On 15/07/2013 13:41, Mick wrote: > On Mon, 15 Jul 2013 07:51:37 -0400, Keith Nuttle > <Keith_Nuttle@sbcglobal.net> wrote: > >> >On 7/15/2013 7:18 AM, Mick wrote: >>> >>Hi all, >>> >> Spelling never was a strong thing with me! >>> >> >>> >>I am trying to pair up a marriage and think a birth name of Hanratta >>> >>Harley born 1842 in Southampton could be misspelt for Henrietta >>> >>Would this seem right? >>> >> >>> >>Or was there a christian name of: Hanratta around 1842? >>> >>Mick IOW. >>> >> >> >While I do not know if there is a Hanratta, I believe that Hanratta is a >> >mis transcription of Henrietta. I have seen many spellings of Henrietta. >> > >> >Have you seen the original document? I have seen many "e" transcribed >> >as "a" Hanratta--> Henretta > Hi, no it was on a transcribed census, I go for them because I am > hopeless at reading handwriting. > > I will go and get the original and try. Definitely looks more like Hanratha than Hanratta (as FMP has it)in 1851 and Ancestry has transcribed it as Hanratha, though they have the surname as Hasley. Father's name of Harrison Harley is fairly distinctive. You should know her father's name if you have the marriage record. -- Jenny M Benson

Jenny M Benson wrote: > Definitely looks more like Hanratha than Hanratta (as FMP has it)in 1851 and Ancestry has transcribed it as > Hanratha, though they have the surname as Hasley. > > Father's name of Harrison Harley is fairly distinctive. You should know her father's name if you have the > marriage record. > I think it's Henriette - the enumerator's 'e's look like 'a's but his 'a's have the joining loop halfway up the letter whereas the 'e's don't. It's truly vile handwriting and Ancestry have done an even worse job of transcription than usual. -- Anne Chambers South Australia anne dot chambers at bigpond dot com