At 12:31 08/09/2006, mjcl wrote: >Hi Judith, > >I take it that the Burgh referred to is in the one in Suffolk? But it could also be Burgh in Norfolk. John

Hi Judith, I take it that the Burgh referred to is in the one in Suffolk? I think you're going to struggle with the first. Agreed it begins with an 's' but the spelling appears to have been corrected by overwriting. The second word again definitely begins with a 'c' could be 'Comiles' or 'Comites'. Do you know if Thomas was just out of parish or was he out of county? I have been looking at the gazetteer of Suffolk in www.old-maps.co.uk and can't at the moment seem to get one to fit. All the best, Martyn ----- Original Message ----- From: "Judith Werner" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, September 07, 2006 8:27 PM Subject: [OEL] 1632 Marriage entry from Burgh, Suffolk > Hi Folks. > > I've put a marriage entry for Thomas Netherwood on the Old-English > Unsolved pages at > http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~oel/unsolved40.html > > I can't make out the name of Thomas's parish. At first I thought the > first word was "Saynt" but that didn't hold up on closer inspection. > > This is the only Netherwood entry I found in Burgh; evidently Katherine > came from here and Thomas from elsewhere. As far as I know, there is > not a Netherwood presence in all of Suffolk so he might have been from > anywhere. There were Netherwoods in Essex and Cambridge around this > time; some in London as well. I've also found a Yorkshire Netherwood > or two in Norfolk this century, probably due to something concerning > the cloth trade. > > Any ideas on what this place might be would be appreciated. > > > cheers, > > Judith Werner > Salt Lake City, Utah, USA > Administrator, OLD-ENGLISH-L > http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~oel/ > > > > > > > ------------------------------- > 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 >

Regarding this http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~oel/unsolved40.html, I've had the following from Matt Tompkins who is unsubscribed at the moment. It looks like some of your recent ideas were approaching the same conclusion. ====================== Hello Judith, It looks to me like Sohame Comitis, in which case it must be Earl Soham in Suffolk, about 6 or 8 miles north of Burgh (and Ekwall quotes a 1254 reference to Earl Soham as Saham Comitis). Incidentally, the 1638 Suffolk muster roll lists a Thomas Netherwood in Falkenham, about 10 miles south of Burgh (Able Men of Suffolk 1638, p. 49). Best wishes, Matt Tompkins

Oops, Should pay more attention to the title line! Sorry, Martyyn ----- Forwarded Message ---- From: mjcl <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Friday, 8 September, 2006 12:31:37 PM Subject: Re: [OEL] 1632 Marriage entry from Burgh, Suffolk Hi Judith, I take it that the Burgh referred to is in the one in Suffolk? I think you're going to struggle with the first. Agreed it begins with an 's' but the spelling appears to have been corrected by overwriting. The second word again definitely begins with a 'c' could be 'Comiles' or 'Comites'. Do you know if Thomas was just out of parish or was he out of county? I have been looking at the gazetteer of Suffolk in www.old-maps.co.uk and can't at the moment seem to get one to fit. All the best, Martyn ----- Original Message ----- From: "Judith Werner" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, September 07, 2006 8:27 PM Subject: [OEL] 1632 Marriage entry from Burgh, Suffolk > Hi Folks. > > I've put a marriage entry for Thomas Netherwood on the Old-English > Unsolved pages at > http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~oel/unsolved40.html > > I can't make out the name of Thomas's parish. At first I thought the > first word was "Saynt" but that didn't hold up on closer inspection. > > This is the only Netherwood entry I found in Burgh; evidently Katherine > came from here and Thomas from elsewhere. As far as I know, there is > not a Netherwood presence in all of Suffolk so he might have been from > anywhere. There were Netherwoods in Essex and Cambridge around this > time; some in London as well. I've also found a Yorkshire Netherwood > or two in Norfolk this century, probably due to something concerning > the cloth trade. > > Any ideas on what this place might be would be appreciated. > > > cheers, > > Judith Werner > Salt Lake City, Utah, USA > Administrator, OLD-ENGLISH-L > http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~oel/ > > > > > > > ------------------------------- > 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

It came from a film for the parish register of Burgh, Suffolk. And Thomas could have been from outside the county, especially as I've yet to find other Netherwoods in Suffolk. Judith Werner Salt Lake City, Utah, USA Administrator, OLD-ENGLISH-L http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~oel/ | > | >I take it that the Burgh referred to is in the one in Suffolk? | But it could also be Burgh in Norfolk. | | John

In message <[email protected]>, Patricia Ward <[email protected]> writes >Can anyone help me understand these documents obtained from Bucks >Record Office and transcribed below? This is what is called an Indemnity Bond - they are pretty rare survivials, so you are lucky to find it. If persons who were not settled legally in a parish wished to move in there, an established resident had to guarantee that he would be responsible for their financial support if anything went wrong. Often a master would do this for a new employee whom he wished to take on from outside the village. The same applied to orphan children, who were generally fostered. In this case, Francis Dorrill, a labourer (but obviously not a poor man) is taking the responsibility for the two children (orphans maybe) of John Howes and Elizabeth. (It is not completely clear if she only is deceased, or both are, but if the father was alive and within reach, he would be the one responsible for them.[your later statement that he died in 1653 eliminated Dad too]) Francis has guarantee the sum of £21 towards their upkeep till they are 18, which could represent maintenance for about 7 years, or five-six and a sum towards apprenticing the boys at 14 (for which the parish would be responsible for orphans). The standard way of enforcing payment of a bond was to make the penalty twice the sum owed (so £42), which would not comer into operation unless he defaulted. He makes the bond to the overseers of the poor, who handled matters of poor relief and legal settlement, and a churchwarden as a prominent local man. > > >D/12/79/2 1657 Bond in £42. Francis Dorrill of Cheddington day labourer >to Churchwarden & overseers [Bucks RO] >Know all men by these presents that I ffrancis Dorrill of Cheddington, >in the Countie of Bucks day Labourer, am holden & firmly bound unto >John Seabrooke, yeoman, Churchwarden; & unto Thomas Tatnill, & George >Wooster, Overseers of the poore of Cheddington aforesaid, for this >present yeere of our Lord God one thousand, six hundred, fiftie & >seaven, in Two and ffourtie pounds, of lawfull money of England, to be >paid unto the said John Seabrooke, Thomas Tatnill, and George Wooster, >or to their Certaine Attorney, their executors, administrators or >assignes, to the use of the inhabitants of the Towne & parish of >Cheddington aforesaid. And to, & for the more sure payment thereof, I >binde my selfe, my heires, executors administrators, & assignes firmly >by these presents. Sealed with my seale, dated the six & twenteth day >of October, in the aforesaid yeere of our Lord God one thousand, six >hundred, fiftie & seaven, >The Condic’on of this Obligac’on is such, that if the above bounden >ffrancis Dorrill he, his heires, executors administrators, or assignes, >for & in Consideration of one & Twentie pounds of good & lawfull money >of England, to him the said ffrancis Dorrill, in hand paid, at or >before the ensealing & delivering of these presents, for & in >Consideration of taking unto him, or them, & of keeping with him, or >with them, or with either of them, at his or their proper Costs & >Charges, at all times in fitting manner of all needfull things for >them, those Two poore Children, now in the keeping of the said ffrancis >Dorrill, Being the naturall Children of John Howes, & Elizabeth his >wife, deceased, untill the said Children shall sunderly? accomplish the >full age of Eighteene yeeres, shall in all the aforesaid points, >respects, & particulars, well & trulie observe, performe, fulfill, and >keepe them, so that the said Two poore Children be no further forced >Charge unto all or anie of the inhabitants of the Towne & parish of >Cheddington aforesaid during the said Terme & Termes of Eighteene >yeeres, that then this present Obligac’on shall be void & of none >effect, of else it shall remaine, & be in full force & vertue. >Sealed & delivered to the use of the above named parties in the >presence of us James Pung, Probably Ping > ffrancis Kympton. >ffrancis Dorrill X his marke. > >D/12/79/1 1657 Bond in £9. William Chiltorn of Cheddington day labourer >to Churchwarden & overseers [Bucks RO] >Know all men by these presents that I William Chiltorn of Cheddington, >in the Countie of Bucks, day Labourer, am holden & firmly bound unto >John Seabrooke, yeoman, Churchwarden; & unto Thomas Tatnill, & George >Wooster, Overseers of the poore of Cheddington aforesaid, for this >present yeere of our Lord God one thousand, six hundred, fiftie & >seaven, in Nine pounds, of lawfull money of England, to be paid unto >the said John Seabrooke, Thomas Tatnill, and George Wooster, or to >their Certaine Attorney, their executors, administrators or assignes, >to the use of the inhabitants of the Towne & parish of Cheddington >aforesaid. And to, & for the more sure payment thereof, I binde my >selfe, my heires, executors administrators, & assignes, firmly by these >presents. Sealed with my seale: dated the Thirteth day of October, in >the aforesaid yeere of our Lord God one thousand, six hundred, fiftie & >seaven, >The Condic’on of this Obligac’on is such, that if the above bounden >William Chiltorn, he his heires, executors administrators, or assignes, >for & in Consideration of ffoure pounds & Ten shillings of good & >lawfull money of England to him the said William Chiltorn, in hand >paid, at or before the ensealing, & delivering of these presents, for, >& in Consideration of taking unto him, or them, & of keeping with him, >or with them, or with either of them, at his or their proper Costs & >Charges, at all times in fitting manner of all needfull things for her, >that one poore Childe, now in the keeping of the said William Chiltorn, >Being the naturall daughter of John Howes, & Elizabeth his wife, >deceased, untill the said Childe shall accomplish the full age of >Eighteene yeeres, shall in all the aforesaid points, respects, & >particulars, well & trulie observe, performe, fulfill, and keepe them, >so that the said poore Childe, be no further forced Charge unto all, or >anie of the inhabitants of the Towne & parish of Cheddington aforesaid, >during the said Terme of Eighteene yeeres, that then this present >Obligac’on shall be void & of none effect, of else it shall remaine, & >be in full force & vertue. >Sealed & delivered in the presence of us James Pung, James Fenn >William Chilton X his marke > The girl is fostered out to Wm Chiltern, who will look after her for £4-10s. If he fails and the parish have to stump up money, he is liable to pay £9 as a penalty. Girls are accounted as of very little expense to rear/or perhaps as of lesser value to the community, as opposed to boys, hence the lower cost; it is possible she was very nearly 18. I would have expected this to be an older child, aged around 12, almost ready to be 'apprenticed' out, rather than a little girl of 3. Maybe there was an older girl? But maybe it is just the fact that even quite small girls could be put to work as nursemaids or servants. >My direct ancestor was Jane Howes, a daughter of John and Elizabeth >baptised 1650 in Cheddington. I believe that John died in 1653. >Elizabeth then married a Henry Harris and died in 1656. The children remained settled where their father was settled (might not be the same as where Mr Harris was) and Dad's parish, not Harris's, was responsible. -- Eve McLaughlin Author of the McLaughlin Guides for family historians Secretary Bucks Genealogical Society

Hi Folks. I've put a marriage entry for Thomas Netherwood on the Old-English Unsolved pages at http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~oel/unsolved40.html I can't make out the name of Thomas's parish. At first I thought the first word was "Saynt" but that didn't hold up on closer inspection. This is the only Netherwood entry I found in Burgh; evidently Katherine came from here and Thomas from elsewhere. As far as I know, there is not a Netherwood presence in all of Suffolk so he might have been from anywhere. There were Netherwoods in Essex and Cambridge around this time; some in London as well. I've also found a Yorkshire Netherwood or two in Norfolk this century, probably due to something concerning the cloth trade. Any ideas on what this place might be would be appreciated. cheers, Judith Werner Salt Lake City, Utah, USA Administrator, OLD-ENGLISH-L http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~oel/

Hello Patricia The word you have queried is most likely "severally". Audrey ----- Original Message ----- From: "Patricia Ward" <[email protected]> To: "Old English mailing list" <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, September 06, 2006 5:41 PM Subject: [OEL] Buckinghamshire bonds Can anyone help me understand these documents obtained from Bucks Record Office and transcribed below? D/12/79/2 1657 Bond in £42. Francis Dorrill of Cheddington day labourer to Churchwarden & overseers [Bucks RO] Know all men by these presents that I ffrancis Dorrill of Cheddington, in the Countie of Bucks day Labourer, am holden & firmly bound unto John Seabrooke, yeoman, Churchwarden; & unto Thomas Tatnill, & George Wooster, Overseers of the poore of Cheddington aforesaid, for this present yeere of our Lord God one thousand, six hundred, fiftie & seaven, in Two and ffourtie pounds, of lawfull money of England, to be paid unto the said John Seabrooke, Thomas Tatnill, and George Wooster, or to their Certaine Attorney, their executors, administrators or assignes, to the use of the inhabitants of the Towne & parish of Cheddington aforesaid. And to, & for the more sure payment thereof, I binde my selfe, my heires, executors administrators, & assignes firmly by these presents. Sealed with my seale, dated the six & twenteth day of October, in the aforesaid yeere of our Lord God one thousand, six hundred, fiftie & seaven, The Condic’on of this Obligac’on is such, that if the above bounden ffrancis Dorrill he, his heires, executors administrators, or assignes, for & in Consideration of one & Twentie pounds of good & lawfull money of England, to him the said ffrancis Dorrill, in hand paid, at or before the ensealing & delivering of these presents, for & in Consideration of taking unto him, or them, & of keeping with him, or with them, or with either of them, at his or their proper Costs & Charges, at all times in fitting manner of all needfull things for them, those Two poore Children, now in the keeping of the said ffrancis Dorrill, Being the naturall Children of John Howes, & Elizabeth his wife, deceased, untill the said Children shall sunderly? accomplish the full age of Eighteene yeeres, shall in all the aforesaid points, respects, & particulars, well & trulie observe, performe, fulfill, and keepe them, so that the said Two poore Children be no further forced Charge unto all or anie of the inhabitants of the Towne & parish of Cheddington aforesaid during the said Terme & Termes of Eighteene yeeres, that then this present Obligac’on shall be void & of none effect, of else it shall remaine, & be in full force & vertue. Sealed & delivered to the use of the above named parties in the presence of us James Pung, ffrancis Kympton. ffrancis Dorrill X his marke. D/12/79/1 1657 Bond in £9. William Chiltorn of Cheddington day labourer to Churchwarden & overseers [Bucks RO] Know all men by these presents that I William Chiltorn of Cheddington, in the Countie of Bucks, day Labourer, am holden & firmly bound unto John Seabrooke, yeoman, Churchwarden; & unto Thomas Tatnill, & George Wooster, Overseers of the poore of Cheddington aforesaid, for this present yeere of our Lord God one thousand, six hundred, fiftie & seaven, in Nine pounds, of lawfull money of England, to be paid unto the said John Seabrooke, Thomas Tatnill, and George Wooster, or to their Certaine Attorney, their executors, administrators or assignes, to the use of the inhabitants of the Towne & parish of Cheddington aforesaid. And to, & for the more sure payment thereof, I binde my selfe, my heires, executors administrators, & assignes, firmly by these presents. Sealed with my seale: dated the Thirteth day of October, in the aforesaid yeere of our Lord God one thousand, six hundred, fiftie & seaven, The Condic’on of this Obligac’on is such, that if the above bounden William Chiltorn, he his heires, executors administrators, or assignes, for & in Consideration of ffoure pounds & Ten shillings of good & lawfull money of England to him the said William Chiltorn, in hand paid, at or before the ensealing, & delivering of these presents, for, & in Consideration of taking unto him, or them, & of keeping with him, or with them, or with either of them, at his or their proper Costs & Charges, at all times in fitting manner of all needfull things for her, that one poore Childe, now in the keeping of the said William Chiltorn, Being the naturall daughter of John Howes, & Elizabeth his wife, deceased, untill the said Childe shall accomplish the full age of Eighteene yeeres, shall in all the aforesaid points, respects, & particulars, well & trulie observe, performe, fulfill, and keepe them, so that the said poore Childe, be no further forced Charge unto all, or anie of the inhabitants of the Towne & parish of Cheddington aforesaid, during the said Terme of Eighteene yeeres, that then this present Obligac’on shall be void & of none effect, of else it shall remaine, & be in full force & vertue. Sealed & delivered in the presence of us James Pung, James Fenn William Chilton X his marke My direct ancestor was Jane Howes, a daughter of John and Elizabeth baptised 1650 in Cheddington. I believe that John died in 1653. Elizabeth then married a Henry Harris and died in 1656. I have not found a will for either of them. They had 7 children in Cheddington but the only burial I have found is for Jane in 1727 who did leave a will. I apologise for the amount of words, which of course are causing my problem! Patricia Ward ------------------------------- 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 -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.405 / Virus Database: 268.11.7/438 - Release Date: 05/09/2006

Hello Patricia, The second bond, given by William Chiltorn, is similar - but for a smaller sum, presumably because the child that he and his wife had agreed to look after was older than those identified in the other bond and the obligation he was entering into was therefore of shorter duration. Super documents! Jim Halsey

Hello Patricia, Francis Dorrill (on behalf, no doubt, of he and his wife) has taken on the responsibility of bringing up "two poore children …. being the naturall children of John Howes and Elizabeth his wife, deceased, until the said children shall …. accomplish the full age of eighteene yeeres". The parish (through the churchwarden and the overseers) has paid Francis Dorrill to take on this task, which thereby relieves the parish of its responsibilities to the two children. However as Francis is being paid "up front" i.e. before his duties are accomplished, which will probably not be for some years, (we are not told how old the children are) the parish has taken a bond from him for the performance of those duties, so that should he fail to do as he has said, the parish can claim against the bond and (they hope) get their money back or sue for its return. There may well be a Guarantor lurking in the background identified in another document, or later in the same document, just in case Francis is unable to meet any claim under the bond. Perhaps Francis and his wife were childless, perhaps they knew the Howes well and were just good neighbours. Whatever, the children will in every probability have been much better off brought up in a family rather than in the workhouse. John Howes, widower, would have needed to find another wife to cope if he was in employment and, if he wasn't, then he himself may have had to spend time in the workhouse You are a very lucky lady to have come across such a document ! Jim Halsey On 9/6/06, Patricia Ward <[email protected]> wrote: > > Can anyone help me understand these documents obtained from Bucks > Record Office and transcribed below? > > > D/12/79/2 1657 Bond in £42. Francis Dorrill of Cheddington day labourer > to Churchwarden & overseers [Bucks RO] > Know all men by these presents that I ffrancis Dorrill of Cheddington, > in the Countie of Bucks day Labourer, am holden & firmly bound unto > John Seabrooke, yeoman, Churchwarden; & unto Thomas Tatnill, & George > Wooster, Overseers of the poore of Cheddington aforesaid, for this > present yeere of our Lord God one thousand, six hundred, fiftie & > seaven, in Two and ffourtie pounds, of lawfull money of England, to be > paid unto the said John Seabrooke, Thomas Tatnill, and George Wooster, > or to their Certaine Attorney, their executors, administrators or > assignes, to the use of the inhabitants of the Towne & parish of > Cheddington aforesaid.And to, & for the more sure payment thereof, I > binde my selfe, my heires, executors administrators, & assignes firmly > by these presents. Sealed with my seale, dated the six & twenteth day > of October, in the aforesaid yeere of our Lord God one thousand, six > hundred, fiftie & seaven, > The Condic'on of this Obligac'on is such, that if the above bounden > ffrancis Dorrill he, his heires, executors administrators, or assignes, > for & in Consideration of one & Twentie pounds of good & lawfull money > of England, to him the said ffrancis Dorrill, in hand paid, at or > before the ensealing & delivering of these presents, for & in > Consideration of taking unto him, or them, & of keeping with him, or > with them, or with either of them, at his or their proper Costs & > Charges, at all times in fitting manner of all needfull things for > them, those Two poore Children, now in the keeping of the said ffrancis > Dorrill, Being the naturall Children of John Howes, & Elizabeth his > wife, deceased, untill the said Children shall sunderly? accomplish the > full age of Eighteene yeeres, shall in all the aforesaid points, > respects, & particulars, well & trulie observe, performe, fulfill, and > keepe them, so that the said Two poore Children be no further forced > Charge unto all or anie of the inhabitants of the Towne & parish of > Cheddington aforesaid during the said Terme & Termes of Eighteene > yeeres, that then this present Obligac'on shall be void & of none > effect, of else it shall remaine, & be in full force & vertue. > Sealed & delivered to the use of the above named parties in the > presence of us James Pung, ffrancis Kympton. > ffrancis Dorrill X his marke. > > D/12/79/1 1657 Bond in £9. William Chiltorn of Cheddington day labourer > to Churchwarden & overseers [Bucks RO] > Know all men by these presents that I William Chiltorn of Cheddington, > in the Countie of Bucks, day Labourer, am holden & firmly bound unto > John Seabrooke, yeoman, Churchwarden; & unto Thomas Tatnill, & George > Wooster, Overseers of the poore of Cheddington aforesaid, for this > present yeere of our Lord God one thousand, six hundred, fiftie & > seaven, in Nine pounds, of lawfull money of England, to be paid unto > the said John Seabrooke, Thomas Tatnill, and George Wooster, or to > their Certaine Attorney, their executors, administrators or assignes, > to the use of the inhabitants of the Towne & parish of Cheddington > aforesaid.And to, & for the more sure payment thereof, I binde my > selfe, my heires, executors administrators, & assignes, firmly by these > presents. Sealed with my seale: dated the Thirteth day of October, in > the aforesaid yeere of our Lord God one thousand, six hundred, fiftie & > seaven, > The Condic'on of this Obligac'on is such, that if the above bounden > William Chiltorn, he his heires, executors administrators, or assignes, > for & in Consideration of ffoure pounds & Ten shillings of good & > lawfull money of England to him the said William Chiltorn, in hand > paid, at or before the ensealing, & delivering of these presents, for, > & in Consideration of taking unto him, or them, & of keeping with him, > or with them, or with either of them, at his or their proper Costs & > Charges, at all times in fitting manner of all needfull things for her, > that one poore Childe, now in the keeping of the said William Chiltorn, > Being the naturall daughter of John Howes, & Elizabeth his wife, > deceased, untill the said Childe shall accomplish the full age of > Eighteene yeeres, shall in all the aforesaid points, respects, & > particulars, well & trulie observe, performe, fulfill, and keepe them, > so that the said poore Childe, be no further forced Charge unto all, or > anie of the inhabitants of the Towne & parish of Cheddington aforesaid, > during the said Terme of Eighteene yeeres, that then this present > Obligac'on shall be void & of none effect, of else it shall remaine, & > be in full force & vertue. > Sealed & delivered in the presence of us James Pung, James Fenn > William Chilton X his marke > > My direct ancestor was Jane Howes, a daughter of John and Elizabeth > baptised 1650 in Cheddington. I believe that John died in 1653. > Elizabeth then married a Henry Harris and died in 1656. I have not > found a will for either of them. They had 7 children in Cheddington > but the only burial I have found is for Jane in 1727 who did leave a > will. > I apologise for the amount of words, which of course are causing my > problem! > Patricia Ward > > > > ------------------------------- > 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 help me understand these documents obtained from Bucks Record Office and transcribed below? D/12/79/2 1657 Bond in £42. Francis Dorrill of Cheddington day labourer to Churchwarden & overseers [Bucks RO] Know all men by these presents that I ffrancis Dorrill of Cheddington, in the Countie of Bucks day Labourer, am holden & firmly bound unto John Seabrooke, yeoman, Churchwarden; & unto Thomas Tatnill, & George Wooster, Overseers of the poore of Cheddington aforesaid, for this present yeere of our Lord God one thousand, six hundred, fiftie & seaven, in Two and ffourtie pounds, of lawfull money of England, to be paid unto the said John Seabrooke, Thomas Tatnill, and George Wooster, or to their Certaine Attorney, their executors, administrators or assignes, to the use of the inhabitants of the Towne & parish of Cheddington aforesaid. And to, & for the more sure payment thereof, I binde my selfe, my heires, executors administrators, & assignes firmly by these presents. Sealed with my seale, dated the six & twenteth day of October, in the aforesaid yeere of our Lord God one thousand, six hundred, fiftie & seaven, The Condic’on of this Obligac’on is such, that if the above bounden ffrancis Dorrill he, his heires, executors administrators, or assignes, for & in Consideration of one & Twentie pounds of good & lawfull money of England, to him the said ffrancis Dorrill, in hand paid, at or before the ensealing & delivering of these presents, for & in Consideration of taking unto him, or them, & of keeping with him, or with them, or with either of them, at his or their proper Costs & Charges, at all times in fitting manner of all needfull things for them, those Two poore Children, now in the keeping of the said ffrancis Dorrill, Being the naturall Children of John Howes, & Elizabeth his wife, deceased, untill the said Children shall sunderly? accomplish the full age of Eighteene yeeres, shall in all the aforesaid points, respects, & particulars, well & trulie observe, performe, fulfill, and keepe them, so that the said Two poore Children be no further forced Charge unto all or anie of the inhabitants of the Towne & parish of Cheddington aforesaid during the said Terme & Termes of Eighteene yeeres, that then this present Obligac’on shall be void & of none effect, of else it shall remaine, & be in full force & vertue. Sealed & delivered to the use of the above named parties in the presence of us James Pung, ffrancis Kympton. ffrancis Dorrill X his marke. D/12/79/1 1657 Bond in £9. William Chiltorn of Cheddington day labourer to Churchwarden & overseers [Bucks RO] Know all men by these presents that I William Chiltorn of Cheddington, in the Countie of Bucks, day Labourer, am holden & firmly bound unto John Seabrooke, yeoman, Churchwarden; & unto Thomas Tatnill, & George Wooster, Overseers of the poore of Cheddington aforesaid, for this present yeere of our Lord God one thousand, six hundred, fiftie & seaven, in Nine pounds, of lawfull money of England, to be paid unto the said John Seabrooke, Thomas Tatnill, and George Wooster, or to their Certaine Attorney, their executors, administrators or assignes, to the use of the inhabitants of the Towne & parish of Cheddington aforesaid. And to, & for the more sure payment thereof, I binde my selfe, my heires, executors administrators, & assignes, firmly by these presents. Sealed with my seale: dated the Thirteth day of October, in the aforesaid yeere of our Lord God one thousand, six hundred, fiftie & seaven, The Condic’on of this Obligac’on is such, that if the above bounden William Chiltorn, he his heires, executors administrators, or assignes, for & in Consideration of ffoure pounds & Ten shillings of good & lawfull money of England to him the said William Chiltorn, in hand paid, at or before the ensealing, & delivering of these presents, for, & in Consideration of taking unto him, or them, & of keeping with him, or with them, or with either of them, at his or their proper Costs & Charges, at all times in fitting manner of all needfull things for her, that one poore Childe, now in the keeping of the said William Chiltorn, Being the naturall daughter of John Howes, & Elizabeth his wife, deceased, untill the said Childe shall accomplish the full age of Eighteene yeeres, shall in all the aforesaid points, respects, & particulars, well & trulie observe, performe, fulfill, and keepe them, so that the said poore Childe, be no further forced Charge unto all, or anie of the inhabitants of the Towne & parish of Cheddington aforesaid, during the said Terme of Eighteene yeeres, that then this present Obligac’on shall be void & of none effect, of else it shall remaine, & be in full force & vertue. Sealed & delivered in the presence of us James Pung, James Fenn William Chilton X his marke My direct ancestor was Jane Howes, a daughter of John and Elizabeth baptised 1650 in Cheddington. I believe that John died in 1653. Elizabeth then married a Henry Harris and died in 1656. I have not found a will for either of them. They had 7 children in Cheddington but the only burial I have found is for Jane in 1727 who did leave a will. I apologise for the amount of words, which of course are causing my problem! Patricia Ward

Hi, Everyone. Polly Rubery tells me that under the new Mailman software, filtering mail using the list name in the "To" line doesn't work. I would just sort on the prepend in that case: [OEL] Also, we have been migrated now. Any problems or comments, let me know off list: [email protected] cheers, Judith Werner Salt Lake City, Utah, USA Administrator, OLD-ENGLISH-L http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~oel/

As you probably know, RootsWeb is changing its mailing list software from an old, no-longer-supported program to a new one called Mailman. Old-English is or was scheduled to migrate to the new software today; perhaps it has already migrated but I haven't been notified yet. You may notice a few changes. If you have your mail set up to sort into folders you may need to change your filters. If you sort on the prepend (the [OEL] part) you need not make any changes. Mailman has been changing these to the entire list name but I will change it back again to [OEL]. If you sort on the "To" line, the list name will change to [email protected] (the "L" is gone). If you subscribe to both formats -- the list and the digest -- using the SAME e-mail address, you will be automatically unsubbed from the digest. This is because Mailman operates with only one subscriber list whereas the old one had two, one for list mode and one for the digest. This is not a problem if you subscribe to both using DIFFERENT e-mail addresses. If you have questions or problems about the software change, please contact me off list at [email protected] Can't say I have all the answers yet, however. Judith Werner Salt Lake City, Utah, USA Administrator, OLD-ENGLISH-L http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~oel/

Is it possible that there was another of the same name and so, in documents where there might be confusion between them, he used the flourish to distinguish who was who? Audrey ----- Original Message ----- From: "Michael Scott" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, September 01, 2006 5:26 PM Subject: RE: [OEL] signature flourish > That's a good idea, but the document in question here -- a 1717 rate book > for Aldgate parish -- was also signed by 10 other people on the same page > and not in much risk of forgery. Other documents where forgery might be a > concern, such as deeds, he signs without a flourish. > > There are two other instances of him using the flourish, on Consistory > Court > depositions in 1711 and 1713. I can't imagine the clerk of court would be > terribly impressed with him wasting time with a doodle -- or, for that > matter, the other Aldgate parish officers waiting for him to sign the rate > book. > > > best, > Michael > > -----Original Message----- > From: Betsy [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: 01 September 2006 00:03 > To: Michael Scott > Subject: Re: [OEL] signature flourish > > > "Despite being a capital offence forging was a common practice in the late > 18th century. The notes were printed on an ordinary type of paper and > relied > heavily on the intricacy of the artist's copperplate flourishes to deter > forgers. " > > > this refers to bank notes but if he was signing multiple important > documents > maybe he would try this technique to deter copies. > > It had something to do with the advent of steel nibs on pens that could > stand-up to the rigors of flourishes and probably with his boredom :) > > Betsy > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Michael Scott" <[email protected]> > To: <[email protected]> > Sent: Thursday, August 31, 2006 5:23 PM > Subject: [OEL] signature flourish > > >> Hello, >> >> I've found a signature from 1717 with a rather unusual ending -- I'm not >> sure whether it is just an eccentric flourish or signifies something. I >> have >> posted an image here >> >> http://boards.ancestry.co.uk/mbexec/message/5538/surnames.johnson/17448 >> >> I wonder if anyone has come across something similar? This is someone who >> signed hundreds of documents, so perhaps he was just amusing himself with >> a >> doodle. I've found two others with a similar ending, but mostly he signs >> without any flourish. >> >> thanks, >> >> Michael >> -- >> No virus found in this outgoing message. >> Checked by AVG Free Edition. >> Version: 7.1.405 / Virus Database: 268.11.7/434 - Release Date: >> 30/08/2006 >> >> >> ==== OLD-ENGLISH Mailing List ==== >> OLD-ENGLISH Web Page >> http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~oel/ >> > > -- > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.1.405 / Virus Database: 268.11.7/434 - Release Date: 30/08/2006 > > -- > No virus found in this outgoing message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.1.405 / Virus Database: 268.11.7/435 - Release Date: 31/08/2006 > > > ==== OLD-ENGLISH Mailing List ==== > To contact the list administrator: > [email protected] > > > > -- > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.1.362 / Virus Database: 268.11.7/432 - Release Date: 29/08/2006 > >

That's a good idea, but the document in question here -- a 1717 rate book for Aldgate parish -- was also signed by 10 other people on the same page and not in much risk of forgery. Other documents where forgery might be a concern, such as deeds, he signs without a flourish. There are two other instances of him using the flourish, on Consistory Court depositions in 1711 and 1713. I can't imagine the clerk of court would be terribly impressed with him wasting time with a doodle -- or, for that matter, the other Aldgate parish officers waiting for him to sign the rate book. best, Michael -----Original Message----- From: Betsy [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 01 September 2006 00:03 To: Michael Scott Subject: Re: [OEL] signature flourish "Despite being a capital offence forging was a common practice in the late 18th century. The notes were printed on an ordinary type of paper and relied heavily on the intricacy of the artist's copperplate flourishes to deter forgers. " this refers to bank notes but if he was signing multiple important documents maybe he would try this technique to deter copies. It had something to do with the advent of steel nibs on pens that could stand-up to the rigors of flourishes and probably with his boredom :) Betsy ----- Original Message ----- From: "Michael Scott" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, August 31, 2006 5:23 PM Subject: [OEL] signature flourish > Hello, > > I've found a signature from 1717 with a rather unusual ending -- I'm not > sure whether it is just an eccentric flourish or signifies something. I > have > posted an image here > > http://boards.ancestry.co.uk/mbexec/message/5538/surnames.johnson/17448 > > I wonder if anyone has come across something similar? This is someone who > signed hundreds of documents, so perhaps he was just amusing himself with > a > doodle. I've found two others with a similar ending, but mostly he signs > without any flourish. > > thanks, > > Michael > -- > No virus found in this outgoing message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.1.405 / Virus Database: 268.11.7/434 - Release Date: 30/08/2006 > > > ==== OLD-ENGLISH Mailing List ==== > OLD-ENGLISH Web Page > http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~oel/ > -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.405 / Virus Database: 268.11.7/434 - Release Date: 30/08/2006 -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.405 / Virus Database: 268.11.7/435 - Release Date: 31/08/2006

Hello, I've found a signature from 1717 with a rather unusual ending -- I'm not sure whether it is just an eccentric flourish or signifies something. I have posted an image here http://boards.ancestry.co.uk/mbexec/message/5538/surnames.johnson/17448 I wonder if anyone has come across something similar? This is someone who signed hundreds of documents, so perhaps he was just amusing himself with a doodle. I've found two others with a similar ending, but mostly he signs without any flourish. thanks, Michael -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.405 / Virus Database: 268.11.7/434 - Release Date: 30/08/2006

This doesn't take into account those occasions where whole families were baptised at the same time. Audrey ----- Original Message ----- From: "Barbara" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, August 25, 2006 7:29 PM Subject: RE: [OEL] Time between births > This has been fascinating and timely for me, worrying again at my greatest > brick wall when this topic arose on the list. > > To cut a long story short I am trying to decide (although I may never be > entirely sure) which of two possible families an ancestor belonged to and > have circumstantial evidence to link him to one family but two > christenings > very close together have always been a problem. I have a child baptised on > the 6th August 1779 and another baptised on the 9th February 1780. > Everything else seems to suggest that they are from the same family but > only > six months separate the two baptisms. However.... if the baptism of the > first child was delayed slightly and the second child was premature and > baptised promptly then it could just be possible, perhaps? The second > child > died almost exactly two years after the baptism. > > Any thoughts appreciated. > > Barbara > > > > > > > > ==== OLD-ENGLISH Mailing List ==== > To contact the list administrator: > [email protected] > > > > -- > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.1.362 / Virus Database: 268.11.7/432 - Release Date: 29/08/2006 > >

Many thanks to all who commented on this issue. ~~ Keith Griffiths

Thanks for your helpful comments, Eve. I guess that the most likely hypothesis is that the Aldgate brewer is the father of the Whitechapel corn merchant, and -- as you say -- a similar education could account for their similar signatures. It's notable that the tax auditing work begins in Whitechapel the year after it ends in Aldgate, but it's possible that the father died and the son subsequently took up a similar job. best, Michael -----Original Message----- From: Eve McLaughlin [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 26 August 2006 17:47 To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [OEL] Age disparity In message <[email protected]>, Michael Scott <[email protected]> writes >Hello, > >I'm tracing the history of an C18 East London merchant. He is in partnership >with a brewer in Aldgate up to the early 1730s, marries and moves to >Whitechapel in 1732, and goes into the corn trade. He is also a tax assessor >or auditor for various E London parishes. I've been helped by the fact that >he has a fairly distinctive signature that survives on numerous tax and >parish records. > >But there's a problem. In several documents he gives his age, and there is a >worrying disparity: > >Consistory court deposition 1711 -- about 35 >Consistory court deposition 1713 -- about 37 >Chancery deposition 1722 -- about 47 years >Marriage Allegation 1732 -- aged 30 years (bachelor) >Chancery deposition 1746 -- about 50 years > >If the early ages are remotely accurate, then he was actually in his mid-50s >when he married. Which seems a bit excessive for a man in a good financial position, not a soldier, not a rake helly gent. A merchant needs a wife to make things comfortable for him and to keep en eye on the valuables when he is working. > >What I would like to know is whether it is usual for someone (who is >literate and numerate) to be so wildly inaccurate about their age, Once they were 21, and a full adult, people had no good reason to think about their exact ages until suddenly some official demanded to know. However, the range of discrepancy is usually around a couple of years, up to five being acceptable. It looks to me as if you do have two people here, possibly father born around 1676 and son born around 1699/1700 (which could be checked by a will?) The marriage licence age is often rounded (usually 21 and upwards, 25 and upwards, but if he says 'getting on for thirty' that goes in) Chancery dep age could be an estimate by a clerk, again, 'getting on for fifty.' >or >whether this indicates that there must be two different people here (albeit >with the same signature)? This is not an easy indicator., Either the father could have taught the son to write (we have a four generation run of will making Edmund Brangwins, whose writing looks almost identical) or the same teacher taught both. -- Eve McLaughlin Author of the McLaughlin Guides for family historians Secretary Bucks Genealogical Society ==== OLD-ENGLISH Mailing List ==== OLD-ENGLISH Web Page http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~oel/ -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.405 / Virus Database: 268.11.5/426 - Release Date: 23/08/2006

Breast feeding as a contraceptive practice sometimes worked; sometimes didn't. But a lot of families with l0 or l2 children would show ages generally about two years apart. Of course, there was nothing foolproof about this and there were abortions that no one ever knew about and certainly didn't discuss. Sometimes in a gap between ages, there have been miscarriages and infant deaths. My grandmother who was born 121 years ago told me the safe way was to keep both feet in a jug. And when a woman had a child at a time somewhat unexpected, she said that person had "lost her notched stick." ~~ Folklorically, Dixie