About Me

My photo

Beautifully illustrated family history books with a difference by a frequent contributor to the UK family history press.

Tuesday, 10 January 2017

All Girls Together - The Relationships Between Sisters in Your Family History

All Girls Together

- taking a look at the relationships between sisters in your family history

For many young women in the past, relationships with sisters were probably the longest-lasting connections of their lives – vastly outspanning their relationships with their parents and their own children. If you discover branches heavy with sisters on your family tree, consider carefully the age gaps between them, when and whom they married, where they ended up living, whether or not they had children and the ways in which their lives may have consequently merged and diverged. The chances are that the relationships between them – whether they were nurturing or hostile (and they were probably at different times both) - were one of the central features of their experience.

Adult sisters abroad c 1910. Author's own collection
                                               Click here for more on books by Ruth A. Symes (UK)
                                                 Click here for more on books by Ruth A. Symes (USA)

Most of what we know about relationships between sisters in the past focuses on middle- and upper-class girls. It has been suggested that close emotional bonds between sisters really developed only in the late eighteenth century. Before this sibling relationships in general were less affectionate. This was partly due to the high instance of childhood mortality (something which meant that families invested less emotionally in each child), and partly due to the rivalry and conflict that could occur between siblings over inheritance practices and marriage customs. In the late eighteenth century, it has been argued, sisters became closer and less competitive than they had been in earlier ages. Whilst brothers were away from home at private schools or in military regiments, girls stayed at home until marriage and were, therefore, thrown upon each other’s company for more lengthy periods.

In the nineteenth-century, bonds of affection between sisters grew ever deeper. There was a new emphasis on the role of love in family life and parents emphasised the need for harmony and co-operation between their children. The existence of large families often meant that younger girls were partly parented by older sisters. Where girls were educated at home, the role of the elder girls could be that of teacher to her younger female siblings. Evidence of sisterly relationships in the Victorian period comes through personal paperwork such as letters and diaries. From these it is apparent that, on many occasions, the close bonds of sisterhood helped women to overcome emotional and financial difficulties and stimulated creativity - anything from shared needlework projects to clutches of novels all produced within the same family home.

Girl's Own Paper, (Victorian)  Out of copyright

Click here for more on books by Ruth A. Symes (UK)

In the twentieth century, families tended to be smaller with the result (according to some psychologists), that children competed more for maternal affection. There was an increase in sibling rivalry and jealousy particularly amongst young children. As the century progressed, there was a focus on the individuality rather than the similarity of siblings (separate beds and bedrooms for each child, for example) and, with the advent of sexual equality with brothers, sisterhood was no longer quite the intense domestic experience it had once been.

Sisters and Marriage

You should pay particular attention to the dates of marriage amongst groups of sisters on your family tree. Whatever their relationship as children, the testing time for sisters came when they were old enough to be betrothed. Victorian letters and diaries reveal that sisters often experienced deep pain when they were separated from each other, even by pleasant events such as courtship and marriage. From the wedding day onwards, the lives of sisters (which had previously been almost interchangeable) could become widely divergent depending on the wealth, background and character of the prospective husbands.

It was important in families of good social standing for girls to get married in order of age and to marry men with similar social aspirations. The five daughters of Mrs Bennet in Jane Austen’s Pride and Prejudice (pub. 1813)  are a constant worry to their mother since all of them are ‘out’ (i.e. old enough to appear in public at balls and dances) and not one of them is married, but it is Jane, the eldest, whom she seeks to marry off first. The situation of a younger sister marrying before an older one was considered embarrassing and something to be avoided; a married woman automatically attained seniority over her older unmarried sisters.

For many other nineteenth-century sets of sisters, marriage at any point was not in the picture. The Bronte sisters, Charlotte, Emily and Anne, were in fact three of five daughters (the eldest two Maria and Elizabeth having died as children). Such were the close bonds between the sisters that none married during the lifetime of the others. When Charlotte finally tied the knot in 1854, it was after the death of her two sisters. She herself passed away soon afterwards from pneumonia whilst pregnant.

By 1850, there was a popularly perceived ‘surplus of women’ in the population – partly due to the fact that the mortality rate for boys was higher than that for girls, partly because more men worked abroad in the armed forced or had emigrated. By 1861 there were 10,380,285 women living in England and Wales but only 9,825,246 men. This meant that marriage for some women was unlikely. Unmarried middle-class sisters often lived together to minimise expenses and were often supported by small annuities bequeathed from their parents’ estates or by working brothers.

In other cases, sisters who married well could become the centre of important cultural networks. Sisters Alice, Georgiana, Agnes and Louisa Macdonald, (four of the seven) daughters of a lower middle-class Methodist Minister leapt from obscurity when they got hitched. Georgiana and Agnes married the famous painters Edward Burne-Jones and Edward Poynter (President of Royal Academy) respectively, whilst Alice became the mother of the future Poet Laureate, Rudyard Kipling and Louisa, the mother of future Prime Minister, Stanley Baldwin. 

In these close-knit family circles of Victorian and Edwardian Britain, it seems reasonable to suppose that had one of your female ancestors died, her husband might have considered marrying one of her unmarried sisters – another blossom from the same tree, as it were. But the practice of marrying a deceased wife’s sister was actually forbidden by law until 1907.  This is because those who were already connected by marriage were considered to be related to each other (by so-called ‘affinity’) in a way that made it improper for them to marry. Between the Marriage Act of 1835 and The Deceased Wife’s Sister’s Marriage Act of 1907, a man wishing to marry his deceased wife’s sister was treated as if he were considering incest! During that period, the only men able to marry their deceased wives sisters were wealthy ones who could afford to do so abroad such as the painters William Holman Hunt and John Collier.

Symes sisters, Phyllis, Emmie, and Jenny, c. 1908, Hull. After the death of their father and two younger sisters and before their own marriages, my great aunts (sisters Emmie, Phyllis and Jenny Symes) took on financial responsibility for their mother and younger brother, Jack. An example of ordinary sisters working together for a common goal, all the girls worked for Marks and Spencer (then a newly emergent company) first as shop assistants and then as manageresses. Their work took them across the North of England from Manchester to Hull, York and Birmingham.

Sisters and the Camera

Sisters can often be identified in Victorian and Edwardian photographs by their matching outfits. There was a particular craze for dressing daughters alike in the mid Victorian period (c 1855-1885), particularly among the upper and middle classes who aped the daughters of Queen Victoria in this respect. Even sisters who were far apart in age would be portrayed in matching garb and young adults as well as small children also   followed this trend. The matching could extend to hats, boots, jewellery and even to the mirror-like poses of the sitters. Sometimes sisters would differentiate themselves from each other by a minor detail of dress such as a corsage worn on one side of the bodice or the other, or extra trimming.

The relative ages of sisters in photographs can be deduced by the length of the dresses they wore – with the hemlines of older girls being longer. Another clue to the age of a girl is the styling of her hair, with younger sisters wearing their locks down (loose or in ringlets) whilst their elder sisters wore it up.  Whilst the fashion for matching dress predominated amongst the rich, working-class sisters were also sometimes portrayed in identical ‘Sunday Best’ outfits.

When interviewing family members about their memories of groups of sisters in the past, be careful. Girls are characteristically remembered by reference to their looks, (for example,  ‘the beauty’, or ‘the Plain Jane’); or their marital status and propensity for producing children, (‘the spinster’, ‘the mother of ten’). Other descriptions may be equally distorting; Queen Victoria’s five daughters have recently been described as ‘vivacious, intelligent Vicky; sensitive, altruistic Alice; dutiful, dull Lenchen; artistic, rebellious Louise; and shy baby sister Beatrice.’ This over-simplistic labelling and differentiating of sisters won’t necessarily help you to understand what your female ancestors were really like.


In the twentieth century, the public continued to be enthralled by many other sets of sisters. The Pankhurst sorority, Sylvia, Christabel and Adela, derived energy from their sisterly bonds in their struggle to secure the vote for women, whilst sisters Vanessa Bell and Virginia Woolf (said to have been sexually abused by their two older half-brothers) produced unusual and startling works of art and literature. Meanwhile, the complex political situation of the mid-twentieth century is often described through the antics of one of the oddest of all groups of upper-class sisters – the six Mitford girls – who ranged in sympathy from Fascist Diana to Communist Jessica.

How exactly our own great-grandmothers interacted with their sisters depends, of course, on many factors - on the size of their families, for instance, on the age spacing and birth order of the children, on the class, ethnic and cultural traditions of their family as well as on their individual personalities. But whether characterised by harmony or tension, there is no doubt that sisterhood was an important relationship between the women in our family trees and one that deserves our special attention.

This article first appeared in Family Tree Magazine UK 2010

                                               Click here for more on books by Ruth A. Symes (UK)
                                                 Click here for more on books by Ruth A. Symes (USA)

Useful Websites

http://www.corsetsandcrinolines.com/tidbits.php?index=1 Website showing many photographs of sisters in matching outfits.

www.bronte.org.uk Bronte Parsonage Museum home page.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deceased_Wife's_Sister's_Marriage_Act_1907 For more on the Deceased Wife’s Sister’s Marriage Act of 1907.

Useful Books

Flanders, Judith. A Circle of Sisters: Alice Kipling, Georgiana Burne-Jones, Agnes Poynter and Louisa Baldwin. Penguin 2002

Fletcher, Sheila, Victorian Girls:  Lord Lyttelton’s Daughters, Phoenix, 2004

Mintz, Steven. 1983. A Prison of Expectations: The Family in Victorian Culture. New York: New York University Press.

Pols, Robert. Dating Nineteenth-Century Photographs, Federation of Family History Societies, 2005

Symes, Ruth, Family First: Tracing Relationships in the Past, Pen and Sword, 2013 Click here to see more details about this book

#ancestors #ancestry #genealogy #familyhistory #familytree #ruthasymes #searchmyancestry #sisters #familyrelationships #Victorian

Friday, 6 January 2017

'She Scrubbed Up Well' - How Your Domestic Servant Ancestor Actually Cleaned

Servants are the very backbone of British family history. With access to the 1911 census, the vast majority of us will probably have discovered that our early twentieth-century ancestors either kept servants or worked as servants themselves. Indeed, by the 1880s, around a third of all young women in Britain between the ages of 15 and 21 were likely to be in service and this corresponded with a sharp rise at the time in the numbers of families able to afford resident domestic staff. 

Large country houses and substantial urban villas might have employed a whole retinue of minions ranging from 'cook' and 'housekeeper,' to 'parlour maid', 'scullery maid', 'nursery maid', 'lady's maid,' 'housemaid,' 'chambermaid,' 'butler', 'steward', 'laundry maid,' each with his or her own special duties. But in the late nineteenth century, a majority of three-fifths of all servants were employed singly as ‘maids-of-all work’ or 'general servants' in the homes of small tradesmen such as drapers, plumbers, and coal merchants. In the two hundred years from 1750-1950, whilst the tasks of  servants remained in essence the same, inventions and advances in technology meant that new labour-saving devices were constantly changing the nature of their domestic work.  

Servant Scrubbing Steps: From the Wigan World Website (with permission)

                 Click here for more on books by Ruth A. Symes (UK)

                                                 Click here for more on books by Ruth A. Symes (USA)

Surprisingly, perhaps, at the turn of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, the British middle classes often preferred to pay a servant to work for them rather than buy new domestic appliances to help with washing, cleaning and cooking. Whilst domestic technology took off in America, the new -fangled machines were generally considered expensive and unreliable on this side of the Atlantic. But, with the ever-improving accessibility of electricity (a new power source that could be fed directly into the home), the development of better soaps and detergents attuned to the new machines, and the continual reduction in prices, it became progressively harder for employers to resist the charms of items such as washing machines, dryers and vacuum cleaners. In addition to other (political and social) changes in the way our working-class ancestors lived, the development of labour-saving appliances was one very obvious reason why far fewer of them were employed as servants from the end of the First World War onwards.

Here I take a look at the introduction of labour-saving devices in the areas of washing and cleaning.

Washing and Cleaning

Late Eighteenth and Early Nineteenth Centuries

There is little wonder that the hands of our  laundry maid ancestor were characteristically puckered and bleached. Traditionally, her work was heavy and arduous. First the clothes of the household would be 'bucked with lye' - that is soaked overnight in a solution made from wood ash (and sometimes from pigeon, hen dung, bran or urine). The next morning, she would rub the clothes   through on a corrugated washboard made of wood or some sort of metal, wring them out by hand and then wash them in very hot water. Large quantities of washing were done by hand in a dolly tub using a dolly peg, posser or punch

Woman washing using a dolly peg. From the Wigan World Website with permission

                  Click here for more on books by Ruth A. Symes (UK)
                                                 Click here for more on books by Ruth A. Symes (USA)
After rubbing, pounding and rinsing, the maid would boil white clothes in a furnace with shredded soap (often made by the maid herself on the premises from kitchen grease combined with lye or burnt seaweed and common salt). She would lift the clothes out of the dolly tub with a dolly stick and then rinse them in first warm, then cool and then 'blued' water. 

Traditionally, the laundry maid would mangle the clothes by wrapping damp items around a roller which she then placed on a flat surface and then rolled backwards and forwards with a heavy board. 'Box mangles' were introduced during the late eighteenth century. These comprised a thick wooden roller around which the maid would wind the clothes before using a rope or leather strap to crank over them a wooden box weighted with stones.

Lancashire women ready to hang out the washing to dry. From the Wigan World Website, with permission.
                                         Click here for more on books by Ruth A. Symes (UK)
                                                 Click here for more on books by Ruth A. Symes (USA)

Drying was achieved by laying the clothes outside on grass or hedges to dry or fix them to a  line with cleft wooden pegs. In large country houses, sliding drying racks were often built near to the boiler. Socks and stockings were dried on wooden, china or wire moulds to help them retain their shape.

Eighteenth-century 'box irons' were usually made of iron or steel and included an iron slug (designed to fit inside) which was heated in the fire. Some irons were heated by charcoal (taken from the embers of the burning fire) which was placed in the body of the iron. The weight of the iron, its terrific heat and the fumes emanating from it all made ironing an unpleasant and even dangerous task.
The cleaning of carpets, upholstery and drapes was perhaps one of the most arduous tasks of the domestic servant. With the onset of the Industrial Revolution (from 1750 onwards) with all its soot and grime, the old practice of covering carpets with canvas cloths when the house was empty and with rugs or druggets during times of occupation, became less and less satisfactory.

Early Victorian Period

It was  not until Victorian times that hand-driven washing machines became at all popular. Early models were of the cradle type and worked on a 'rocking box' principle. In the 1850s and 1860s, J. Picken of Birmingham and others marketed a washing machine that worked on the same principle as a butter churn.  But even if the household had such a machine, laundrywork continued to be time- and energy- intensive for the strong-armed washerwomen of the day.  Servants cleaned carpets by hand with stiff brushes, removing ink, oil and grease stains individually with a variety of home-made potions including lemon juice and white bread.

Late Victorian Period

The hand-operated 'Victress Vowel' washing machine by Thomas Bradford of Salford, was the most popular washing machine of the day. Other 'new-fangled' machines involved a variety of 'agitating' apparatus such as cogged wheels, lever-operated drums, paddles, and wooden rollers. Cheap bars of Lifebuoy Soap (invented by Lever Brothers in 1895) contributed to an easing of the laundry maid's tasks. Mangling could now be done on small upright machines (incorportaing two or three rollers made of white wood). More sophisticated charcoal-fuelled flat irons and even paraffin irons were being used by the end of the century.   The first manual vacuum cleaners, using bellows and handcranks, were devised in the 1860s and 1870s in America but did not catch on in Britain. Servants continued to brush and wash carpets on their knees using a variety of unpleasant chemical-based solutions including naptha and chloroform.

Around 1900

The turn-of-the-century laundry-maid probably benefited little from the first electrified washing machines (developed by the American companies Thor (1906) and A. J. Fisher (1908)). The machines – little known in Britain - were ungainly and hazardous, consisting of a dolly tub and dolly peg fitted to a belt driven by an external electric motor. More easily-operable mangling machines now had rollers made wholly or partly of rubber and some of these were table-mounted. By 1907, electric irons were appearing in some London stores but they were far too expensive for the ordinary consumer. The first electric vacuum cleaner, which used suction power, was invented in 1901 by H. Cecil Booth and was used to clean the carpets in Westminster Abbey before the coronation of Edward VII, but early machines like this were large industrial devices, taken by horse and cart from building to building. It was only after Hoover brought out the rotating brush model vacuum cleaner in 1908, and once devices became more portable, that servants in private homes started to feel the benefit of vacuuming technology.


After the First World War, there were many more job opportunities - offering more money, better conditions and a degree of emancipation - for working-class women. Little wonder that far fewer went into domestic service. In the twenties, those who did work in the homes of the middle-classes still undertook most of the household washing by hand despite the introduction of some new slicker cabinet-type washing machines powered by internal electric motors. The first electric tumbler dryers were also available. But  few of these machines could be found in Britain and they were extremely expensive, selling at between £30 and £50. The widespread usage of electric machines – in metal rather than wooden cabinets - was held back by the fact that there was no co-ordinated national electricity grid in Britain until the late 1930s.

1940s and 1950s

After the Second World War, the age of the servant was almost over but, for a while in the Post-War age of austerity, little seemed to have changed on the domestic front. The first electric drying machine with a glass window was invented by Brooks Stevens in 1940 but it was hardly a common sight in British homes. Vacuum cleaners too continued to be considered a luxury item until well after the Second World War. Women of the middle classes (or their hired helps) continued to use hand-driven washing machines. The mid-1940s saw the welcome development of heavy-duty detergents in America. But it was only ten years later, in the economically more prosperous and settled Britain of the 1950s, that electric washing machines (together with drying and vacuuming machines) finally started to become as popular here as they were across the Atlantic.

To learn more about the history of domestic appliances, and see and touch many of the inventions, visit York's Castle Museum (address below). Many stately homes, such as Erdigg near Wrexham, also have kitchens illustrating how different applicances were used.

Useful Books

Jacqueline Fearn, Domestic Bygones, Shire, 2005.

Pamela Horn, The Rise and Fall of the Domestic Servant, Alan Sutton, 1986.

Trevor May, The Victorian Domestic Servant, Shire, 1999.

Pamela Sambrook, Laundry Bygones, Shire, 1983.

Christina Hardyment, From Mangle to Microwave, Polity Press, 1988.

Rebecca Weaver and Rodney Dale, Machines in the Home, The British Library, 1992.

Useful Websites

http://www.morphyrichards.co.uk/History.aspx The history of domestic appliances produced by Morphy Richards

www.bbc.co.uk/learningzone/clips/early-domestic-appliances/3508.html Short video on the history of domestic appliances – heat and power, washing, cooking and food preservation and cleaning.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_cleaner Complete history of the vacuum cleaner

Museums/Stately Homes

York Castle Museum
Eye of York

LL13 0YT

This article first appeared in Family Tree Magazine UK 2011

Click here for Family Tree Magazine UK

If you have enjoyed this article, why not sign up to follow this blog (see box in the right-hand column) or take a look at one of my books

#familyhistory =#genealogy #women'shistory #ruthasymes #familytree #ancestors #ancestry

Search My Ancestry: How to Trace Ancestors Through Letters and Persona...

Search My Ancestry: How to Trace Ancestors Through Letters and Persona...: See my 'how-to' article on how to trace ancestors through letters and other personal writings on the blog of : Family Tree Magazi...

Wednesday, 4 January 2017

Pecking Order - Where Did Your Ancestor Appear in the Family Line Up?

'Lonely only' or one of twelve? Eldest, youngest or stuck in the middle ? Did your ancestor's place in the family have any consequences for your family history?

You may have considered your ancestor’s place in his or her family in order to work out what, if anything, he or she stood to inherit at the death of his or her parents. But the repercussions arising from an ancestor’s position in the family were probably far more numerous and more interesting than this.

It’s worth asking yourself whether and how an ancestor’s position in the pecking order of his or her family might have mattered in sociological and psychological (as well as economic) terms. Factors to consider might be birth order, the age gaps between older and younger siblings, pairings or clusterings of girls and boys of roughly the same age, and whether or not a child was an adopted step-, or half- sibling of the other children in the household.

Author's Own Collection. Early Twentieth centurty postcard

Variations in the sizes and shapes of nineteenth and early twentieth-century families are, of course, innumerable; but here are a few suggestions to whet your appetite.

A child in a large family

Children from large families (especially those living in small houses) experienced a level of interaction and intimacy with their siblings that it is now difficult to imagine. 

Children of the same sex would most probably have slept together, and there would, no doubt, have been constant squabbles over toys, books and other possessions, with time outdoors playing in gardens or streets an absolute necessity. Ancestors who came from large families will have had to learn to deal with shifting allegiances within the family group and might well have had to strive hard to forge a sense of their own identity.
Some nineteenth-century families were so very large that a child at the end of the line would hardly have known his or her older siblings as children. Such was the case of (Dame Madge Kendal (the English actress) (1848-1935) :

I am the twenty-second child of my parents. Yes, the twenty-second. My brother Tom, the author, was my father’s eldest son. I am the youngest of the family. I never knew my brother Tom except as a man grown up – such a great many brothers and sisters came between us. Quotation from ‘Dramatic Opinions,’ Murray’s Magazine, in The Cheltenham Chronicle, 21st September 1889.

Author's own collection. Early Twentieth century

An Older Brother or Sister
Parents of all classes often had the highest expectations of their older children. If an elder son died, all their hopes and expectations might then have been transferred, for better or for worse, onto the next son in line. Older sisters in the lower classes would have been very much involved in the hands-on care of their younger siblings. Nineteenth-century newspapers are unfortunately full of reports of serious accidents resulting from very young children being left in the charge of little girls not much older than themselves.

A Younger Brother or Sister
Young children might have suffered the indignity of having unquestioningly to obey the authority of their elder siblings (especially their brothers). But, they also had the advantage of experiencing life (in terms of marriage and career choices) vicariously through their elder siblings. Some will have wanted to follow suit; others to make sure that they took a totally different path.

Some parents of large families encouraged a pairing off of siblings, with close associations often developing between the two eldest children, for example, and also frequently between the two youngest. Other siblings in large families may have fallen into groups or clusters depending on their age and their gender whilst the last child in a long line-up was often treated like an only child especially if (as was often the case) there was a large age gap between the penultimate and the last birth.

Multiple Births
Though twins and triplets were nowhere near as common in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries as they are today (the sudden increase is largely due to assisted conception methods), yet it is believed that the general nutritional bounty of this period gave rise to an unprecedented number of multiple births. The number of twins in England and Wales appears to have nearly doubled between 1841 (when there are 9,272 mentions on the census) and 1901 (when there are 17,678 references). Twins were thus not uncommon but nevertheless special, and their twinship might have governed many aspects of their lives from where they chose to live and work to who they choose to marry.

                                            Click here for more on books by Ruth A. Symes (UK)

                                                 Click here for more on books by Ruth A. Symes (USA)

Larger multiple births were rare and remarkable, with few stories that could match that of the McQueen family of Muckeanston, Near Thornhill, Cumbria. According to the Westmorland Gazette of 22nd September 1860 Mrs Mcqueen was delivered in October 1857 of triplets, then in November 1858 of twins and then again in September 1860 of twins. Goodness knows how being one of seven children born within three years might have affected these children!

Boys and Girls in Smaller Families
In smaller families, it has been suggested that children in the past competed more for parental affection and the dynamics between siblings (stimulated often  by envy) tended to revolve around issues of gender and seniority. The governess Ellen Weeton (1776-1849), for example, was denied a proper schooling so that her brother Tom, younger by four years) could be privately educated and go on to law school. It was an injustice that rankled throughout their lives.

Only Children
Occasionally middle-class families chose to have just one child in order to concentrate time and resources on its education. Your ancestor might have struggled under the censure of public opinion which deemed that only children could be neither healthy nor happy. But, bear in mind that the economic downturn between the two World Wars convinced many more parents to limit their families and being an only child became no longer unusual.
Author's Own Collection, Late Nineteenth Century

Whether your ancestor was the youngest of ten, the middle one of three, a lonely girl amongst seven brothers or an only child, his or her position in the family is worth considering in some detail. Quite apart from what he or she stood to inherit, place in the pecking order might have had major social and psychological consequences in his or her life history.

Useful Books  
Davidoff, L., Thicker than Water, Siblings and Their Relations, 1780-1920, (OUP, 2013).
 Garrett E., et al, Changing Family Size in England and Wales, 1891 –1911, (CUP, 2006).
Keating, J., A Child for Keeps: The History of Adoption in England, 1918-45, (Palgrave Macmillan, 2008).
Lamb, M.E. and Smith, B. S., Sibling Relationships: Their Nature and Significance Across the Lifespan, (Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1982).
Nelson, C.,  Family Ties in Victorian England, (Praeger, 2007).
Stewart E. A. : Exploring Twins: Towards a Social Analysis of Twinship, (Palgrave Macmillan, 2000).

Wilkes, S., Tracing Your Ancestors’ Childhood, (Pen and Sword Books, 2013). 
Symes, Ruth A. Family First: Tracing Relationships in the Past (Pen and Sword, 2015)

This article first appeared in Family Tree Magazine UK in 2015 

Link to Family Tree Magazine UK

 #ancestors #ancestry #genealogy #familyhistory #family #peckingorder #siblings #brothers #sisters #fertility

Tuesday, 3 January 2017

UK Newspaper Archives Online - The Guide

Want to find out more about how to access UK newspaper archives online? 

See my 8 page pull-out in this month's Family Tree Magazine UK

 #genealogy #familyhistory #history #familytree #newspapers #journalism #ancestor #ancestors

Friday, 23 December 2016

Guide to Online Newspaper Archives - My piece in Family Tree Magazine UK

Family Tree Magazine  UK Jan 2017  OUT NOW

Guide to Newspaper Archives Online 
by Ruth A. Symes

#news #newspapers #press #familyhistoryresearch #searchmyancestry #newspaperarticles #britishnewspaperarchive

Follow by Email