Could you tell me how the term "consort" was uaed and it's meaning around 1850? At 11:55 2/8/01 EST, you wrote: >This came across from another list and thought it contained info we could all >use. > ~gina~ > >Last week I noted the following entries in the "History and Antiquities of >the >County of Dorset."  The three entries are found together in Vol. II, on p. >805 >and are placed in an isolated listing with the title "The Register of >Marriages >begins 1539."  These are transcripts from the Piddlehinton, Dorset marriage >register.  The entries are: > >Mr. Robert Swain and Mrs. Eleanor Churchill . . .  1656 >Mr. Henry Churchill and Mrs. Hannah Galler  . . .  1661 >Mr. Henry Churchill and Mrs. Elizabeth Cheek . . . 1682 > >I have seen the Henry and Galler/Cheek marriages from other sources but >without >the use of Mr. for Henry.  I had always assumed that the use of Mrs. simply >indicated that Henry had married widows.  However, I knew that this Eleanor >Churchill was unmarried, so the use of Mistress for Eleanor could not be an >indicator of her marital status. > >After a bit of research and confirming queries from individuals knowledgeable >on the subject, I discovered the true meaning of the above entries.  So >others >don't jump to the same conclusions I initially made, here is the meaning of >the >entries. > >In the 17th and 18th century Mrs. (a contraction of Mistress) was a prefix >used >ONLY for unmarried ladies or girls.  It was equivalent to the modern use of >MISS but was applied only to gentlewomen, that is to say women of gentry >class. > >The Oxford dictionary says about the use of Mrs: > >" . . . Originally distinctive of a gentlewomen, the use of the prefix has >gradually extended downwards; at the present time, every married woman who >has >no superior title is styled 'Mrs.' even though her husband is of so humble a >position as not ordinarily to be referred to as 'Mr.'. . . " > >The use of Mr. indicates gentry status for the men.  Mr places them at the >social level immediately below a titled individual and generally tells you >they >were not titled -- but I understand that Mr could be applied to a knight. > >The consensus from my queries is that John Hutchins, the author of the >"History >and Antiquities of the County of Dorset" extracted the above three marriage >entries and placed them in an isolated grouping simply to emphasize that the >families were prominent.  A distinction that escapes us today. > >The actual individual parish marriage entries would have been written over >time >by (probably) the rector(s).  In their use of Mr. and Mrs. the rectors were >saying about each couple that they were of gentry class and that the women >were >never previously married.  This intended information about the martial status >of the women is in stark contrast to our modern interpretation which is that >all three women were previously married. > >Good hunting, > >Bill Churchill >Greenville, Texas, USA > > > > >============================== >9 Health Tips for Computer Genealogists >http://www.thirdage.com/features/tech/ouch/ > >

According to Funk and Wagnall's, it means "husband or wife; mate." It's used very often in wills and similar legal documents from way, way back in history at least into the early 1900s. Mysty shakerag@mtnhome.com *********************************************** ----- Original Message ----- From: <matthews@ebicom.net> To: <ARMARION-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2001 8:33 PM Subject: Re: Use of Mr. & Mrs. in records Could you tell me how the term "consort" was uaed and it's meaning around 1850?