demon.co.uk>, John Cartmell
> <jo...@cartmell.demon.co.uk> writes
> >England should be after the postcode
> There, John, is where you are WRONG. It is a common mistake and is based
> on the notion of proceeding from the lesser to the greater. But
> nevertheless it is a mistake. Royal Mail requirements are that the
> postcode is the LAST item in the address and should be on a line of its
> own (which isn't practicable in a sig for email). My snailmail address
> below is in precisely the correct sequence.
Not true any longer.
Royal Mail USED to insist on the postcode coming after the country
(because their machinery needed it that way). They have now adopted the
UPU convention that country follows postcode.
Jacqui
> Jacqui writes
>>John Cartmell wibbled
>>
>>> England should be after the postcode
>>
>>"England" shouldn't really be in there at all. If sending from
>>abroad the appropriate version of "United Kingdom" should be there
>>(although most of Europe uses a local word for "England" or
>>"Scotland" etc, as appropriate, it's still not "England"), and if
>>sending from within the UK it's completely unnecessary.
> As a Jewish-Irish-Scotsman, with Welsh-American cousins, I find
> myself living in 'England'. So I say so.
The Post Office (Royal Mail, Consignia, whatever) don't give a stuff
about your origins though.
Jac, with Italian, Sicilian, Sardinian, French, Scottish, Welsh, Irish
and English all in there somewhere to varying degrees.
david56
> Apropos POST TOWN in caps, it tends to look awkward and it is becoming
> redundant as the P.O. moves from hand-sorting at POST TOWN sorting
> offices to machine sorting at bloody great 'barns' which are simply
> sorting machines wrapped in a weather-proof cocoon. TQ is essentially
> one sorting machine. 12 and 13 are essentially two bins within that
> machine, both of which contain mail which is going through Newton Abbot.
> The machine will sort and bag to the next level so TQ12 6 will be sorted
> into a different bag than TQ12 n, where n is another digit. Splitting to
> 'walks' (which in Mail-ese are still 'walks' even if delivered entirely
> by van!) and sequencing within walks is done in the sorting office at
> Newton Abbot. The postcode helps but the end part, EY in my case, is NOT
> necessarily a unique property identifier. Typically it will cover 6 or
> so properties. It is up to the local postie to know his walk
> sufficiently well to know the sequence of those properties for delivery
> purposes when he 'faces up' the correspondence for delivery. Where it is
> a street with numbers that is something anyone could do.
Not in every case. My road has 28 houses, numbered 1 - 30, missing
13 and 29. The road is a circle with a spoke coming off the circle
to join to the next road. There are houses on the outside of the
circle, and houses on the inside (rather like a large traffic
island). It starts sensibly, with numbers 1 and 2 being at the
entrance (the end of the spoke), but after that you're on your own.
There are five houses in the centre with numbers apparently taken
randomly from the set available. We can always spot strangers as
they drive around and around until they have to give up and ring on
the doorbell of whichever house they have found themselves outside.
All 28 homes are on the same post code.
> But where there
> are only property names, local knowledge is necessary.
>
> It is, theoretically, possible to have two Mr J Smith in TQ12 6EY so it
> is possible that without more initials or a house name post could be
> delivered to the wrong address. The risk is minute, but is one of the
> reasons why I get niggled about computer programs that allow only one
> initial. At one time something addressed to D Moody at a particular
> address could have been for one of nine 'people' if the dog, Duke, and
> the cat, Dumpit, were included. As four of them were Miss D Moody and
> awaiting Valentines or some such, friction tended to ensue. Use of the
> second initial, or the full first name, would have differentiated the
> sisters.
You gave all four daughters names starting with D? I knew a family
of five children all starting with J, but to mind that way lies
confusion and madness.
--
David
I say what it occurs to me to say.
=====
The address is valid today, but I change it periodically.
Jacqui
> At one time something addressed to D
> Moody at a particular address could have been for one of nine
> 'people' if the dog, Duke, and the cat, Dumpit, were included. As
> four of them were Miss D Moody and awaiting Valentines or some
> such, friction tended to ensue. Use of the second initial, or the
> full first name, would have differentiated the sisters.
>
> It is another lesson for genealogists. A single initial plus
> surname at a given address does not necessarily refer to one
> particular person.
I'd call that a lesson for parents, too. Naming all children with the
same initial is probably *not* a smart plan (although it must make
nametaping school clothes easier).
Jac
Mike Day
"Surreyman" <a.spe...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:mczKa.1074$QA2.1...@newsfep2-win.server.ntli.net...
Not entirely, though. Surrey has lost adminsitrative control of great
swathes to, first, London County Council and then, later, the Greater London
Council. Mind you, Surrey did gain Staines from Middlesex, which, in
administrative local government terms ceased to exist altogether, although,
of course, Middlesex is still there!!
Mike
Twickenham, MIDDLESEX
Evan Kirshenbaum
> [1] Back then, SS numbers were not used for identification purposes as
> they are used today. Come to think of it, I'm not sure if the law was
> changed to make the SS number a legal identification number. My SS card
> has it plainly written that it is not to used for identification
> purposes.
That refers to the *card*, not the *number*. The card is a mnemonic
device to help you remember your number (and to present evidence of it
to your employer), not proof of identification. I seem to recall that
you used to be able to request a "replacement" card with any name and
number on it. Now they will only issue a card with the correct number
and they require proof of identity, but that "proof" is mainly just to
disambiguate, as you can mail it in
We must see a document in the name you want shown on the card. The
identity document must be of recent issuance so that we can
determine your continued existence. We prefer to see a document
with a photograph. However, we can generally accept a non-photo
identity document if it has enough information to identify you
(e.g.,your name as well as your age, date of birth, or parents'
names). We cannot accept a birth certificate or hospital birth
record as evidence of identity. Some documents that we can accept
as proof of identity are:
Driver's license
Marriage or divorce record
Military records
Adoption record
Life insurance policy
Passport
Health Insurance card (not a Medicare card)
School ID card
http://tinyurl.com/fbz0
<URL:http://ssa-custhelp.ssa.gov/cgi-bin/ssa.cfg/php/enduser/
std_adp.php?p_sid=jqzZbJMg&p_lva=&p_faqid=251&p_created=958404483&
p_sp=cF9zcmNoPSZwX2dyaWRzb3J0PSZwX3Jvd19jbnQ9NjEmcF9jYXRfbHZsMT0xN
iZwX3BhZ2U9MQ**&p_li=>
According to Cecil Adams
http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a1_154.html
they tightened things up in 1972.
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |You gotta know when to code,
1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 | Know when to log out,
Palo Alto, CA 94304 |Know when to single step,
| Know when you're through.
kirsh...@hpl.hp.com |You don't write your program
(650)857-7572 | When you're sittin' at the term'nal.
|There'll be time enough for writin'
http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ | When you're in the queue.
Mike Day
"Jacqui" <sirlawren...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns93A67E9294045si...@163.1.2.7...
> John Cartmell wibbled
>
> > England should be after the postcode
>
> "England" shouldn't really be in there at all. If sending from abroad
> the appropriate version of "United Kingdom" should be there (although
> most of Europe uses a local word for "England" or "Scotland" etc, as
> appropriate, it's still not "England")
I'm not sure what you mean by 'it's still not England'. The last time I
looked, It was still called England :-)
Be that as it may, when in France, as I am frequently, and addressing
letters back to England, I have used, according to my whim, any of
Angleterre, Grand-Bretagne or Royaume-Uni in the address with no discernible
difference in speed of delivery.
Mike
John Cartmell
<d...@hyperpeople.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <4c088d6...@cartmell.demon.co.uk>, John Cartmell
> <jo...@cartmell.demon.co.uk> writes
> >England should be after the postcode
> There, John, is where you are WRONG. It is a common mistake and is based
> on the notion of proceeding from the lesser to the greater. But
> nevertheless it is a mistake. Royal Mail requirements are that the
> postcode is the LAST item in the address and should be on a line of its
> own (which isn't practicable in a sig for email). My snailmail address
> below is in precisely the correct sequence.
Royal Mail
Our Services - All You Need To Know
p22
IMPORTANT: If posting abroad the Country name, printed in CAPITALS,
generally comes last
and
You do not need to include a County name provided the POSTTOWN and POSTCODE
are used
[and shown in CAPITALS on separate lines]
[I had to check before setting up the database for Acorn Publisher magazine
;-) ]
> >At a guess you could drop Liverton and Devon and put Newton Abbott in
> >upper case and it would still get there - but why guess? If you get the
> >post code wrong and you're hand-writing is bad there is still a good
> >chance of delivery if the whole lot is present.
> As I've already explained, if the local postie knows you then swathes of
> the 'correct' postal address can be left out. There is in-built
> redundancy of information. It is still worth putting in all 'redundant'
> information, as a habit, because there are areas where the local postie
> does not know his (or her) patch, may not have English as a first
> language, and may be changing weekly or even daily. The system is there
> to cope with the worst situation. Even with Christmas temps.
*Nothing copes with that!*
Nor with the behavious next door which is a Rugby Club with a letter box
next to a gate. Last week the postman left letters propped up in the open
and vandalised box for all the world to see and take.
[Snip]
> It is another lesson for genealogists. A single initial plus surname at
> a given address does not necessarily refer to one particular person.
That doesn't help when you find two records for Amy Fisher buried in the
same family plot from the same address 2 years apart!
[Snip]
Mike Day
"Mike Day" <mike...@dsl.pipex.com> wrote in message news:...
> Be that as it may, when in France, as I am frequently, and addressing
> letters back to England, I have used, according to my whim, any of
> Angleterre, Grand-Bretagne or Royaume-Uni in the address with no
discernible
> difference in speed of delivery.
That should of course be: 'Grande-Bretagne'.
Apologies
Mike
Mike Lyle
> "Reinhold (Rey) Aman" <am...@sonic.net> wrote...
> > Dr Don Moody wrote:
> > [...]
> > > --
> > > Dr D P Moody, Ashwood, Exeter Cross, Liverton, Newton Abbot,
> > > Devon, England TQ12 6EY
> >
> > Speaking of interesting, you have one of those "interesting" British
> > addresses that defy standard database fields (street, city).
> >
> > "England," "Devon" and "Newton Abbot" I understand of course, but what
> > are "Ashwood," "Exeter Cross" and "Liverton" in your address? Are all
> > of them really necessary in your small town and with your postal code,
> > TQ12 6EY? This is a serious and polite question.
>
> My address until a year or so ago was of precisely the same form, and
> it's not at all uncommon in Britain.
> Addresses without a house number or street name are common in rural
> areas, and the locality fields are used instead in such cases. The
> double dependent locality may cover a large area but only a handful of
> properties, and therefore substitutes for a street name.
>
and I think this is what Rey was driving at -- my house name and my
postcode should be enough, but that form would leave no margin of
error. Certainly counties are now theoretically redundant for postal
purposes, as some places have a postcode based in the next county.
"England", "Scotland", "Wales", and "Northern Ireland" are just
decorative political statements with no significance for inland mail.
*Deep down in the Highways Department at County Hall my road has a
reference number, probably beginning with "B" (maybe "C"), but it's
not on the 1:50,000 map, and I've never known it.
Mike.
Jacqui
> Jacqui wrote
>> "England" shouldn't really be in there at all. If sending from
>> abroad the appropriate version of "United Kingdom" should be
>> there (although most of Europe uses a local word for "England" or
>> "Scotland" etc, as appropriate, it's still not "England")
>
> I'm not sure what you mean by 'it's still not England'. The last
> time I looked, It was still called England :-)
You answered it yourself in the next paragraph. If it's being sent from
Europe, using a locally-appropriate word, it's "Angleterre" or
"Inghilterra" or whatever. It's not "England".
Jac
Surreyman
Surreyman
Surreyman
Don Moody <d...@hyperpeople.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:S1Jid0fK...@hyperpeople.demon.co.uk...
I think it's Grayshott, Hampshire that *has* to use Grayshott, Surrey as its
postal address. Not at all sure why! (It is by the border, but definitely in
Hants.).
Surreyman
Matti Lamprhey
>
> *Deep down in the Highways Department at County Hall my road has a
> reference number, probably beginning with "B" (maybe "C"), but it's
> not on the 1:50,000 map, and I've never known it.
I'd be interested to know if that's true, and what numbering systems are
used. AFAIK the overt numbering system (A1, B4290 etc) which DOES
appear systematically on 1:50K OS maps isn't extended to all roads.
Matti
Jacqui
> Mine is also one without house number or street name*;
> *Deep down in the Highways Department at County Hall my road has a
> reference number, probably beginning with "B" (maybe "C"), but
> it's not on the 1:50,000 map, and I've never known it.
Friends from school had an address which was of the form:
Name
B4009
Oxon
OX9 ...
I think the family were asked to provide a house name at some point
during the 1980s, to improve delivery, but since they had an unusual
surname it didn't seem to matter much before that.
Jac
Mike Day
I wonder if Staines was a fair swap for Richmond, Barnes & Mortlake, etc.
:-)
Mike
Roy
a.spe...@ntlworld.com says...
> So many historic counties no longer officially
> exist, yet many (most) of us like to retain them.
> Especially in Wales & Scotland, much loved county names have disappeared,
> but are still strenuously used!
>
And don't forget Middlesex!
Still exists as a postal address, and I insist that it is used for mine.
Why the hell should we allow government bureaucrats to tell us where
we're living? We know where we are!
Cheers,
Roy
Mike Day
Well I *was* joking, but not to worry.
Being pedantic though, The word to use when in France would be Angleterre,
and Inghilterra would be used when in Italy, but it (the land in question)
would still be England to us over here.
Mike
(still in jest)
Jacqui
> I wonder if Staines was a fair swap for Richmond, Barnes &
> Mortlake, etc.
*Nothing* is fair when it comes to Staines.
Jac
Jacqui
> Jacqui wrote
>> > I'm not sure what you mean by 'it's still not England'. The
>> > last time I looked, It was still called England :-)
>>
>> You answered it yourself in the next paragraph. If it's being
>> sent from Europe, using a locally-appropriate word, it's
>> "Angleterre" or "Inghilterra" or whatever. It's not "England".
>
> Well I *was* joking, but not to worry.
Yeah, I know. The smiley's a bit of a clue, innit?
> Being pedantic though, The word to use when in France would be
> Angleterre, and Inghilterra would be used when in Italy, but it
> (the land in question) would still be England to us over here.
Ah, but semiotically it *isn't*. Of such things are enormous LitCrit
arguments made.
Jac
Don Moody
<sirlawren...@hotmail.com> writes
>I'd call that a lesson for parents, too. Naming all children with the
>same initial is probably *not* a smart plan
first girl was Denise E and the second Diana L. So a 'marque' was
established. There followed Deborah J, Donna T and Daniel C.
In my chemical research days I had come across the magnificent Dr Dagmar
Gundreda X, but my wife put her foot down with a firm hand. Maybe that's
why we didn't have another girl.
> (although it must make
>nametaping school clothes easier).
And handing down school uniforms!
E-Traveller
in B&B's all over England, Wales and some of Scotland my wife and I never
failed to find our destination.
Here in Canada we have boring numerical information and a post office that
likes com-=pliance to its rules. However the public and government jumped
all over them when they announced that they would only accept their own list
of abbreviations on letters such as St and Av while the long form of street
or avenue would be returned to the sender. They also wanted to take a cut
from every email sent within Canada. The impossibility of compliance to
either of their plans never seemed to occur to them.
The result was no change other than a raise in the cost of mailing a letter.
I think I will try to get a bit maore descriptive in my own address and see
what the PO does.
Jim
"Mike Day" <mike...@dsl.pipex.com> wrote in message
news:3efb0fb2$0$11385$cc9e...@news.dial.pipex.com...
R H Draney
Wonder what they'd do with "Perfidious Albion"....r
R F
> Now that the UK also has post codes (zip codes),
Oy! Don't use "zip code" generically!
> But many (most?) of us in the UK are rather more 'patriotic' about our place
> names than maybe in the USA.
> Especially re counties. So many historic counties no longer officially
> exist, yet many (most) of us like to retain them.
That's nothing. The City of Brooklyn no longer exists as a recognized
independent municipal entity, yet Brooklynites without exception
address their mail as "Brooklyn, NY" (or "Brooklyn, N.Y." to the real
purists). That's two and a half million people. Fourth largest city
in America, it would be.
nightjar
"Matti Lamprhey" <matti-...@totally-official.com> wrote in message
news:bdefk0$q709h$1...@ID-103223.news.dfncis.de...
> Here is the list of "address elements" in the UK, in the sequence they
> might appear in the full address, with an example in each case:
>
> Organisation name QAS Systems Ltd
> PO Box PO Box 100
> Non-PAF household Room 2
> Sub-premise name/number Flat B
> Premise name Ocean Towers
> Premise number 27
> Dependent thoroughfare Gorse View
> Thoroughfare Peak Lane
> Double dependent locality Kingston Gorse
> Dependent locality East Preston
> Post town Littlehampton
> County West Sussex
> Postcode BN16 1RW
>
> These have been taken from a specification issued by QAS Systems Ltd,
> who are a prominent supplier of postcode and address software in
> Britain.
However, no premise really needs both name and number and Kingston Gorse
only needs to be mentioned if you want people to know you live in the posh
area.
Colin Bignell
nightjar
"Reinhold (Rey) Aman" <am...@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:3EFAB92F...@sonic.net...
> Dr Don Moody wrote:
> [...]
> > Dr D P Moody, Ashwood, Exeter Cross, Liverton, Newton Abbot,
> > Devon, England TQ12 6EY
>
> addresses that defy standard database fields (street, city).
>
> "England," "Devon" and "Newton Abbot" I understand of course, but what
> are "Ashwood," "Exeter Cross" and "Liverton" in your address? Are all
> of them really necessary in your small town and with your postal code,
> TQ12 6EY? This is a serious and polite question.
If you place a telephoned order in the UK, normally all you will be asked
for is your post code and the house number, or name. The rest comes out of
the database.
Colin Bignell
Matti Lamprhey
> "Matti Lamprhey" <matti-...@totally-official.com> wrote...
> ...
> > Here is the list of "address elements" in the UK, in the sequence
> > they might appear in the full address, with an example in each case:
> >
> > Organisation name QAS Systems Ltd
> > PO Box PO Box 100
> > Non-PAF household Room 2
> > Sub-premise name/number Flat B
> > Premise name Ocean Towers
> > Premise number 27
> > Dependent thoroughfare Gorse View
> > Thoroughfare Peak Lane
> > Double dependent locality Kingston Gorse
> > Dependent locality East Preston
> > Post town Littlehampton
> > County West Sussex
> > Postcode BN16 1RW
> >
> > These have been taken from a specification issued by QAS Systems
> > Ltd, who are a prominent supplier of postcode and address software
> > in Britain.
>
> However, no premise really needs both name and number
That's true -- but this was a complete list of the possible elements.
> and Kingston Gorse only needs to be mentioned if you want people to
> know you live in the posh area.
That's not true, for the reason I gave earlier: the double dependent
locality is often required (ie it's part of the official postal address)
when no street (sorry, "thoroughfare") name is available, which is very
common in ruralia.
Matti
nightjar
My comment was very specifically about Kingston Gorse. It is one of several
enclaves and private estates along that part of the coast. While it is no
doubt useful for a visitor to know that the address is on one of them, it is
not a necessary part of the address for postal deliveries.
Colin Bignell
Roy
rf...@sparky.cs.nyu.edu says...
> The City of Brooklyn no longer exists as a recognized
> independent municipal entity, yet Brooklynites without exception
> address their mail as "Brooklyn, NY" (or "Brooklyn, N.Y." to the real
> purists).
>
Good on 'em, they sound like my kind of people!
Cheers,
Roy
R F
> Colin Bignell
Are you related to the Bignalls of Hertfordshire?
John Varela
> I have trouble accepting the "retarded" therory. For one thing this is an
> awful lot of retarded children in these examples. Also it seems improabable
> that there would be so many multible retarded children in so many of these
> families.
I haven't read everything in this thread. The original note doesn't
mention "an awful lot" of children, it mentions "several". Are many
more cited elsewhere?
--
John Varela
John Varela
> It is also unlikely, in the period, that they would announce such a thing to
> the world at large. Having a retarded child would more probably be seen as
> something to be ashamed of.
Hence the euphemism.
--
John Varela
Steve Hayes
Why is it that when I see Staines the word "reservoir" come to mind?
Is there such a thing, or am I imagining it?
Steve Hayes
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7734/stevesig.htm
Steve Hayes
<sirlawren...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>John Cartmell wibbled
>
>> England should be after the postcode
>
>"England" shouldn't really be in there at all. If sending from abroad
>the appropriate version of "United Kingdom" should be there (although
>most of Europe uses a local word for "England" or "Scotland" etc, as
>appropriate, it's still not "England"), and if sending from within the
>UK it's completely unnecessary.
I thought Newton Abbott WAS in England.
When I send letters I put on the envelope "England UK" or "Scotland UK" or
"Wales UK" or "Jersey, British Channel Islands" depending on where the place
is.
Steve Hayes
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7734/stevesig.htm
Steve Hayes
<sirlawren...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Don Moody wibbled
>> At one time something addressed to D
>> Moody at a particular address could have been for one of nine
>> 'people' if the dog, Duke, and the cat, Dumpit, were included. As
>> four of them were Miss D Moody and awaiting Valentines or some
>> such, friction tended to ensue. Use of the second initial, or the
>> full first name, would have differentiated the sisters.
>>
>> It is another lesson for genealogists. A single initial plus
>> surname at a given address does not necessarily refer to one
>> particular person.
>
>I'd call that a lesson for parents, too. Naming all children with the
>same initial is probably *not* a smart plan (although it must make
>nametaping school clothes easier).
Before we were married my wife was VM Greene and her cousin, who was staying
with them, was also VM Greene, and they had problems when their income tax
forms arrive in the post on the same day.
Steve Hayes
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7734/stevesig.htm