Yvonne - I'm not at all sure but when I visited the Armoury at the Tower of London, there were examples of suits of Armour made of gold and silver. I believe though that these were never worn in battle but were just items of class importance. It was some years ago that I was there and I speak only from 'Dim' memory! If anyone has had the good fortune to vist the armoury, the first impression is that Knights etc., in those days were of quite small stature, judgiong from the suit sizes!  Kind Regards Roy ----- Original Message ---- From: YvonnePurdy <von@yvonnepurdy.free-online.co.uk> To: old-english@rootsweb.com Sent: Monday, 20 October, 2008 10:15:47 PM Subject: [OEL] Has anyone come across suits of armour? Dear all, I've just received the 1689 will of Richard Sherlock, DD, Winwick, Lancashire, and was fascinated to see in the inventory: Itm in Silver plate, one Body suit of Armour Buff Coat & c -    £30=14=10 Was armour really/normally made of silver plate?  It seems a very expensive piece of 'kit' to have? Kind regards, Yvonne Purdy (nee Sherlock) ==================================== WEB PAGE: http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~oel/ ARCHIVES: http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/index?list=OLD-ENGLISH  ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to OLD-ENGLISH-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Sounds like a ceremonial suit to me. Audrey ----- Original Message ----- From: "YvonnePurdy" <von@yvonnepurdy.free-online.co.uk> To: <old-english@rootsweb.com> Sent: Monday, October 20, 2008 10:15 PM Subject: [OEL] Has anyone come across suits of armour? Dear all, I've just received the 1689 will of Richard Sherlock, DD, Winwick, Lancashire, and was fascinated to see in the inventory: Itm in Silver plate, one Body suit of Armour Buff Coat & c - £30=14=10 Was armour really/normally made of silver plate? It seems a very expensive piece of 'kit' to have? Kind regards, Yvonne Purdy (nee Sherlock) ==================================== WEB PAGE: http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~oel/ ARCHIVES: http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/index?list=OLD-ENGLISH ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to OLD-ENGLISH-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com Version: 8.0.173 / Virus Database: 270.8.2/1735 - Release Date: 20/10/2008 14:52

Dear all, I've just received the 1689 will of Richard Sherlock, DD, Winwick, Lancashire, and was fascinated to see in the inventory: Itm in Silver plate, one Body suit of Armour Buff Coat & c - £30=14=10 Was armour really/normally made of silver plate? It seems a very expensive piece of 'kit' to have? Kind regards, Yvonne Purdy (nee Sherlock)

Richard; A wayne (or wain) is a wagon (as in Constable's famous painting "the haywain"). so I imagine it's a building where the wagons were kept. Best wishes Paul Prescott > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Richard Talbot" <richard.talbot88@btinternet.com> > To: <OLD-ENGLISH-L@rootsweb.com> > Sent: Sunday, October 19, 2008 5:26 PM > Subject: [OEL] meaning of word > > >> In a manorial court document dated 1711 in the description of a house it >> continues to mention 'a wayne house to the same messuage'. >> >> Would anyone know the meaning of a wayne house. >> Many thanks >> Richard Talbot UK >> >> >> ==================================== >> WEB PAGE: http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~oel/ >> ARCHIVES: http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/index?list=OLD-ENGLISH >> >> ------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to >> OLD-ENGLISH-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the >> quotes in the subject and the body of the message >> >

Wain was simply a variant of our modern word waggon Ian

Likely Wain House, (think of the Hay Wain, picture by Constable). Wikipedia gives a good explanation of the horse-drawn wain. Seems much holiday accommodation in England now, is converted from Wain Houses, or barns. Jo.

In a manorial court document dated 1711 in the description of a house it continues to mention 'a wayne house to the same messuage'. Would anyone know the meaning of a wayne house. Many thanks Richard Talbot UK

Hi Keith - Difficult one this and is part of P.H. Reaney's introduction to "A Dictionary of British Surnames" 2nd edition 1976 published by Routledge & Kegan Paul, but if its anything to go by, I have a couple of 1801 census that don't list any such names, but then they are only individual towns and not counties, I also have one from 1725 that doesn't give any such names either, and of the many parishes researched, I remember seeing some references to such names in the various written notes on covers but which don't seem to occur from around 1800 on. I don't think it possible to pinpoint any more accurately than this, but then again someone will perhaps come up with a better answer. Regarding whether it is in use today, I have never come across it, but in this enlightened age, anything is possible when naming our children of today, perhaps a modern family will very soon make use of a preposition like this for whatever reason? Regards Roy -----Original Message----- From: old-english-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:old-english-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Keith Griffiths Sent: 15 October 2008 08:06 To: Old English mailing list Subject: [OEL] Surnames In the published property tax records (lay subsidies) for Kent of 1334/5, about a third of the names in the index are a combination of a christian name and a place name. i.e. James de Colnwod, Thomas de Compton and Robert atte Cort. I think the use of "de" is still in use today but very rarely but does anyone know when the use of "de" mainly went out of fashion? ~~ Keith Griffiths ==================================== WEB PAGE: http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~oel/ ARCHIVES: http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/index?list=OLD-ENGLISH ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to OLD-ENGLISH-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

<<In the published property tax records (lay subsidies) for Kent of 1334/5, about a third of the names in the index are a combination of a christian name and a place name. i.e. James de Colnwod, Thomas de Compton and Robert atte Cort. I think the use of "de" is still in use today but very rarely but does anyone know when the use of "de" mainly went out of fashion?>> Hello Keith, 'de' went out of use in the 14th century, by and large, and so did topograpic prefixes like 'atte', though the latter did sometimes continue into the 15th century (and sometimes became part of the surname permanently, eg Athill = atte Hill, Atwood = atte Wood).* Modern surnames with 'de' are the result of immigration from France or other francophone regions in the modern period or are simply an affectation (anyone called D'Aeth is only a few generations away from ancestors called Death, for example). Matt Tompkins * Topographic surnames described where someone lived by reference to a geographic description, in contrast to toponymic surnames which used place-names - thus de Windsor and de Norwich are toponymic, but atte Wood, atten Oak, atten Ash, Athill are topographic. Of course 'de' was French and Latin, and when speaking in English names like de Compton would often have become 'of Compton; conversely the English 'atte' was sometimes rendered in Latin records as 'de'.

In the published property tax records (lay subsidies) for Kent of 1334/5, about a third of the names in the index are a combination of a christian name and a place name. i.e. James de Colnwod, Thomas de Compton and Robert atte Cort. I think the use of "de" is still in use today but very rarely but does anyone know when the use of "de" mainly went out of fashion? ~~ Keith Griffiths

hi am new to list as now transcribing 1500+ baps and have come across this word which google doesn't acknowledge! "larrans eusden son of willm eusden i ienewari"..what does the i ienewari mean pls? I was going for January or Feb 1st but that's a guess. Cld someone please enlighten me. thanks lauren

Hi Lauren All you have to remember is that i and j used to be interchangeable, as well as i and y, and that i = 1 in Roman numerals, then you have 1 Jenewary - the rest is just down to the clerk's way of spelling...:-) HTH Polly ----- Original Message ----- From: "Lauren Patey" <lpatey@wt.com.au> To: <OLD-ENGLISH@rootsweb.com> Sent: Sunday, October 12, 2008 11:03 AM Subject: [OEL] i ienewari meaning hi am new to list as now transcribing 1500+ baps and have come across this word which google doesn't acknowledge! "larrans eusden son of willm eusden i ienewari"..what does the i ienewari mean pls? I was going for January or Feb 1st but that's a guess. Cld someone please enlighten me. thanks lauren ==================================== WEB PAGE: http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~oel/ ARCHIVES: http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/index?list=OLD-ENGLISH ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to OLD-ENGLISH-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Is it possible that this was an entry from a rough piece of paper later entered up by a clerk? Perhaps the bride was not asked to sign the original and so the clerk imagined that she may have not been literate? Audrey Lee ----- Original Message ----- From: "Donald Tomkinson" <don.tomkinson@lineone.net> To: "OLD ENGLISH MESSAGE" <OLD-ENGLISH-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Thursday, October 02, 2008 6:34 AM Subject: [OEL] SCHOOLMASTER's DAUGHTER > On a marriage certificate of 1791 the bride makes her mark. It is > possible that her father was a schoolmaster, but if so it seems odd > that she could not write. It is possible that the clerk assumed that > she was illiterate and asked her to make the cross which she did. > However, would it have been unusual in those days if a country > schoolmaster had not taught his daughter to write? > > I'd appreciate opinions. > > Don Tomkinson > > > > ==================================== > WEB PAGE: http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~oel/ > ARCHIVES: http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/index?list=OLD-ENGLISH > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > OLD-ENGLISH-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com Version: 8.0.173 / Virus Database: 270.7.6/1713 - Release Date: 07/10/2008 18:40

Don - How strange, never come across this one and her father being a schoolteacher makes this quite interesting! When you say "Marriage Certificate" this is of course not like those issued after 1837, so was it predefined form or something hand written like other entries in the Marriage Register? Are the other entries on the same or nearby pages in a similar vein? Do they also display occupations? Roy -----Original Message----- From: old-english-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:old-english-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Donald Tomkinson Sent: 02 October 2008 06:35 To: OLD ENGLISH MESSAGE Subject: [OEL] SCHOOLMASTER's DAUGHTER On a marriage certificate of 1791 the bride makes her mark. It is possible that her father was a schoolmaster, but if so it seems odd that she could not write. It is possible that the clerk assumed that she was illiterate and asked her to make the cross which she did. However, would it have been unusual in those days if a country schoolmaster had not taught his daughter to write? I'd appreciate opinions. Don Tomkinson ==================================== WEB PAGE: http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~oel/ ARCHIVES: http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/index?list=OLD-ENGLISH ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to OLD-ENGLISH-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Was the groom able to sign? If he also made a mark maybe the bride did not want to "show him up". Also: in what sort of a school did the schoolmaster teach? Not everyone of his profession would at that time have supported an "academic" education for girls. He may have felt that to be able to read (the Bible of course) and sew well was all the education his daughter needed. Most parishes used printed registers from 1754 with predefined forms. Best wishes, Margaret. **************

Many thanks to those who commented on my query. I should have referred to the parish register rather than marriage dertificate. Don Tomkinson

On a marriage certificate of 1791 the bride makes her mark. It is possible that her father was a schoolmaster, but if so it seems odd that she could not write. It is possible that the clerk assumed that she was illiterate and asked her to make the cross which she did. However, would it have been unusual in those days if a country schoolmaster had not taught his daughter to write? I'd appreciate opinions. Don Tomkinson

Hello, Jim My folio Prayer Book is dated 1669, and - apart from spellings such as "Munday", I find either the services are more or less identical to much more recent ones, or in a few cases, not now present at all. Much of what I learnt as a child of this and the Catechism, I'm afraid was incoherent to me at the time. Like Noel Street, who wrote that he thought for many years that God's real name was 'Harold Wishart' (from having to gabble "Our Father Wishart in Heaven, Harold be Thy name"). Cranmer's 39 Articles, which every vicar has to affirm (but few really accept) require Anglicans to believe in heaven and hell, but to reject belief in purgatory. Combined with belief in the immortality of the soul and a non-eternal hell, and the question whether Resurrection Day and Judgement Day are personal or mass events, this leads to considerable confusion regarding how we are to spend eternity. It seems to me there is little point either in restoring or revising, until some degree of elucidation is faced up to. John Barton ----- Original Message ----- From: j halsey To: John Barton Cc: OLD-ENGLISH@rootsweb.com Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2008 9:19 AM Subject: Re: [OEL] Charles ll and Regnal Dates Hello John, You wrote "Lambeth Palace convocation of bishops is considering restoring the 1662 or earlier Prayerbook" As I understand it, regardless of the revisions of 1928, which had little effect on the three main orders of service and which are those parts of the Book most evident to and best known by churchgoers, the 1662 prayer book continued to be used in many parishes, and may indeed still be used to this day, although in a rapidly reducing number. .So I am puzzled by the "restoration" you mention. The tide of revision has been so strong in the last 40 years that the BCP, of whatever edition, has struggled to survive against it. It seems to me that whatever Convocation may decide about 1662 (I am astonoshed to hear that it is even being discussed) any return to the old language will be rejected or simply ignored.by the great majority of priests, who are now often, if not generally, ignorant of its forms. Jim Halsey

Hello John, You wrote "Lambeth Palace convocation of bishops is considering restoring the 1662 or earlier Prayerbook" As I understand it, regardless of the revisions of 1928, which had little effect on the three main orders of service and which are those parts of the Book most evident to and best known by churchgoers, the 1662 prayer book continued to be used in many parishes, and may indeed still be used to this day, although in a rapidly reducing number. .So I am puzzled by the "restoration" you mention. The tide of revision has been so strong in the last 40 years that the BCP, of whatever edition, has struggled to survive against it. It seems to me that whatever Convocation may decide about 1662 (I am astonoshed to hear that it is even being discussed) any return to the old language will be rejected or simply ignored.by the great majority of priests, who are now often, if not generally, ignorant of its forms. Jim Halsey

"Charles II reckoned his regnal years from 30 Jan 1649 (the date of the execution of Charles I) but did not reign in England until his restoration, 29 May 1660. During the Commonwealth public documents were dated according to the year of our Lord. Oliver Cromwell died 3 Sept 1658, richard Cromwell abdicated 25 May 1659, after which the government was carried on by Parliament and the Army until the restoration" Harvey's "The Oxford Companion to English Literature" has useful tables of the Perpetual Calendar at the back, giving regnal years and more. Lambeth Palace convocation of bishops is considering restoring the 1662 or earlier Prayerbook. They may be able to avoid having to include the church services for the restoration of Charles II, Martyrdom of Chas. I, and the deliverance of parliament (Gunpowder Treason) service held on Nov. 5th, which were not abolished till 1859, on the grounds that, although included by Royal Command, they were never actually part of the prayerbook. This argument does not however apply to the touching ceremony for the King's Evil (scrofula), which may entail the Queen in considerable work and expense in hanging gold coins round necks, if the disease is still prevalent. Regnal years have always been at the whim or spite of the monarch. Sotheby's sold a document signed by Queen Jane (who reigned 9 days) in the 70's. But Mary ignored her reignin reckoning her regnal years. There are quite a lot of such confusing anomalies to puzzle the archivist. John Barton ----- Original Message ----- From: "Alwynne Mackie" <alwynnem@melbpc.org.au> To: <OLD-ENGLISH@rootsweb.com> Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2008 1:19 PM Subject: [OEL] Charles ll and Regnal Dates >I have been translating pages from a manor roll and have discovered an > apparent discepancy in the way the regnal dates are written. > Often only the regnal date occurs, and I have been happily translating, > thinking I had it right. However several of these pages also have the year > in numerals, and it doesn't tally with the regnal date. For example, I > have > the decimo quinto year of the reign of Charles ll, followed by 1663. the > same occurs for succeeding years, sixteen, seventeen and so on. > The only explanation that I can think of is that the regnal date has been > calculated for Charles ll as beginning in 1649, the year of the death of > Charles l, and not 1660, the year of Charles ll's acession. This would > tally > with the numeral dates. > Can anyone please tell me if I am right about this, and whether or not it > was common paractice? The blurb I have on regnal dates doesn't mention it. > With thanks, > Alwynne > > > > ==================================== > WEB PAGE: http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~oel/ > ARCHIVES: http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/index?list=OLD-ENGLISH > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > OLD-ENGLISH-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > __________ NOD32 3443 (20080915) Information __________ > > This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system. > http://www.eset.com > >