Roger Mills wrote: > > Yes, sorry - I misinterpreted the reference. > > If it was a couple of hundred years later, it makes it more possible that it could have been Episcopal - > although the original image doesn't look like that, definitely starts with a 'A'. But if people wrote down > what they heard, it could have sounded like 'Apiscopal'. On reflection, however, if it were the Episcopal > Church, it probably wouldn't have appeared in the Non Conformist register - unless "Non Conformist" is defined > differently in Scotland from its English definition. It is very definitely the South Shields *Associate* Congregation - there are numerous contemporary references on Google, including https://books.google.com.au/books?id=xOsRAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA381&dq=%22south+shields%22+%22associate+congregation%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=Ou2-VPOJKKXOmwX4oYKYDA&ved=0CB4Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22south%20shields%22%20%22associate%20congregation%22&f=false -- Anne Chambers South Australia anne dot chambers at bigpond dot com

On 2015-01-21 00:36:15 +0000, Anne Chambers said: > Roger Mills wrote: > >> >> Yes, sorry - I misinterpreted the reference. >> >> If it was a couple of hundred years later, it makes it more possible >> that it could have been Episcopal - >> although the original image doesn't look like that, definitely starts >> with a 'A'. But if people wrote down >> what they heard, it could have sounded like 'Apiscopal'. On reflection, >> however, if it were the Episcopal >> Church, it probably wouldn't have appeared in the Non Conformist >> register - unless "Non Conformist" is defined >> differently in Scotland from its English definition. > It is very definitely the South Shields *Associate* Congregation - > there are numerous contemporary references on Google, including > > https://books.google.com.au/books?id=xOsRAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA381&dq=%22south+shields%22+%22associate+congregation%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=Ou2-VPOJKKXOmwX4oYKYDA&ved=0CB4Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22south%20shields%22%20%22associate%20congregation%22&f=false > Thanks to everyone who has given further input. Interesting though the discussion on the various flavours of Non-Conformist churches is, the original query was solely about finding out what the record actually said as I suspected that the description had been incorrectly transcribed by the National Archives and the mistranscription filtered down to all the online references for this Piece number. I needed to know what the correct interpretation was to be able to add my own transcription to the Free Reg database. After advice and help in here, I contacted the N.A. who reviewed it, agreed it actually says 'Associate' and the place says 'North' rather than 'South' Shields. They have amended their record description accordingly. Now that it is sorted, the Free Reg site will also have the correct description. -- Tickettyboo