Nick, I think the DRO and Lichfield JRO are the places to go for any extant info about Cromford Bridge Chapel. Have you also checked the Wirksworth website www.wirksworth.org.uk? There's no info about it in the research done on clergy by Richard Clark (he kindly supplied me clergy details for Wirksworth and its chapels up to 1670.) There might be something in Cox's books on Derbyshire Churches? My guess is, that if the chapel doesn't get mentioned in DRO's guide, it's because there are no PRs for it. I think the guide is to their PR holdings rather than to all churches and chapels that have ever existed in Derbyshire. Regards, Celia Renshaw now in Sheffield, Yorks On 17 April 2017 at 21:17, Nick Higton <[email protected]> wrote: > Hello Celia & List > > That's brilliant. Thanks for all the useful information. The DRO guide is > particularly useful. > > You're quite correct; Winster was a chapelry of Youlgreave. > > One omission I noticed on the DRO list was Cromford Bridge Chapel. The > Derbyshire Heritage website states that, by the 16th century, the building > was in use as a parochial chapelry of Wirksworth but by the mid-1600s was > no longer used as a place of worship. However, I have seen some > un-referenced information to folk being buried there into the 18th century. > > Are there any records or MIs that have survived? > > Nick > > ------ Original Message ------ > From: "Celia Renshaw" <[email protected]> > To: "Nick Higton" <[email protected]>; "Derbyshire genealogy" < > [email protected]> > Sent: 16/04/2017 17:16:56 > Subject: Re: [DBY] Chapelries / Chapels of Ease > > Hi Nick, I've had cause to look into this too. I believe all places of >> worship, whatever their designation, were and are licensed by the relevant >> diocesan bishop, so for Derbyshire in the past that was Lichfield & >> Coventry Diocese. >> >> My experience is that there were no consistent 'rules' consistently >> followed about how registers were kept. A chapel might have its own or it >> didn't and we find entries for events there in the mother church's >> registers. Or it started to keep its own later. Quite often the registers >> for chapelries have not survived even when the mother church's have. One >> ongoing problem over the centuries was the lack of sufficiently educated & >> ordained ministers to fill livings as curates and vicars, so chapels might >> be 'unserved' for long stretches of time. My understanding also is that >> very often records of events, at both churches and chapels, were noted on >> 'slips of paper', ie. rough notes were made, from which fair copies were >> later made into the actual registers - so that would have worked for >> chapelries rather than the registers being hauled about. And there were >> periods when it was legally required for the incumbent to keep registers >> and others when they couldn't - separate people had to keep the registers. >> >> You're right that different chapels had different licences for performing >> baptisms, marriages and burials - and these licences could be different at >> different historical periods. Many chapelries, and especially chapels of >> ease, had no burial ground of their own. Many could not perform marriages. >> Information on which could do what at which historical period can be found >> at record offices and at diocesan archives. For Derbyshire, the DRO do a >> pretty good job of telling you these details in their Parish Register >> Guide, accessible online: >> http://derbyshire.gov.uk/images/Parish%20Register%20Guide_tcm44-17013.pdf >> . >> Another good guide is the National Index of Parish Registers produced by >> the Soc of Genealogists, vol 6 being Derbyshire. This includes details of >> non-conformist places of worship too (not fully comprehensive, though >> nearly so.) >> >> I believe the decision about licensing a chapel would be made at diocesan >> level and I've read in the past that members of the congregation might >> lobby for that, or the incumbent might lobby to relieve pressure of work >> and so forth. All kinds of reasons. DRO's guide tells you when PRs were >> first kept and/or chapels were licensed for the first time (if known) - >> I'm >> guessing that any record of that happening will be at Lichfield Joint >> Record Office. I've done a spreadsheet for myself of what churches & >> chapels there were in Derbyshire and their status, created mostly from the >> sources I've mentioned. My spreadsheet says that Alderwasley All Saints >> was >> a chapel of Wirksworth and only had separate PRs from 1861. Dethick (plus >> Lea & Holloway) St John the Baptist was a chapelry in Ashover and had >> separate PRs from 1754. I have Winster St John the Baptist as a chapelry >> in >> Youlgreave parish with its own PRs from 1674 (transcript now available for >> 1633-74). The Guide says it became a separate parish in 1866. >> >> I wrote a blog article about this kind of knotty issue which might be >> entertaining: >> https://morgansite.wordpress.com/2012/11/03/lost-in-osmaston >> -or-when-is-a-parish-not-a-parish/ >> >> Celia Renshaw >> now in Sheffield, Yorks >> >> On 16 April 2017 at 16:42, Nick Higton via DERBYSGEN < >> [email protected] >> >>> wrote: >>> >> >> Can anyone point me in the right direction regarding the arrangements >>> surrounding Chapelries, or Chapels of Ease? My interest arises out of >>> records at Alderwasley, Winster and Dethick chapelries in the 18th and >>> 19th >>> centuries. >>> >>> In particular: >>> 1. Were chapelries "licenced" by their Parish Church as to the rites >>> they >>> could (or could not) perform? Winster appears to have records for >>> baptisms >>> and burials, but not marriages. >>> 2. How were the records maintained at chapelries? Was the "master" copy >>> retained at the chapel and, if so, was a copy made in the parish church >>> registers each year (?), so the Bishops Transcripts could be prepared? >>> Alternatively, did the minister take a copy of the parish register with >>> him >>> to the chapelry when he was to perform a rite (not very likely, I would >>> have thought)? >>> 3. How and when was it decided whether a chapelry should become a parish >>> church in its own right, and where is the change of status recorded? I >>> believe that Dethick was a chapelry of Ashover, becoming a parish >>> church >>> in the late 19th century; Winster was a chapelry of Bakewell; whilst >>> Alderwasley (both old and new buildings) has always been a chapel of >>> ease. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ------------------------------- >>> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to >>> [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the >>> quotes in the subject and the body of the message >>> >>> >> >

Hello Celia & List That's brilliant. Thanks for all the useful information. The DRO guide is particularly useful. You're quite correct; Winster was a chapelry of Youlgreave. One omission I noticed on the DRO list was Cromford Bridge Chapel. The Derbyshire Heritage website states that, by the 16th century, the building was in use as a parochial chapelry of Wirksworth but by the mid-1600s was no longer used as a place of worship. However, I have seen some un-referenced information to folk being buried there into the 18th century. Are there any records or MIs that have survived? Nick ------ Original Message ------ From: "Celia Renshaw" <[email protected]> To: "Nick Higton" <[email protected]>; "Derbyshire genealogy" <[email protected]> Sent: 16/04/2017 17:16:56 Subject: Re: [DBY] Chapelries / Chapels of Ease >Hi Nick, I've had cause to look into this too. I believe all places of >worship, whatever their designation, were and are licensed by the >relevant >diocesan bishop, so for Derbyshire in the past that was Lichfield & >Coventry Diocese. > >My experience is that there were no consistent 'rules' consistently >followed about how registers were kept. A chapel might have its own or >it >didn't and we find entries for events there in the mother church's >registers. Or it started to keep its own later. Quite often the >registers >for chapelries have not survived even when the mother church's have. >One >ongoing problem over the centuries was the lack of sufficiently >educated & >ordained ministers to fill livings as curates and vicars, so chapels >might >be 'unserved' for long stretches of time. My understanding also is that >very often records of events, at both churches and chapels, were noted >on >'slips of paper', ie. rough notes were made, from which fair copies >were >later made into the actual registers - so that would have worked for >chapelries rather than the registers being hauled about. And there were >periods when it was legally required for the incumbent to keep >registers >and others when they couldn't - separate people had to keep the >registers. > >You're right that different chapels had different licences for >performing >baptisms, marriages and burials - and these licences could be different >at >different historical periods. Many chapelries, and especially chapels >of >ease, had no burial ground of their own. Many could not perform >marriages. >Information on which could do what at which historical period can be >found >at record offices and at diocesan archives. For Derbyshire, the DRO do >a >pretty good job of telling you these details in their Parish Register >Guide, accessible online: >http://derbyshire.gov.uk/images/Parish%20Register%20Guide_tcm44-17013.pdf. >Another good guide is the National Index of Parish Registers produced >by >the Soc of Genealogists, vol 6 being Derbyshire. This includes details >of >non-conformist places of worship too (not fully comprehensive, though >nearly so.) > >I believe the decision about licensing a chapel would be made at >diocesan >level and I've read in the past that members of the congregation might >lobby for that, or the incumbent might lobby to relieve pressure of >work >and so forth. All kinds of reasons. DRO's guide tells you when PRs were >first kept and/or chapels were licensed for the first time (if known) - >I'm >guessing that any record of that happening will be at Lichfield Joint >Record Office. I've done a spreadsheet for myself of what churches & >chapels there were in Derbyshire and their status, created mostly from >the >sources I've mentioned. My spreadsheet says that Alderwasley All Saints >was >a chapel of Wirksworth and only had separate PRs from 1861. Dethick >(plus >Lea & Holloway) St John the Baptist was a chapelry in Ashover and had >separate PRs from 1754. I have Winster St John the Baptist as a >chapelry in >Youlgreave parish with its own PRs from 1674 (transcript now available >for >1633-74). The Guide says it became a separate parish in 1866. > >I wrote a blog article about this kind of knotty issue which might be >entertaining: >https://morgansite.wordpress.com/2012/11/03/lost-in-osmaston-or-when-is-a-parish-not-a-parish/ > >Celia Renshaw >now in Sheffield, Yorks > >On 16 April 2017 at 16:42, Nick Higton via DERBYSGEN ><[email protected] >> wrote: > >> Can anyone point me in the right direction regarding the arrangements >> surrounding Chapelries, or Chapels of Ease? My interest arises out >>of >> records at Alderwasley, Winster and Dethick chapelries in the 18th >>and 19th >> centuries. >> >> In particular: >> 1. Were chapelries "licenced" by their Parish Church as to the rites >>they >> could (or could not) perform? Winster appears to have records for >>baptisms >> and burials, but not marriages. >> 2. How were the records maintained at chapelries? Was the "master" >>copy >> retained at the chapel and, if so, was a copy made in the parish >>church >> registers each year (?), so the Bishops Transcripts could be >>prepared? >> Alternatively, did the minister take a copy of the parish register >>with him >> to the chapelry when he was to perform a rite (not very likely, I >>would >> have thought)? >> 3. How and when was it decided whether a chapelry should become a >>parish >> church in its own right, and where is the change of status recorded? >>I >> believe that Dethick was a chapelry of Ashover, becoming a parish >>church >> in the late 19th century; Winster was a chapelry of Bakewell; whilst >> Alderwasley (both old and new buildings) has always been a chapel of >>ease. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to >> [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without >>the >> quotes in the subject and the body of the message >> >

Hi Nick, I've had cause to look into this too. I believe all places of worship, whatever their designation, were and are licensed by the relevant diocesan bishop, so for Derbyshire in the past that was Lichfield & Coventry Diocese. My experience is that there were no consistent 'rules' consistently followed about how registers were kept. A chapel might have its own or it didn't and we find entries for events there in the mother church's registers. Or it started to keep its own later. Quite often the registers for chapelries have not survived even when the mother church's have. One ongoing problem over the centuries was the lack of sufficiently educated & ordained ministers to fill livings as curates and vicars, so chapels might be 'unserved' for long stretches of time. My understanding also is that very often records of events, at both churches and chapels, were noted on 'slips of paper', ie. rough notes were made, from which fair copies were later made into the actual registers - so that would have worked for chapelries rather than the registers being hauled about. And there were periods when it was legally required for the incumbent to keep registers and others when they couldn't - separate people had to keep the registers. You're right that different chapels had different licences for performing baptisms, marriages and burials - and these licences could be different at different historical periods. Many chapelries, and especially chapels of ease, had no burial ground of their own. Many could not perform marriages. Information on which could do what at which historical period can be found at record offices and at diocesan archives. For Derbyshire, the DRO do a pretty good job of telling you these details in their Parish Register Guide, accessible online: http://derbyshire.gov.uk/images/Parish%20Register%20Guide_tcm44-17013.pdf. Another good guide is the National Index of Parish Registers produced by the Soc of Genealogists, vol 6 being Derbyshire. This includes details of non-conformist places of worship too (not fully comprehensive, though nearly so.) I believe the decision about licensing a chapel would be made at diocesan level and I've read in the past that members of the congregation might lobby for that, or the incumbent might lobby to relieve pressure of work and so forth. All kinds of reasons. DRO's guide tells you when PRs were first kept and/or chapels were licensed for the first time (if known) - I'm guessing that any record of that happening will be at Lichfield Joint Record Office. I've done a spreadsheet for myself of what churches & chapels there were in Derbyshire and their status, created mostly from the sources I've mentioned. My spreadsheet says that Alderwasley All Saints was a chapel of Wirksworth and only had separate PRs from 1861. Dethick (plus Lea & Holloway) St John the Baptist was a chapelry in Ashover and had separate PRs from 1754. I have Winster St John the Baptist as a chapelry in Youlgreave parish with its own PRs from 1674 (transcript now available for 1633-74). The Guide says it became a separate parish in 1866. I wrote a blog article about this kind of knotty issue which might be entertaining: https://morgansite.wordpress.com/2012/11/03/lost-in-osmaston-or-when-is-a-parish-not-a-parish/ Celia Renshaw now in Sheffield, Yorks On 16 April 2017 at 16:42, Nick Higton via DERBYSGEN <[email protected] > wrote: > Can anyone point me in the right direction regarding the arrangements > surrounding Chapelries, or Chapels of Ease? My interest arises out of > records at Alderwasley, Winster and Dethick chapelries in the 18th and 19th > centuries. > > In particular: > 1. Were chapelries "licenced" by their Parish Church as to the rites they > could (or could not) perform? Winster appears to have records for baptisms > and burials, but not marriages. > 2. How were the records maintained at chapelries? Was the "master" copy > retained at the chapel and, if so, was a copy made in the parish church > registers each year (?), so the Bishops Transcripts could be prepared? > Alternatively, did the minister take a copy of the parish register with him > to the chapelry when he was to perform a rite (not very likely, I would > have thought)? > 3. How and when was it decided whether a chapelry should become a parish > church in its own right, and where is the change of status recorded? I > believe that Dethick was a chapelry of Ashover, becoming a parish church > in the late 19th century; Winster was a chapelry of Bakewell; whilst > Alderwasley (both old and new buildings) has always been a chapel of ease. > > > > > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message >

Can anyone point me in the right direction regarding the arrangements surrounding Chapelries, or Chapels of Ease? My interest arises out of records at Alderwasley, Winster and Dethick chapelries in the 18th and 19th centuries. In particular: 1. Were chapelries "licenced" by their Parish Church as to the rites they could (or could not) perform? Winster appears to have records for baptisms and burials, but not marriages. 2. How were the records maintained at chapelries? Was the "master" copy retained at the chapel and, if so, was a copy made in the parish church registers each year (?), so the Bishops Transcripts could be prepared? Alternatively, did the minister take a copy of the parish register with him to the chapelry when he was to perform a rite (not very likely, I would have thought)? 3. How and when was it decided whether a chapelry should become a parish church in its own right, and where is the change of status recorded? I believe that Dethick was a chapelry of Ashover, becoming a parish church in the late 19th century; Winster was a chapelry of Bakewell; whilst Alderwasley (both old and new buildings) has always been a chapel of ease.

Fascinating, Celia, and so informative and well researched, as always! --WendyE Sent from my iPad > On Apr 16, 2017, at 12:16 PM, Celia Renshaw via DERBYSGEN <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi Nick, I've had cause to look into this too. I believe all places of > worship, whatever their designation, were and are licensed by the relevant > diocesan bishop, so for Derbyshire in the past that was Lichfield & > Coventry Diocese. > > My experience is that there were no consistent 'rules' consistently > followed about how registers were kept. A chapel might have its own or it > didn't and we find entries for events there in the mother church's > registers. Or it started to keep its own later. Quite often the registers > for chapelries have not survived even when the mother church's have. One > ongoing problem over the centuries was the lack of sufficiently educated & > ordained ministers to fill livings as curates and vicars, so chapels might > be 'unserved' for long stretches of time. My understanding also is that > very often records of events, at both churches and chapels, were noted on > 'slips of paper', ie. rough notes were made, from which fair copies were > later made into the actual registers - so that would have worked for > chapelries rather than the registers being hauled about. And there were > periods when it was legally required for the incumbent to keep registers > and others when they couldn't - separate people had to keep the registers. > > You're right that different chapels had different licences for performing > baptisms, marriages and burials - and these licences could be different at > different historical periods. Many chapelries, and especially chapels of > ease, had no burial ground of their own. Many could not perform marriages. > Information on which could do what at which historical period can be found > at record offices and at diocesan archives. For Derbyshire, the DRO do a > pretty good job of telling you these details in their Parish Register > Guide, accessible online: > http://derbyshire.gov.uk/images/Parish%20Register%20Guide_tcm44-17013.pdf. > Another good guide is the National Index of Parish Registers produced by > the Soc of Genealogists, vol 6 being Derbyshire. This includes details of > non-conformist places of worship too (not fully comprehensive, though > nearly so.) > > I believe the decision about licensing a chapel would be made at diocesan > level and I've read in the past that members of the congregation might > lobby for that, or the incumbent might lobby to relieve pressure of work > and so forth. All kinds of reasons. DRO's guide tells you when PRs were > first kept and/or chapels were licensed for the first time (if known) - I'm > guessing that any record of that happening will be at Lichfield Joint > Record Office. I've done a spreadsheet for myself of what churches & > chapels there were in Derbyshire and their status, created mostly from the > sources I've mentioned. My spreadsheet says that Alderwasley All Saints was > a chapel of Wirksworth and only had separate PRs from 1861. Dethick (plus > Lea & Holloway) St John the Baptist was a chapelry in Ashover and had > separate PRs from 1754. I have Winster St John the Baptist as a chapelry in > Youlgreave parish with its own PRs from 1674 (transcript now available for > 1633-74). The Guide says it became a separate parish in 1866. > > I wrote a blog article about this kind of knotty issue which might be > entertaining: > https://morgansite.wordpress.com/2012/11/03/lost-in-osmaston-or-when-is-a-parish-not-a-parish/ > > Celia Renshaw > now in Sheffield, Yorks > > On 16 April 2017 at 16:42, Nick Higton via DERBYSGEN <[email protected] >> wrote: > >> Can anyone point me in the right direction regarding the arrangements >> surrounding Chapelries, or Chapels of Ease? My interest arises out of >> records at Alderwasley, Winster and Dethick chapelries in the 18th and 19th >> centuries. >> >> In particular: >> 1. Were chapelries "licenced" by their Parish Church as to the rites they >> could (or could not) perform? Winster appears to have records for baptisms >> and burials, but not marriages. >> 2. How were the records maintained at chapelries? Was the "master" copy >> retained at the chapel and, if so, was a copy made in the parish church >> registers each year (?), so the Bishops Transcripts could be prepared? >> Alternatively, did the minister take a copy of the parish register with him >> to the chapelry when he was to perform a rite (not very likely, I would >> have thought)? >> 3. How and when was it decided whether a chapelry should become a parish >> church in its own right, and where is the change of status recorded? I >> believe that Dethick was a chapelry of Ashover, becoming a parish church >> in the late 19th century; Winster was a chapelry of Bakewell; whilst >> Alderwasley (both old and new buildings) has always been a chapel of ease. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to >> [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the >> quotes in the subject and the body of the message >> > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Sorry its a bit late but got busy on other things Ancestry are having a free weekend for Easter http://www.ancestry.co.uk/cs/free-access And a very happy Easter to all :-) -- Nivard Ovington in Cornwall (UK)

Hi Joy My William was born 1770 in Coleorton. I have no record of his birth or baptism. I have an idea who his parents MIGHT be but might doesn't really cut it. I have a William Stenson married to Hannah Rolston in Spondon in 1749. Would that be your William Jr? I have no information on them, just a random marriage that I found. Vern On 15 April 2017 at 04:40, Joy Hungerford via DERBYSGEN < [email protected]> wrote: > Hi Vern > > > My eyes lit up when I saw William STENSON, as this is the name of my > Spondon > > 7GGF. He, a shoemaker, and his wife, Ellen STEVENS, had 12 children there > (including another William) > > in the late 1600s. > > As I'm descended through their daughter, Helen, I haven't as much info > about the > > family as I would like. Are you aware of any links with these earlier > STENSONs, please? > > Heanor isn't that far from Spondon. > > > Kind regards > > > Joy > > > ________________________________ > From: DERBYSGEN <[email protected]> > on behalf of Vern Prescott via DERBYSGEN <[email protected]> > Sent: 14 April 2017 21:45 > To: [email protected] > Cc: Vern Prescott > Subject: [DBY] Sale of property in Heanor 1826 > > I have found the following ad placed in several newspapers on 13 Dec 1826 > (which happens to be my birthday, though the year is wrong). > > FREEHOLD ESTATE AT HEANOR, DERBYSHIRE. > TO BE SOLD BY AUCTION, > By Mr. BLACKWELL, > At the sign of the King of Prussia, in Heanor, in the county of Derby, on > Tuesday the 19th day of December instant, at three o'clock in the > afternoon, (subject to the conditions to in be then produced,) with > immediate possession if required; > LOT 1. > A Neat Commodious DWELLING HOUSE, with a good Garden, stable, cowhouse, > piggery, and every requisite convenience. Also ten acres of Land or > thereabouts, comprising a large newly planted Orchard, and four Closes of > superior Grass Land, all adjoining each other, in the occupation of Mr. > William Stenson. > The above is most desirable in point of situation and soil for nursery > ground, and nearly 1000 choice fruit trees, in a very healthy thriving > condition, are now planted thereon. > LOT 2. > Four other CLOSES of excellent Land adjoining the above, containing > together ten acres or thereabouts, in a high state of cultivation, also in > the occupation of the said William Stenson. > The whole of the above Estate is tythe free, is situated about a quarter of > a mile from the Town of Heanor, and may be viewed on application to Mr. > Stenson, the owner and occupier; and any further particulars may be had on > enquiry at the Office of Mr. PARSONS, Solicitor, Nottingham. > > > I am wondering if there is any way to find out more about this property? I > think that it may be the property of my GGG Grandfather, William Stenson, > father of Coalville. I know that he was in the Heanor area in the early > 1800's. He was then in the Forest of Dean from possibly about 1813 until > about 1822. By 1823, he was again in Heanor where he was involved in a > dispute regarding the coal at Heanor Hall Estate. > > Any advice/assistance would be much appreciated. > > I have also sent this email to the Leicestershire list and to the > Derbyshire Record Office. > > > Vern Prescott > Chatham, Ontario, Canada > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message >

DRO have posted the following on their blog Changes to our opening hours by Sarah Chubb A few months ago, we carried out a survey about reducing our opening hours.  We asked which day our customers would prefer us to close: Monday, Wednesday or Friday.  The results have now been analysed and Derbyshire County Council's Cabinet have agreed the changes.  There was a clear preference for Mondays, so we will be closing on a Monday and opening Tuesday to Friday as normal. We will also be reducing our Saturday openings from every Saturday to one Saturday a month.  Many people who responded to our survey pointed out how important it is to have plenty of time to do their research when they visit us, so we have decided to extend our hours on the Saturdays we are open. As of 1 June, our new opening hours will be: Monday: CLOSED Tuesday to Friday: 9.30am to 5.00pm Last Saturday of the month: 9.30am to 4.00pm We unfortunately need to reduce opening hours in order to make budget savings.  Although we will be closed to the public on a Monday, we will, however, be able to do other activities on that day.  We can open up more spaces for volunteering, as we can use our search room for volunteer activities on a Monday.  We will also be able to run events that aren't possible when we have customers in the building, like larger (and noisier!) classroom visits from schools. Please rest assured that we are working hard to get more of our material online and to  offer more opportunities for people to enjoy our collections in new ways.  We understand that our Monday closure will be inconvenient for some customers.  We very much  hope, however, that the work we are able to get done behind the scenes whilst we're closed, to make our collections more accessible, will compensate for the loss of opening hours. Sarah Chubb | 15 April 2017 at 9:36 am | Categories: News | URL: http://wp.me/p1jCye-2Wx Comment    See all comments Helena

Hi Vern My eyes lit up when I saw William STENSON, as this is the name of my Spondon 7GGF. He, a shoemaker, and his wife, Ellen STEVENS, had 12 children there (including another William) in the late 1600s. As I'm descended through their daughter, Helen, I haven't as much info about the family as I would like. Are you aware of any links with these earlier STENSONs, please? Heanor isn't that far from Spondon. Kind regards Joy ________________________________ From: DERBYSGEN <[email protected]> on behalf of Vern Prescott via DERBYSGEN <[email protected]> Sent: 14 April 2017 21:45 To: [email protected] Cc: Vern Prescott Subject: [DBY] Sale of property in Heanor 1826 I have found the following ad placed in several newspapers on 13 Dec 1826 (which happens to be my birthday, though the year is wrong). FREEHOLD ESTATE AT HEANOR, DERBYSHIRE. TO BE SOLD BY AUCTION, By Mr. BLACKWELL, At the sign of the King of Prussia, in Heanor, in the county of Derby, on Tuesday the 19th day of December instant, at three o'clock in the afternoon, (subject to the conditions to in be then produced,) with immediate possession if required; LOT 1. A Neat Commodious DWELLING HOUSE, with a good Garden, stable, cowhouse, piggery, and every requisite convenience. Also ten acres of Land or thereabouts, comprising a large newly planted Orchard, and four Closes of superior Grass Land, all adjoining each other, in the occupation of Mr. William Stenson. The above is most desirable in point of situation and soil for nursery ground, and nearly 1000 choice fruit trees, in a very healthy thriving condition, are now planted thereon. LOT 2. Four other CLOSES of excellent Land adjoining the above, containing together ten acres or thereabouts, in a high state of cultivation, also in the occupation of the said William Stenson. The whole of the above Estate is tythe free, is situated about a quarter of a mile from the Town of Heanor, and may be viewed on application to Mr. Stenson, the owner and occupier; and any further particulars may be had on enquiry at the Office of Mr. PARSONS, Solicitor, Nottingham. I am wondering if there is any way to find out more about this property? I think that it may be the property of my GGG Grandfather, William Stenson, father of Coalville. I know that he was in the Heanor area in the early 1800's. He was then in the Forest of Dean from possibly about 1813 until about 1822. By 1823, he was again in Heanor where he was involved in a dispute regarding the coal at Heanor Hall Estate. Any advice/assistance would be much appreciated. I have also sent this email to the Leicestershire list and to the Derbyshire Record Office. Vern Prescott Chatham, Ontario, Canada ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

I have found the following ad placed in several newspapers on 13 Dec 1826 (which happens to be my birthday, though the year is wrong). FREEHOLD ESTATE AT HEANOR, DERBYSHIRE. TO BE SOLD BY AUCTION, By Mr. BLACKWELL, At the sign of the King of Prussia, in Heanor, in the county of Derby, on Tuesday the 19th day of December instant, at three o'clock in the afternoon, (subject to the conditions to in be then produced,) with immediate possession if required; LOT 1. A Neat Commodious DWELLING HOUSE, with a good Garden, stable, cowhouse, piggery, and every requisite convenience. Also ten acres of Land or thereabouts, comprising a large newly planted Orchard, and four Closes of superior Grass Land, all adjoining each other, in the occupation of Mr. William Stenson. The above is most desirable in point of situation and soil for nursery ground, and nearly 1000 choice fruit trees, in a very healthy thriving condition, are now planted thereon. LOT 2. Four other CLOSES of excellent Land adjoining the above, containing together ten acres or thereabouts, in a high state of cultivation, also in the occupation of the said William Stenson. The whole of the above Estate is tythe free, is situated about a quarter of a mile from the Town of Heanor, and may be viewed on application to Mr. Stenson, the owner and occupier; and any further particulars may be had on enquiry at the Office of Mr. PARSONS, Solicitor, Nottingham. I am wondering if there is any way to find out more about this property? I think that it may be the property of my GGG Grandfather, William Stenson, father of Coalville. I know that he was in the Heanor area in the early 1800's. He was then in the Forest of Dean from possibly about 1813 until about 1822. By 1823, he was again in Heanor where he was involved in a dispute regarding the coal at Heanor Hall Estate. Any advice/assistance would be much appreciated. I have also sent this email to the Leicestershire list and to the Derbyshire Record Office. Vern Prescott Chatham, Ontario, Canada

Very useful indeed. Thanks. WendyE Sent from my iPad > On Apr 11, 2017, at 12:45 PM, Joy Hungerford via DERBYSGEN <[email protected]> wrote: > > Thank you for this, Jack. Very useful. > > > Kind regards > > > Joy > > > ________________________________ > From: DERBYSGEN <[email protected]> on behalf of jackmrr100--- via DERBYSGEN <[email protected]> > Sent: 11 April 2017 11:06 > To: [email protected] > Cc: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [DBY] meaning of Latin text in parish record > > For all, > > Here is a link for Latin to English; in the index click on th latin work > and you will get the difination in English. > > http://latindictionary.wikidot.com/index > Index - The Latin Dictionary<http://latindictionary.wikidot.com/index> > latindictionary.wikidot.com > This is an index of all the words. Click on the Latin word for its English equivalent and information about the Latin word. ~ > > > > > Jack > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Thank you for this, Jack. Very useful. Kind regards Joy ________________________________ From: DERBYSGEN <[email protected]> on behalf of jackmrr100--- via DERBYSGEN <[email protected]> Sent: 11 April 2017 11:06 To: [email protected] Cc: [email protected] Subject: Re: [DBY] meaning of Latin text in parish record For all, Here is a link for Latin to English; in the index click on th latin work and you will get the difination in English. http://latindictionary.wikidot.com/index Index - The Latin Dictionary<http://latindictionary.wikidot.com/index> latindictionary.wikidot.com This is an index of all the words. Click on the Latin word for its English equivalent and information about the Latin word. ~ Jack ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

For all, Here is a link for Latin to English; in the index click on th latin work and you will get the difination in English. http://latindictionary.wikidot.com/index Jack

Ooops - that got away before I'd finished :-) Thank you all who have sorted out roughly what was said, even though the Latin was perhaps a little rough. As far as I can see this is the only entry like this, so it must have had some significance - perhaps because it was the vicar/curate's god child and he was pleased with himself! Rosemary On 10/04/2017 09:30, Rosemary Probert wrote: > Celia, > > I have tried to see who was vicar or curate but without success. I still > need lots of practice reading this style of hand writing, > > > > On 09/04/2017 12:17, Celia Renshaw via en though I haven't come across > any other entries like this at Baslow, so it had me (and my 2nd year > Latin) completely stumped. wrote: >> Yes, I think the 'ego' will be the vicar, who I think is Bromehead?? >> There >> was a Bromehead vicar at Eckington I remember, though probably much >> later. >> so I guess the incumbent is saying "I and mistress so-and-so are >> godparents." She's not necessarily a "Lady" in the aristocratic sense, >> but >> probably someone reasonably well-off? >> >> Do the baptism pages show other entries of godparents' names? Also at >> Eckington, if memory serves, in the early register/s, all godparents were >> listed. It's astonishing to see how tightly kinitted the families in >> parishes were by godparenting as well as the links we usually think of >> first, ie. marriage, religion, occupation, class. >> >> Celia Renshaw >> now in Sheffield, Yorks

Celia, I have tried to see who was vicar or curate but without success. I still need lots of practice reading this style of hand writing, On 09/04/2017 12:17, Celia Renshaw via en though I haven't come across any other entries like this at Baslow, so it had me (and my 2nd year Latin) completely stumped. wrote: > Yes, I think the 'ego' will be the vicar, who I think is Bromehead?? There > was a Bromehead vicar at Eckington I remember, though probably much later. > so I guess the incumbent is saying "I and mistress so-and-so are > godparents." She's not necessarily a "Lady" in the aristocratic sense, but > probably someone reasonably well-off? > > Do the baptism pages show other entries of godparents' names? Also at > Eckington, if memory serves, in the early register/s, all godparents were > listed. It's astonishing to see how tightly kinitted the families in > parishes were by godparenting as well as the links we usually think of > first, ie. marriage, religion, occupation, class. > > Celia Renshaw > now in Sheffield, Yorks > > On 9 April 2017 at 12:08, Margaret Siudek via DERBYSGEN < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> Quite right, Meg - just found them in a vocabulary list for church Latin >> >> susceptor is godfather >> susceptorix is godmother. >> >> My school Latin is very rusty, but the meaning of the whole sentence is >> odd. Domina is Lady. "Ego et" means, "me and" so "the godparents and I"? >> Or if the second word was "est" not "et", it could be "I am the godfather >> and Lady Eliz Froggat is the godmother". Someone else may well remember >> more than me.... >> >> >> NB The vocabulary list is at https://familysearch.org/wiki/ >> en/Latin_Genealogical_Word_List#S for future use by anyone. >> >> Margaret >> >> On 09/04/2017 10:47, meg--- via DERBYSGEN wrote: >> >> One of the meanings of Susceptares is Guardian so could they be the God >> Parents? >> >> Meg Galley-Taylor >> >> >> >> Today's Topics: >> >> 1. Baslow Parish Register 1691 - help reading it needed >> (Rosemary Probert) >> >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> Message: 1 >> Date: Sat, 8 Apr 2017 17:54:29 +0100 >> From: Rosemary Probert <[email protected]><mailto: >> [email protected]> >> To: Derbyshire Mailing List <[email protected]><mailto: >> [email protected]> >> Subject: [DBY] Baslow Parish Register 1691 - help reading it needed >> Message-ID: <[email protected]><mailto: >> [email protected]> >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format=flowed >> >> Evening All, >> >> I am trying to read and understand an entry in Baslow Parish Register on >> FamilySearch: >> >> https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:2:77XT-L83D?i=4&wc= >> 34JX-N3F%3A15811599 >> 03%2C1581162701%2C1581163205&cc=1911752 >> >> The entry I'm interested in is the 9th one down on the right hand page and >> concerns the baptism of Bartholomeus VICKERS, son of Bartholomei VICKERS of >> Baslow on the 26th December 1691 - that bit I understand. >> >> But what follows? >> >> ?? Ego et Bromehead Suscep.ares et Domina Eliz FROGGATT Suscephr.e >> >> Help would be appreciated >> >> Rosemary >> >> >> >> >> >> ------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to >> [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> >> with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body >> of the message >> >> >> >> >> ------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to >> [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the >> quotes in the subject and the body of the message >> > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message >

> On 8 Apr 2017, at 17:54, Rosemary Probert via DERBYSGEN <[email protected]> wrote: > > Evening All, > > I am trying to read and understand an entry in Baslow Parish Register on FamilySearch: > > https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:2:77XT-L83D?i=4&wc=34JX-N3F%3A1581159903%2C1581162701%2C1581163205&cc=1911752 > > The entry I'm interested in is the 9th one down on the right hand page and concerns the baptism of Bartholomeus VICKERS, son of Bartholomei VICKERS of Baslow on the 26th December 1691 - that bit I understand. > > But what follows? > > ?? Ego et Bromehead Suscep.ares et Domina Eliz FROGGATT Suscephr.e > > Help would be appreciated > > Rosemary > > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

I think it says I and Bromehead were the godfathers and Lady/Mistress Elizabeth Froggatt godmother > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > I am trying to read and understand an entry in Baslow Parish Register on > FamilySearch: > > https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:2:77XT-L83D?i=4&wc=34JX-N3F%3A15811599 > 03%2C1581162701%2C1581163205&cc=1911752 > > The entry I'm interested in is the 9th one down on the right hand page and > concerns the baptism of Bartholomeus VICKERS, son of Bartholomei VICKERS of > Baslow on the 26th December 1691 - that bit I understand. > > But what follows? > > ?? Ego et Bromehead Suscep.ares et Domina Eliz FROGGATT Suscephr.e > > Help would be appreciated > > Rosemary > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Sun, 9 Apr 2017 11:08:33 +0000 > From: Margaret Siudek <[email protected]> > To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [DBY] DERBYSGEN meaning of Latin text in parish record > Message-ID: > <[email protected]od.outlook.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" > > Quite right, Meg - just found them in a vocabulary list for church Latin > > susceptor is godfather > susceptorix is godmother. > > My school Latin is very rusty, but the meaning of the whole sentence is odd. Domina is Lady. "Ego et" means, "me and" so "the godparents and I"? Or if the second word was "est" not "et", it could be "I am the godfather and Lady Eliz Froggat is the godmother". Someone else may well remember more than me.... > > > NB The vocabulary list is at https://familysearch.org/wiki/en/Latin_Genealogical_Word_List#S for future use by anyone. > > Margaret > > On 09/04/2017 10:47, meg--- via DERBYSGEN wrote: > > One of the meanings of Susceptares is Guardian so could they be the God > Parents? > > Meg Galley-Taylor > > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Baslow Parish Register 1691 - help reading it needed > (Rosemary Probert) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Sat, 8 Apr 2017 17:54:29 +0100 > From: Rosemary Probert <[email protected]><mailto:[email protected]> > To: Derbyshire Mailing List <[email protected]><mailto:[email protected]> > Subject: [DBY] Baslow Parish Register 1691 - help reading it needed > Message-ID: <[email protected]><mailto:[email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format=flowed > > Evening All, > > I am trying to read and understand an entry in Baslow Parish Register on > FamilySearch: > > https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:2:77XT-L83D?i=4&wc=34JX-N3F%3A15811599 > 03%2C1581162701%2C1581163205&cc=1911752 > > The entry I'm interested in is the 9th one down on the right hand page and > concerns the baptism of Bartholomeus VICKERS, son of Bartholomei VICKERS of > Baslow on the 26th December 1691 - that bit I understand. > > But what follows? > > ?? Ego et Bromehead Suscep.ares et Domina Eliz FROGGATT Suscephr.e > > Help would be appreciated > > Rosemary > > > > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 3 > Date: Sun, 9 Apr 2017 12:17:09 +0100 > From: Celia Renshaw <[email protected]> > To: Derbyshire genealogy <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [DBY] DERBYSGEN meaning of Latin text in parish record > Message-ID: > <[email protected]om> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > Yes, I think the 'ego' will be the vicar, who I think is Bromehead?? There > was a Bromehead vicar at Eckington I remember, though probably much later. > so I guess the incumbent is saying "I and mistress so-and-so are > godparents." She's not necessarily a "Lady" in the aristocratic sense, but > probably someone reasonably well-off? > > Do the baptism pages show other entries of godparents' names? Also at > Eckington, if memory serves, in the early register/s, all godparents were > listed. It's astonishing to see how tightly kinitted the families in > parishes were by godparenting as well as the links we usually think of > first, ie. marriage, religion, occupation, class. > > Celia Renshaw > now in Sheffield, Yorks > > On 9 April 2017 at 12:08, Margaret Siudek via DERBYSGEN < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> Quite right, Meg - just found them in a vocabulary list for church Latin >> >> susceptor is godfather >> susceptorix is godmother. >> >> My school Latin is very rusty, but the meaning of the whole sentence is >> odd. Domina is Lady. "Ego et" means, "me and" so "the godparents and I"? >> Or if the second word was "est" not "et", it could be "I am the godfather >> and Lady Eliz Froggat is the godmother". Someone else may well remember >> more than me.... >> >> >> NB The vocabulary list is at https://familysearch.org/wiki/ >> en/Latin_Genealogical_Word_List#S for future use by anyone. >> >> Margaret >> >> On 09/04/2017 10:47, meg--- via DERBYSGEN wrote: >> >> One of the meanings of Susceptares is Guardian so could they be the God >> Parents? >> >> Meg Galley-Taylor >> >> >> >> Today's Topics: >> >> 1. Baslow Parish Register 1691 - help reading it needed >> (Rosemary Probert) >> >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> Message: 1 >> Date: Sat, 8 Apr 2017 17:54:29 +0100 >> From: Rosemary Probert <[email protected]><mailto: >> [email protected]> >> To: Derbyshire Mailing List <[email protected]><mailto: >> [email protected]> >> Subject: [DBY] Baslow Parish Register 1691 - help reading it needed >> Message-ID: <[email protected]><mailto: >> [email protected]> >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format=flowed >> >> Evening All, >> >> I am trying to read and understand an entry in Baslow Parish Register on >> FamilySearch: >> >> https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:2:77XT-L83D?i=4&wc= >> 34JX-N3F%3A15811599 >> 03%2C1581162701%2C1581163205&cc=1911752 >> >> The entry I'm interested in is the 9th one down on the right hand page and >> concerns the baptism of Bartholomeus VICKERS, son of Bartholomei VICKERS of >> Baslow on the 26th December 1691 - that bit I understand. >> >> But what follows? >> >> ?? Ego et Bromehead Suscep.ares et Domina Eliz FROGGATT Suscephr.e >> >> Help would be appreciated >> >> Rosemary >> >> >> >> >> >> ------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to >> [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> >> with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body >> of the message >> >> >> >> >> ------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to >> [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the >> quotes in the subject and the body of the message >> > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 4 > Date: Sun, 9 Apr 2017 18:19:54 +0100 > From: Marie ball <[email protected]> > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [DBY] DERBYSGEN Digest, Vol 12, Issue 91 > Message-ID: <[email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; format=flowed > > > >> Today's Topics: >> >> 1. Baslow Parish Register 1691 - help reading it needed >> (Rosemary Probert) >> >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> Message: 1 >> Date: Sat, 8 Apr 2017 17:54:29 +0100 >> From: Rosemary Probert <[email protected]> >> To: Derbyshire Mailing List <[email protected]> >> Subject: [DBY] Baslow Parish Register 1691 - help reading it needed >> Message-ID: <[email protected]> >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format=flowed >> >> Evening All, >> >> I am trying to read and understand an entry in Baslow Parish Register on >> FamilySearch: >> >> https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:2:77XT-L83D?i=4&wc=34JX-N3F%3A1581159903%2C1581162701%2C1581163205&cc=1911752 >> >> The entry I'm interested in is the 9th one down on the right hand page >> and concerns the baptism of Bartholomeus VICKERS, son of Bartholomei >> VICKERS of Baslow on the 26th December 1691 - that bit I understand. >> >> But what follows? >> >> ?? Ego et Bromehead Suscep.ares et Domina Eliz FROGGATT Suscephr.e >> >> Help would be appreciated >> >> Rosemary >> >> I'd have said godparents but I didn't think Anglican churches recorded godparents at that date, though they certainly did during the reign of Mary. >> > > > ------------------------------ > > Subject: Digest Footer > > To contact the DERBYSGEN list administrator, send an email to > [email protected] > > To post a message to the DERBYSGEN mailing list, send an email to [email protected] > > __________________________________________________________ > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] > with the word "unsubscribe" without the quotes in the subject and the body of the > email with no additional text. > > > ------------------------------ > > End of DERBYSGEN Digest, Vol 12, Issue 92 > *****************************************

> Today's Topics: > > 1. Baslow Parish Register 1691 - help reading it needed > (Rosemary Probert) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Sat, 8 Apr 2017 17:54:29 +0100 > From: Rosemary Probert <[email protected]> > To: Derbyshire Mailing List <[email protected]> > Subject: [DBY] Baslow Parish Register 1691 - help reading it needed > Message-ID: <[email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format=flowed > > Evening All, > > I am trying to read and understand an entry in Baslow Parish Register on > FamilySearch: > > https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:2:77XT-L83D?i=4&wc=34JX-N3F%3A1581159903%2C1581162701%2C1581163205&cc=1911752 > > The entry I'm interested in is the 9th one down on the right hand page > and concerns the baptism of Bartholomeus VICKERS, son of Bartholomei > VICKERS of Baslow on the 26th December 1691 - that bit I understand. > > But what follows? > > ?? Ego et Bromehead Suscep.ares et Domina Eliz FROGGATT Suscephr.e > > Help would be appreciated > > Rosemary > > I'd have said godparents but I didn't think Anglican churches recorded godparents at that date, though they certainly did during the reign of Mary. > >

Yes, I think the 'ego' will be the vicar, who I think is Bromehead?? There was a Bromehead vicar at Eckington I remember, though probably much later. so I guess the incumbent is saying "I and mistress so-and-so are godparents." She's not necessarily a "Lady" in the aristocratic sense, but probably someone reasonably well-off? Do the baptism pages show other entries of godparents' names? Also at Eckington, if memory serves, in the early register/s, all godparents were listed. It's astonishing to see how tightly kinitted the families in parishes were by godparenting as well as the links we usually think of first, ie. marriage, religion, occupation, class. Celia Renshaw now in Sheffield, Yorks On 9 April 2017 at 12:08, Margaret Siudek via DERBYSGEN < [email protected]> wrote: > Quite right, Meg - just found them in a vocabulary list for church Latin > > susceptor is godfather > susceptorix is godmother. > > My school Latin is very rusty, but the meaning of the whole sentence is > odd. Domina is Lady. "Ego et" means, "me and" so "the godparents and I"? > Or if the second word was "est" not "et", it could be "I am the godfather > and Lady Eliz Froggat is the godmother". Someone else may well remember > more than me.... > > > NB The vocabulary list is at https://familysearch.org/wiki/ > en/Latin_Genealogical_Word_List#S for future use by anyone. > > Margaret > > On 09/04/2017 10:47, meg--- via DERBYSGEN wrote: > > One of the meanings of Susceptares is Guardian so could they be the God > Parents? > > Meg Galley-Taylor > > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Baslow Parish Register 1691 - help reading it needed > (Rosemary Probert) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Sat, 8 Apr 2017 17:54:29 +0100 > From: Rosemary Probert <[email protected]><mailto: > [email protected]> > To: Derbyshire Mailing List <[email protected]><mailto: > [email protected]> > Subject: [DBY] Baslow Parish Register 1691 - help reading it needed > Message-ID: <[email protected]><mailto: > [email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format=flowed > > Evening All, > > I am trying to read and understand an entry in Baslow Parish Register on > FamilySearch: > > https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:2:77XT-L83D?i=4&wc= > 34JX-N3F%3A15811599 > 03%2C1581162701%2C1581163205&cc=1911752 > > The entry I'm interested in is the 9th one down on the right hand page and > concerns the baptism of Bartholomeus VICKERS, son of Bartholomei VICKERS of > Baslow on the 26th December 1691 - that bit I understand. > > But what follows? > > ?? Ego et Bromehead Suscep.ares et Domina Eliz FROGGATT Suscephr.e > > Help would be appreciated > > Rosemary > > > > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> > with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body > of the message > > > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message >

Quite right, Meg - just found them in a vocabulary list for church Latin susceptor is godfather susceptorix is godmother. My school Latin is very rusty, but the meaning of the whole sentence is odd. Domina is Lady. "Ego et" means, "me and" so "the godparents and I"? Or if the second word was "est" not "et", it could be "I am the godfather and Lady Eliz Froggat is the godmother". Someone else may well remember more than me.... NB The vocabulary list is at https://familysearch.org/wiki/en/Latin_Genealogical_Word_List#S for future use by anyone. Margaret On 09/04/2017 10:47, meg--- via DERBYSGEN wrote: One of the meanings of Susceptares is Guardian so could they be the God Parents? Meg Galley-Taylor Today's Topics: 1. Baslow Parish Register 1691 - help reading it needed (Rosemary Probert) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message: 1 Date: Sat, 8 Apr 2017 17:54:29 +0100 From: Rosemary Probert <[email protected]><mailto:[email protected]> To: Derbyshire Mailing List <[email protected]><mailto:[email protected]> Subject: [DBY] Baslow Parish Register 1691 - help reading it needed Message-ID: <[email protected]><mailto:[email protected]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format=flowed Evening All, I am trying to read and understand an entry in Baslow Parish Register on FamilySearch: https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:2:77XT-L83D?i=4&wc=34JX-N3F%3A15811599 03%2C1581162701%2C1581163205&cc=1911752 The entry I'm interested in is the 9th one down on the right hand page and concerns the baptism of Bartholomeus VICKERS, son of Bartholomei VICKERS of Baslow on the 26th December 1691 - that bit I understand. But what follows? ?? Ego et Bromehead Suscep.ares et Domina Eliz FROGGATT Suscephr.e Help would be appreciated Rosemary ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message