Friday 28 March 2014

What to Share, and How

The subject of public family trees frequently does the rounds. In this post, I want to examine what people would like to share — software permitting — and the functional requirements of that sharing.

At the fore of the current posts on this subject is probably James Tanner’s Genealogy’s Star blog. Although there are too many posts there for me to cite separately, they consider the differences between having public trees versus private trees, using online trees versus local genealogy programs[1], and unified online trees versus user-owned ones. I’ll use the following table in order to put these terms into perspective.



In other words, a tree maintained using a local genealogy program is private to you, although you could give a copy to someone else. When such a tree is hosted online then there is a choice. If it is part of a unified tree then it is necessarily public, but if held as a separate user-owned tree then it could be either public or private.

There are both advantages and disadvantages to maintaining local trees, and a comprehensive list was recently posted by Renee Zamora on Renee's Genealogy Blog, but why do people want to create online trees? One reason is simply for use as “cousin bait”, and attracting distant relatives with a view to controlled sharing. This is the closest description of my own situation as my definitive data is held on a local machine. It is a position that will become increasingly difficult to maintain as online data is judged more and more by the sources it elects to cite. Some people do not want to share their data publicly for more delicate reasons, and a good case was presented by Kerry Scott at Why Don’t People Post Public Family Trees?

My own reasons for not sharing more data online are deeper than the implication above that I simply want to use a local program. My STEMMA® R&D project is one factor since I am developing software to support that custom data representation. Possibly more important, though, is the fact that my data is far from being a simple family tree. It is a representation of general micro-history that incorporates family history, family trees, pedigrees, timelines, narrative, etc. I cannot, therefore, share everything since there is no standard for this type of data, and no sites (at the time of writing) that are properly structured for this type of data.

James Tanner’s post Family Trees: Unified vs. User Owned caused me to think more about what I would like to share, and how, so I will try to expand on my brief response to him. I detest our industry’s preoccupation with “family trees”, and the way that it leads newcomers into believing that is the be-all and end-all of genealogy. I don’t know of a single experienced genealogist who only wants to collect names, dates, and places associated biological lineage in order to create a tree. They’re all interested in family history, and all aspects of that history. Although I’m out on a limb by declaring an interest in general micro-history. including the history of places, groups, and non-relatives, this is merely a superset of family history.

A very significant issue with any type of historical work is that it is a creative work. It involves research, thoughtful analysis, and some skill in writing it up accurately and interestingly. This is more than just an assembly of facts that anyone could find in the public domain. Even when a public tree is given source citations, it would be little more than an assembly of such facts. If it were possible to share our data as creative works then our requirements would suddenly align with those of authors of other online works, whether fiction or non-fiction. It struck me how close those requirements are to the issues people currently raise as obstacles to sharing their genealogical data publicly. For instance:

  • Attribution – Ensuring that their authorship is acknowledged. Allowing their work to be cited by the work of others as opposed to having it plagiarised.
  • Integrity – Allowing other researchers to see their work, but not to edit it. Their work could be connected to a central tree for indexing purposes but should not be assimilated entirely into the tree in order to preserve its structure or narrative form.
  • Drafts – Allowing revisions of their work, and possibly the addition of tentative items that they don't want to expose until they're more confident of them.
  • Longevity – Ensuring that their work will persist after they are no longer able to contribute.
  • Privacy – Allowing certain information to be disclosed at some point in the future (e.g. some respectable point after their death).

Obviously I cannot speak for everyone out there, but if this were possible now then I would gladly share all of my research. However, I would clarify that a tree-based site that simply accommodated rich-text notes is not what I’m thinking of. It would have to fully accommodate a structured representation of historical data that includes all of the items I mentioned above, including narrative, and yet could be indexed by a tree, a pedigree chart, or a timeline, etc. This is certainly possible and is one of the goals driving STEMMA development.

I can’t quite work out the dynamics behind the industry advertising and the tools that we’re provided with. As I said, the concept of a family tree is endemic, but whether the advertising influences tool development, or vice versa, is hard to determine. As a software developer myself, I sometimes wonder whether developers see our tools more as a technical challenge than something that has to satisfy the requirements dictated by real genealogy. Collaborative Web sites, where we build a single picture of something, are a good example. Ignoring those sites that are wiki-based collaborations, everything I have seen is related to “unified family trees” rather than anything involving events, places, and narrative. The fact that even these existing sites are problematic supports my view that they are considered to be challenging. Although I demonstrated that other forms of collaboration are possible at Collaboration Without Tears, I also feel that it should be possible to upload “rich” (see above) user-owned data contributions to hang off a unified lineage-based framework. This step would be more significant than it may sound but I’ll defer any detailed presentation until another post — if there’s any interest, of course.

[1] It would be restrictive to term these ‘genealogical database programs’ since a local program does not necessarily have a database. As explained in DoGenealogists Really Need a Database?, a memory-resident database might be constructed on-the-fly from permanent and definitive data.

Wednesday 19 March 2014

Related Entities

No, not that sort of relation this week. This brief post espouses some thoughts on the esoteric subject of “related” places and groups. This should be of interest to software people but maybe not to everyone else.

To give my readers the chance to decide, let me explain the basic problem. Places are acknowledged to be fundamentally hierarchical — meaning that each place, whether a house, street, town, county, etc., is part of some bigger place — but every so often something breaks that neat picture. A place may be split into smaller ones, or small places joined together to form a bigger one, or a place torn down and replaced with an entirely new one at the same location[1].

This is a thorny issue that I don’t believe anyone has succeeded in handling gracefully. When the name of a place has changed at some point, or its boundaries have moved, then that is a simpler problem that I have already addressed. I have even addressed the more complicated situation where the parent place (i.e. the bigger one to which it belongs) has changed. In all these cases, the entity may be considered to be the same one, albeit with some new or changed properties.

The anomalous relationships I want to discuss may be categorised broadly as:

  • One-to-Many. This involves a splitting of an entity. An example for a place would be where a country has been split into several smaller ones, or a family farm has been divided between a number of siblings.
  • Many-to-One. This involves a joining of smaller entities. An example for places might be where someone has purchased adjoining land, or contiguous houses, and made them into one.
  • One-to-One. This involves a connection between two different entities that isn’t modelled by a normal hierarchy. It could be used as a catchall since the potential circumstances are more varied. For instance, the two entities may co-exist but still be related (see below), or there may be gap between the demise of one and the creation of the other. An example of the latter might be the redevelopment of an area of housing involving the digging-up and the laying-down of totally different roads. Two houses, of different dates, might then be related by their physical location.

In Revisiting the Family Group, I made the point that this issue must be solved in a consistent fashion for both places and groups. The first two categories have an obvious correspondence since groups may merge or splinter. The aforementioned post even provides a military example where two regiments were merged to form a new one. Luckily, both the Place and Group entities of STEMMA contain Creation/Demise elements that indicate when it came into being and/or ceased to exist. This turns out to be the ideal position to document the one-to-many and many-to-one transformations since the two forms would not co-exist. For convenient management, I elected to collect the links into a single place, thus providing a SplitTo and a JoinFrom sub-element.

In the one-to-one category, there’s a Group situation that has no equivalent for a Place: where one entity has inspired another. This is not the same as a splinter, which would otherwise divide the group membership, and an example I’m particularly familiar with is the creation of FHISO. This group was formed by a small set of members from BetterGEDCOM but the former group was unchanged.

So is this a complete solution? The answer has to be ‘no’ but I’m floating these ideas to get some constructive feedback, and also to indicate what failings the approach has. My goal in this exploration is to find a balance between structure and narrative; using the latter to differentiate the finer points of some generic connection or transformation event. One area it may not address is the Conurbation: a collection of neighbouring cities or towns that have a name independent of their respective parent places.

There is a need to accommodate these because they appear in such records as census returns. The example I will use for the purposes of illustration is The Potteries: an area of North Staffordshire, England, which encompassed the towns of Tunstall, Burslem, Hanley, Stoke, Fenton, and Longton. These towns, and several villages, were later given the single name of Stoke-on-Trent, a polycentric town that eventually became a city, although there was a settlement of the same name before that. An example occurrence in the records may be found for the place-of-birth of Joseph Davies in 1861[2].

I’ve picked this case since it appears in my own data. As a singular case, there may be a way of handling it as an older version of the Stoke-on-Trent town/city, but in the general case of UK Conurbations there may be instances where the natural parent place (e.g. a county) may be different for the constituent towns and villages. Short of having multiple parent entities (of different types), I cannot see a better scheme than relying on a one-to-one association at the moment.

** Post updated on 26 Dec 2015 to align with the changes in STEMMA V4.0 **

[1] STEMMA® makes a precise distinction between the terms ‘place’ and ‘location’. A definition and discussion may be found at STEMMA Places.
[2] "1861 England, Wales & Scotland Census",  database, FindMyPast ( : accessed 18 Mar 2014), household of Joseph Davies (age 30); citing RG 9/2292, folio 47, page 3; The National Archives of the UK (TNA).

Friday 7 March 2014

Ancestral Context

When researching family history, genealogists put great emphasis on “proof”, and substantiating our conclusions. This establishes a sound basis for objective aspects such as lineage, occupations, residence, etc., but what about the more subjective aspects? For instance, why they moved from A to B, or why so-and-so married so-and-so.

Although good research may yield clues to these questions, we would be much less certain of a conclusion that tried to look into the mind of an ancestor than a conclusion identifying, say, their parentage. Does that mean we shouldn’t be asking those questions? No, of course not, but a focus on rigour and proof may be steering us away from asking them, and so persuading us that we shouldn’t be recording such notions lest they be considered mere guesswork.

Interestingly, academic historians often do dig this deeply and attempt to analyse why things happened the way they did. The point I’m trying to make here is that searching for the context for why certain decisions were taken may not yield anything concrete, but it is still worthwhile as it provides a backdrop for the more substantiated details. As long as we don’t try to elevate such conjecture beyond its supporting evidence, it can help to turn a bunch of disparate facts into a readable narrative. In lucky situations, it may even take you down unanticipated avenues of research and yield something verifiable that might otherwise have been missed.

Every so often, we find an ancestor who travelled far afield instead of remaining in the family village/town. Emigration is a common instance, but my example case for this post involves a 19th Century ancestor who travelled across parts of Britain from Suffolk to Henley, to Kensington, to Burton-on-Trent, and to Derbyshire. I just had to ask myself why.

Henry Woods was born in the small rural Suffolk village of Peasenhall in c1821 to George Woods and Elizabeth Calver[1]. At some point between the baptism of their last child (William, c1827) and the 1841 census, George moved the whole family 150 miles to Remenham Hill in Berkshire, near to Henley-on-Thames[2]. In the 1841 census[3], both Henry and George are ‘Drillmen’, meaning they operated a seed drill for planting seed.

I lived in Suffolk for a while, not far from Peasenhall, and was rather surprised to find an ancestor from that village, let alone from the county of Suffolk. However, I realised how little local knowledge I had when I recently found that Peasenhall was once world-famous for a new generation of seed drills. James Smyth founded a company based on a new lever design in 1800, and this lasted for about 160 years. Before that time, the only drills in use were block drills, in which all the coulters were fixed in one transverse wooden beam. These were “about the most unserviceable instrument of its kind which could be conceived”. The lever drill had each coulter fixed to an independent lever. [4]

In a strange twist of serendipity, I had such a corn drill in one of my outbuildings, here in Ireland. It was constructed in 1887 by R. Hornsby & Son Ltd. of the Spittlegate Iron Works in Grantham, England.

Figure 1 - Corn Drill from towbar

Figure 2 - Corn Drill from rear

Even stranger is that I also have the remains of a very old block drill. A neighbour once commented that “That’s Stone Age, that is!”.

Remenham was famous for lavender crops:

About a mile and a half N by E. from Henley, in the hundred of Beynhurst, county of Berks, is REMENHAM village and parish, intersected by the river Thames. Park Place, in this parish, was formerly the residence of General Lord Conway: The cultivation and distilling of lavender was established here by this nobleman, and there is still much of this fragrant plant grown in this neighbourhood.[5]

I don’t believe that George and Henry were involved in this since the planting of lavender was quite different from that of corn:

Park Place, near Henley-on-Thames, is celebrated for its lavender plantations which occupy between forty and fifty acres. ‘The plants are raised from cuttings which are slipped off and prepared by women in the autumn, and bedded in, in rows, in any spare piece of garden ground, where they remain for two years. The ground into which they are to be transported, being prepared by shallow trenchings or double ploughing, the plants are placed in rows four feet apart and at least two feet distance in the rows’.[6]

Their seed drills were most likely associated with the planting of corn, which was certainly a product of that region and used for malting[7].

While looking for a connection between Peasenhall and Remenham, I found some tantalising newspaper information. In 1831, a man called Henry Pope was working in Wallingford, just 13 miles west of Remenham, and capitalising on his association with Peasenhall to advertise a new and specialised type of drill:

HENRY POPE, Drill-Man, from Peasenhall, Suffolk, returns his sincere thanks to the Gentlemen and Agriculturists for the great encouragement he has met with since he commenced drilling in the neighbourhood of WALLINGFORD. and begs to inform them he is coming up with A NEW CORN DRILL, so constructed as to sow Clover Seed at the same time the Spring Corn is Drilled, ...[8]

This was not an isolated case of making capital from the association either. In 1839, a Thomas Teago of Peasenhall, “late apprentice in the firm of Smyth & Son”, ran a very similar advertisement:

THOMAS TEAGO begs to return thanks to Agriculturists in General, for the flattering encouragement he has received in the manufacture of his Improved Corn lever Drill, …[9]

By far the most unexpected connection appeared in 1843 in the form of two consecutive advertisements for property sales: one from the Peasenhall area (1000 acres of land for auction in Yoxford and Sibton, including parts of Peasenhall) and one from the Remenham area (Fawley Court Estate. 4000 acres in Henley, Oxfordshire, and Berks, including parts of Remenham). Both of these advertisements were run by the same agents: Messrs Farebrother & Co.[10]

Henry married a Sarah Roomes/Rooms/Roames in Feb 1843 in Henley-on-Thames. Both were recorded as living in Turville, about 8 miles north of Remenham. Sarah’s father, William, was recorded as a ‘Maltster’, and both Henry and his father, George, were now ‘Drill makers’. An interesting observation, here, is that the two witnesses were Charles Woods (Henry’s older brother) and a Sarah Oxlade. Both of these had a marriage of their own recorded in the same register entry, strongly pointing to a double wedding.[11] A clue to how Henry met Sarah can be found in the 1841 census, just two years earlier. Sarah and Henry’s younger brother, John (b. c1826), were both working as ‘Servants’ on the same farm in Cookham, Berkshire.[12]

By the 1851 census, Henry had moved a few miles east to Bisham, but his occupation was now that of a carpenter[13]. My first thought here was that it was something to do with barges since the Thames was an important trade route into London. However, the use of barges was in decline due to the Great Western Railway (GWR), from London to Bristol, being completed in 1841. By 1849, toll income from river traffic below Staines had fallen by 50%, and barge traffic was gradually being replaced by pleasure boats. Henley even got its own GWR branch line in 1857.[14]

Henry’s fourth child, Jane, was born in Kensington, London, in 1853. By the 1861 census, there were four children born in Kensington, and Henry was still a carpenter[15]. Although the River Thames is a dominant feature of London, Kensington would not be well-placed for anything in connection with it. Locating the family in the 1871 census took a little longer than usual as the enumerator must have been in a great hurry — the first initial of each person was used instead of their given names, and all their places of birth were recorded simply as “England” — but it showed that Henry was still in Kensington, and was still a carpenter[16].

Kensington at that time was a mixture of both rich and poor, and there were some awful slums in the area[17]. In trying to determine whether their addresses (see Table 1) were up-market or slum, I found a couple of newspaper references suggesting they weren’t slums: a mention of Francis Henry Tredle, 5 Ernest St, Cam(p)den Hill, Kensington, as “gentleman”[18], and a description of a house on Walmer Rd as “double-fronted house, detached, with large yard and spacious workshops, ... suitable for a Builder's or other manufacturing purposes"[19]. This assessment is confirmed by browsing the Charles Booth survey into life and labour in London (1886-1903). There were also some local breweries, such as the Kensington Park Brewery, Clarendon Rd, Notting Hill, owned by William Lake Woodman and Henry Woodman[20], and this was another possible link with the Henley-on-Thames area.

Henry’s wife, Sarah, died on 4 Sep 1872, aged just 51, of ‘Hemiplegia 5 months, Apoplexy 60 hours’[21]; basically partial paralysis following a stroke. He was remarried within six months but had also moved 130 miles north to Burton-on-Trent. I can understand the need to get away from Kensington, and the memories of a protracted demise, but why Burton-on-Trent? His new wife was Jane Phillips, née Parker (b. c1829 in Bungay). It’s not clear how they met since in 1871 she was running a grocers shop on the Staines Rd, Heston, Hounslow, about 10 miles west of Kensington. It is clear, though, that they had several things in common: both had been recently widowed; both were from villages in the north of Suffolk; Jane’s late husband (William Phillips, b. c1829 in Bungay, d. 1870) was a ‘Master carpenter’ in Brentford, and her father (Robert) was also a carpenter. They were married in Burton on 9 Mar 1873[22].

I know of no family connection with Burton-on-Trent for either of them, or for their former spouses. At that time, Burton was very well known for the brewing of ale, so the above theory may hold some weight. The following (lengthy) transcription is from a trade directory of 1874; the year after they were married:

BURTON-UPON-TRENT. In a broad trough of the Trent valley, in the county of Stafford, surrounded by meadows and bright green islands formed by numerous arms of the river, and standing upon masses and veins of gypsum, triassic rocks, sandstone, and arinaceous limestone, lies the town of Burton. It is 25 miles E. of Stafford, 11 S.E. from Derby, 33 N.E. from Birmingham, and 126 N.W. from London. Burton and pale ale seem to the world synonymous terms, and it will not be deemed amiss to premise our short description with a few broad facts anent the famous liquid staple of the town upon the Trent. Its twenty-seven breweries, belonging to the like number of firms, in addition to malt houses, cooperages, and other erections, cover nearly 300 acres of land. The history of ale brewing in Burton dates back at least to 1295, as in a document of that date yet extant Matilda, daughter of Nicholas de Milindale, leases to the Abbot or convent of Burton certain tenements for "two white loaves from the Monastery, and 11 gallons of Conventual beer, or cider, and one penny; together with seven gallons of beere for the men, and one sextary of hay”, &c. In 1777 Mr. William Bass established the brewery which was the germ of the gigantic business of his grandson Mr. M. T. Bass. At the close of the last century there seems to have been nine brewers only in Burton. Among these appear the names of Michael Bass, William Worthington, and Benjamin Wilson, the daughter of the last named being married to Samuel Allsopp. Mr. Wilson’s brewery, now the old brewery on the east side of High street, was then one of one of the largest in the town. Much of the success of the Burton ale trade was due to the manufacture of a peculiar liquid which was first introduced into the market from this town about 1823, under the name of India or Bombay beer, which then gradually assumed the position long and tenaciously held before by Hodgson’s pale ale.[23]

In 1880, Henry acquired the licence for the Pool Inn, Church Gresley, about 6 miles S.E. of Burton[24]. By this time, he may have been getting a little old for carpentry (59) and this could have been his dream of retirement. When Henry moved to Church Gresley, the youngest children by Sarah (Emma and John) came with them, and also his second son, George Henry. The others remained in Burton-on-Trent. The prior children of his second wife, Jane, remained in the W. London area and never moved north, except for Jane’s grandson, Charles Henry Florence, who is with her in the 1891 census after his mother— also Jane — had died in 1889.

The following table summarises the various locations of the family. I am assuming that Henry was at the same locations for the births of his children.

Until 9 Dec 1827
Peasenhall, Suffolk
Baptism of youngest brother, William
6 Jun 1841
Remenham Hill, Berks
1841 Census. Occ: Drillman
6 Feb 1843
Turville, Bucks
Marriage to Sarah Roomes. Occ: Drill maker
Camberwell, Surrey
Birth of Lavinia Woods
Princes Risborough, Bucks
Birth of George Henry Woods
Remenham, Berks
Birth of William Woods
30 Mar 1851
Bisham, Berks (Bisham St)
1851 Census. Occ: Carpenter
Cookham, Berks
Birth of Jane Sarah Woods
Kensington, W. London
Birth of Elizabeth Woods
Kensington, W. London
Birth of Henry Woods
21 Nov 1859
Kensington, W. London (Ernest St)
Birth of Sarah Ellen Woods
7 Apr 1861
Kensington, W. London (Ernest St)
1861 Census. Occ: Carpenter
8 Feb 1862
Kensington, W. London (Ernest St)
Birth of Emma Woods
Kensington, W. London
Birth of John Woods
2 Apr 1871
Kensington, W. London (Nutbourne Terrace)
1871 Census. Occ: Carpenter
4 Sep 1872
Kensington, W. London (Walmer Rd)
Death of wife, Sarah. Occ: Carpenter
9 Mar 1873
Burton-on-Trent, Staffs
Marriage to Jane Phillips. Occ: Carpenter
5 Aug 1880
Church Gresley, S. Derbys
Taking over Pool Inn
3 Apr 1881
Church Gresley, S. Derbys
1881 Census. Occ: Beer House Keeper
6 Aug 1884
Church Gresley, S. Derbys
Death of Henry
Table 1 – Where was Henry Woods?

Henry died 6 Aug 1884 in Church Gresley, aged 62, of ‘Morbus Cordis Syncope'[25] (i.e. a heart attack), and Jane continued to run the Pool Inn until she died in 1894 aged 66.

So, was Henry connected with the brewing trade after switching from seed drills in the Henley-on-Thames area? A barrel or cask maker would have been described as a “cooper” so there’s not much evidence for that. How much richer is the picture, though, when it includes some context rather than a mere list of facts such as those in Table 1?

[1] "England Births and Christenings, 1538-1975", index, FamilySearch ( : accessed 2 Mar 2014), Henry, 18 Nov 1821.
[2] Henley-on-Thames is actually in Oxfordshire but near its boundaries with Berkshire and Buckinghamshire.
[3] "1841 England, Wales & Scotland Census", database, FindMyPast ( : accessed 2 Mar 2014), household of George Woods (age 50); citing  HO 107/11, book 12, folio 12, page 19; The National Archives of the UK (TNA).
[4] “(Pea) Drillmakers”, blything wiki, created Dec 2007 ( : accessed 4 Mar 2014).
[5] Pigot & Co.'s Directory of Berks, Bucks ... , 1844. [Part 2: Hants to Wilts, & Wales], p.18 (image 173 of 531), online PDF, University of Leicester, compiler, Historical Directories ( : accessed 2 Mar 2014), “Henley on Thames”.
[6]  “Monthly Literature: lavender”, Reading Mercury (Monday 12 Dec 1836): p.2, col.4.
[7] "Brewing in Henley", Lovibonds Brewery Ltd ( : accessed 4 Mar 2014).
[8] "To Farmers", Reading Mercury (Monday 15 Aug 1831): p.1, col.5.
[9] “THOMAS TEAGO”, Huntingdon, Bedford & Peterborough Gazette (Saturday 3 Aug 1839): p.1, col.4.
[10] “Public Sales”, London Standard (Saturday 22 Jul 1843): p.1, col.3.
[11] England, marriage certificate for Henry Woods and Sarah Roames [Roomes], married 6 Feb 1843; citing 6/511/21, registered Wycombe 1843/Mar [Q1]; General Register Office (GRO), Southport.
[12] "1841 England, Wales & Scotland Census", database, FindMyPast ( : accessed 4 Mar 2014), household of William Peto (age 65); citing HO 107/11, book 12, folio 12, page 19; TNA.
[13] "1851 England, Wales & Scotland Census", database,  FindMyPast ( : accessed 2 Mar 2014), household of Henry Woods (age 30); citing HO 107/1694, folio 265, page 5; TNA.
[14] “Henley and the Thames River Trade”, VCH Explore ( : accessed 2 Mar 2014), attachment, “Henley River Trade after 1830” ( : accessed 2 Mar 2014).
[15] "1861 England, Wales & Scotland Census", database, FindMyPast ( : accessed 2 Mar 2014), household of Henry Woods (age 40); citing RG 9/17, folio 107, page 37; TNA.
[16] "1871 England, Wales & Scotland Census", database, FindMyPast ( : accessed 2 Mar 2014); household of H. Woods (age 51); citing RG 10/41, folio 127, page 67; TNA.
[17] Tom Vague, Chapter 3 in "Notting Hill History Timeline", VAGUERANTS ( : accessed 6 Mar 2014). This work was formerly hosted at and the Wikipedia page for Notting Hill had a broken link to it which was valid on 7 Jun 2009.
[18] "Copy of Returns: The Provincial Banking Corporation", Reading Mercury (Saturday 24 Feb 1866): p.7, col.3.
[19] "Kensington Park, Notting Hill", Cambridge Independent Press (Saturday 17 Nov 1860): p.4, col.3.
[20] "Local news: Embezzlement", West Middlesex Advertiser and Family Journal (Saturday 09 Jul 1859): p.2, col.2. "Partnerships Dissolved", Manchester Courier and Lancashire General Advertiser (Thursday 24 May 1866): p.4, col.7.
[21] England, death certificate for Sarah Woods, died 4 Sep 1872; citing 1a/86/498, registered Kensington 1872/Sep [Q3]; GRO.
[22] England, marriage certificate for Henry Woods and Jane Phillips, married 9 Mar 1873; citing 6b/464/259, registered Burton 1873/Mar [Q1]; GRO.
[23] Wright's Directory of South Derbyshire, 1874, pp.163–164 (images 173–4 of 286), online PDF, University of Leicester, compiler, Historical Directories ( : accessed 2 Mar 2014), “BURTON”.
[24] "Swadlincote", Derby Daily Telegraph (Thursday 5 Aug 1880): p.4, col.2.
[25] England, death certificate for Henry Woods, died 6 Aug 1884; citing 6b/217/53, registered Burton 1884/Sep [Q3]; GRO.