Is anybody researching TO(O)GOOD? (Yes, I know these names are not
registered, but you never know.)
Because I have found a few DO(O)GOODs in the records here and there that
seem to be really TO(O)GOODs. They are:
1852 Birmingham directory; John Doogood, Cabinet Maker, 19 Upper Gough
Street. Evidence gleaned from the 1851 and 1881 censuses indicates that
this is a John Toogood. Also, I'm pretty sure of the location of all
DOOGOODs at this time and he isn't one of them.
1881 Census John Dogood, Whipmaker, Birmingham - RG11/2989, folio 33,
page 7. Again, I can't fit him in, and examination of the original scan
strongly suggests that the D is really a T.
1901 Census (PRO version) Samuel Doogood, Ironmonger's Assistant ,
Bristol, and family - RG13/2395 folio 60 page 19. Correctly shown on the
Ancestry.co.uk version as TOOGOOD, and this is confirmed by entries in
the 1881 census.
1901 Census (PRO Version) John Doogood, Farmer, Awliscombe, and family -
RG13/2021 folio 5 page 1. Correctly shown on the Ancestry.co.uk version
as TOOGOOD, and this is confirmed by entries in the 1881 census.
John (Bournemouth).
--
Reply to john at yclept dot freeserve dot co dot uk
TO(O)GOODs masquerading as DOOGOODs
Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper
-
Joe Pessarra
Re: TO(O)GOODs masquerading as DOOGOODs
"John Hill" <nemo@erewhon.invalid> wrote in message
news:1gqhdtb.2avh7d14j0xa2N%nemo@erewhon.invalid...
An Internet search for Togood+genealogy will get you about 83 hits.
Toogood+genealogy - 1,140 hits.
Dogood+genealogy - 86 hits.
Doogood+genealogy - 8 hits.
Some of the hits may be the same. But, some may be of help to you.
Good luck.
Joe in Georgetown, Texas, USA
Return address is bogus.
Use joepessarra@cox.net
to respond directly.
news:1gqhdtb.2avh7d14j0xa2N%nemo@erewhon.invalid...
Is anybody researching TO(O)GOOD? (Yes, I know these names are not
registered, but you never know.)
Because I have found a few DO(O)GOODs in the records here and there that
seem to be really TO(O)GOODs. They are:
1852 Birmingham directory; John Doogood, Cabinet Maker, 19 Upper Gough
Street. Evidence gleaned from the 1851 and 1881 censuses indicates that
this is a John Toogood. Also, I'm pretty sure of the location of all
DOOGOODs at this time and he isn't one of them.
1881 Census John Dogood, Whipmaker, Birmingham - RG11/2989, folio 33,
page 7. Again, I can't fit him in, and examination of the original scan
strongly suggests that the D is really a T.
1901 Census (PRO version) Samuel Doogood, Ironmonger's Assistant ,
Bristol, and family - RG13/2395 folio 60 page 19. Correctly shown on the
Ancestry.co.uk version as TOOGOOD, and this is confirmed by entries in
the 1881 census.
1901 Census (PRO Version) John Doogood, Farmer, Awliscombe, and family -
RG13/2021 folio 5 page 1. Correctly shown on the Ancestry.co.uk version
as TOOGOOD, and this is confirmed by entries in the 1881 census.
John (Bournemouth).
--
Reply to john at yclept dot freeserve dot co dot uk
An Internet search for Togood+genealogy will get you about 83 hits.
Toogood+genealogy - 1,140 hits.
Dogood+genealogy - 86 hits.
Doogood+genealogy - 8 hits.
Some of the hits may be the same. But, some may be of help to you.
Good luck.
Joe in Georgetown, Texas, USA
Return address is bogus.
Use joepessarra@cox.net
to respond directly.
-
Joe Pessarra
Re: TO(O)GOODs masquerading as DOOGOODs
"John Hill" <nemo@erewhon.invalid> wrote in message
news:1gqhdtb.2avh7d14j0xa2N%nemo@erewhon.invalid...
Lots of Dogood, Doogood, Togood, and Toogood listings in the US census
schedules, if you are interested.
Joe in Georgetown, Texas, USA
Return address is bogus.
Use joepessarra@cox.net
to respond directly.
news:1gqhdtb.2avh7d14j0xa2N%nemo@erewhon.invalid...
Is anybody researching TO(O)GOOD? (Yes, I know these names are not
registered, but you never know.)
Because I have found a few DO(O)GOODs in the records here and there that
seem to be really TO(O)GOODs. They are:
1852 Birmingham directory; John Doogood, Cabinet Maker, 19 Upper Gough
Street. Evidence gleaned from the 1851 and 1881 censuses indicates that
this is a John Toogood. Also, I'm pretty sure of the location of all
DOOGOODs at this time and he isn't one of them.
1881 Census John Dogood, Whipmaker, Birmingham - RG11/2989, folio 33,
page 7. Again, I can't fit him in, and examination of the original scan
strongly suggests that the D is really a T.
1901 Census (PRO version) Samuel Doogood, Ironmonger's Assistant ,
Bristol, and family - RG13/2395 folio 60 page 19. Correctly shown on the
Ancestry.co.uk version as TOOGOOD, and this is confirmed by entries in
the 1881 census.
1901 Census (PRO Version) John Doogood, Farmer, Awliscombe, and family -
RG13/2021 folio 5 page 1. Correctly shown on the Ancestry.co.uk version
as TOOGOOD, and this is confirmed by entries in the 1881 census.
John (Bournemouth).
--
Reply to john at yclept dot freeserve dot co dot uk
Lots of Dogood, Doogood, Togood, and Toogood listings in the US census
schedules, if you are interested.
Joe in Georgetown, Texas, USA
Return address is bogus.
Use joepessarra@cox.net
to respond directly.
-
John Hill
Re: TO(O)GOODs masquerading as DOOGOODs
Joe Pessarra <pessarraspam@spamcox-internet.com> wrote:
Snip...
Still sorting out the UK Do(o)goods (19th and 20th century pretty well
complete), but I'll get on to the US ones in due course. There must be
some because there is an IGI/LDS interest in my GGG Grandfather William
Doogood.
I've no TO(O)GOODs, these were some I'd found while tooking for
DO(O)GOOD. I'll leave them to someone else!
John (Bournemouth)
--
Reply to john at yclept dot freeserve dot co dot uk
"John Hill" <nemo@erewhon.invalid> wrote in message
news:1gqhdtb.2avh7d14j0xa2N%nemo@erewhon.invalid...
Is anybody researching TO(O)GOOD? (Yes, I know these names are not
registered, but you never know.)
Because I have found a few DO(O)GOODs in the records here and there that
seem to be really TO(O)GOODs. They are:
Snip...
An Internet search for Togood+genealogy will get you about 83 hits.
Toogood+genealogy - 1,140 hits.
Dogood+genealogy - 86 hits.
Doogood+genealogy - 8 hits.
Some of the hits may be the same. But, some may be of help to you.
Lots of Dogood, Doogood, Togood, and Toogood listings in the US census
schedules, if you are interested.
Still sorting out the UK Do(o)goods (19th and 20th century pretty well
complete), but I'll get on to the US ones in due course. There must be
some because there is an IGI/LDS interest in my GGG Grandfather William
Doogood.
I've no TO(O)GOODs, these were some I'd found while tooking for
DO(O)GOOD. I'll leave them to someone else!
John (Bournemouth)
--
Reply to john at yclept dot freeserve dot co dot uk
-
Paul Bolchover
Re: TO(O)GOODs masquerading as DOOGOODs
In article <1gqhdtb.2avh7d14j0xa2N%nemo@erewhon.invalid>,
John Hill <john@yclept.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
It's worth pointing out that at least one family (my ancestors in
Stratton Audley, Oxfordshire) underwent the spelling transition
TOGOOD -> TOOGOOD -> TUGWOOD
Paul Bolchover
paul@bolchover.org
John Hill <john@yclept.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
Is anybody researching TO(O)GOOD? (Yes, I know these names are not
registered, but you never know.)
It's worth pointing out that at least one family (my ancestors in
Stratton Audley, Oxfordshire) underwent the spelling transition
TOGOOD -> TOOGOOD -> TUGWOOD
Paul Bolchover
paul@bolchover.org
-
John Hill
Re: TO(O)GOODs masquerading as DOOGOODs
Eve McLaughlin <eve@varneys.demon.co.uk> wrote:
This is quite true, and I hadn't forgotton it. But it's very different
from taking on the variant as a main line of research.
--
Reply to john at yclept dot freeserve dot co dot uk
Because I have found a few DO(O)GOODs in the records here and there that
seem to be really TO(O)GOODs. They are:
You may want to look into DUGUIDs, as well.
I prefer not to - DOOGOOD/DOGOOD/DOEGOOD seems to have been the form
since the sixteenth century, and "sounds" different from DUGUID.
How different?
Also, DOOGOOD (with the variants) is (a) my grandmothers' maiden name
and (b) suitable for a one-name study. Add in DUGUID and it gets totally
out of hand!
It is rash to exclude a standard variant of any kind. You could be
looking for a marriage for years, which is staring you in the face in a
slightly variant spelling.
This is quite true, and I hadn't forgotton it. But it's very different
from taking on the variant as a main line of research.
--
Reply to john at yclept dot freeserve dot co dot uk