Hello Michael, I should think a transfer of loyalties to a non-conformist church might be the reason - personalities, relatives and friends all play a part in making choices, even on the church you attend. But it could be the 3d tax on register entries between ( from memory) Oct 1783 to 1792 or thereabouts that was to blame. The tax was resented (aren't all taxes resented??!) by people and clergy (who had enough trouble collecting tithes let alone taxes for Whitehall) and so did not survive for long, and it seems to have had the effect while it lasted of reducing to some extent the number of baptisms . I somehow doubt if marriage or, in particular, burial numbers were much affected !!! So in the sense that it was difficilt to avoid if you had a relative to bury it was quite clever work by the Chancellor of the day !! Jim Halsey

Hello Michael I've had a lot of problems finding my Hawkes relatives in and around Haggerston, Shoreditch. However, they did move about from street to street and that may have been the reason they used different churches despite being within a stone's throw of the last move. What is more, I can find no marriage (of course there may not have been one even though they did call themselves man and wife in the 51 census). I can also find no baptism of the wife/mother even though her husband appears in the same place for the same time as quoted in the census. I've tried looking in different churches, those that existed in and around 1801 that is, but can't find any baptism for her. I'm almost at the point of giving up for her. However, not all children were baptised, as far as I can see so there's no surety of finding any of the missing links, worst luck. Audrey ----- Original Message ----- From: "Michael Scott" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Sunday, July 30, 2006 5:49 PM Subject: [OEL] missing baptisms > Hello, > > I've found a puzzling case of a late c18 Whitechapel family who did not > baptise their first two children. I have quite a lot of background > information about them and can find no obvious explanation. I wonder if > anyone has further ideas? > > Phineas Johnson and Mary Taylor married 1772 and lived on White Lyon > Street > in Whitechapel (the South end of today's Leman Street). The baptisms of > nine > of their children are registered at St Mary Whitechapel between 1777 and > 1792. However, there are (at least) two more: > > (1) Henry George Johnson, apprenticed a Painter Stainer and baptised in > his > 40s at St Mary Lambeth (giving his date of birth 1773) > (2) James Taylor Johnson, apprenticed a Stationer in 1790. Presumably born > 1776 or earlier. > > Two explanations occurred to me, but neither seems probable: > > I wondered if Phineas might be a nonconformist -- certainly a popular > option > in Whitechapel at this time. But I've found no evidence for this. He was > baptised himself, as were all his brothers and sisters, at St Mary > Whitechapel and he married at St John Wapping. > > Also, Phineas appears to have been financially ok for most of his life, if > not particularly wealthy. He was apprenticed a Painter Stainer, became > free > of the City and worked as an oilman or colourman. He paid taxes on the > property in White Lyon St until his death in 1804; he also inherited > property in Hendon which he sold in the 1780s. None of the parish records > identify him as poor. > > thanks, > > Michael > -- > No virus found in this outgoing message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.10.4/399 - Release Date: 25/07/2006 > > > ==== 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: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.10.5/403 - Release Date: 28/07/2006 > >

Hi Adrian The Cathedral at Hereford also houses the parish altar (and therefore acts as the "parish church") for the parish of Hereford St John, so it is most likely that your people were just normal parishoners. HTH Polly Rubery List admin: [email protected] A genealogy and local history list covering the Counties of Brecon, Hereford, Monmouth, Shropshire, Stafford and Worcester. [email protected] A genealogy and local history list covering the County of Hereford [email protected] ROWBERRY/RUBERY ONS - GOONS #278 [email protected] http://www.rowberry.org Webmaster for the Herefordshire Family History Society http://www.rootsweb.com/~ukhfhs/index.html ----- Original Message ----- From: "maggie and adrian" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Sunday, July 30, 2006 10:36 AM Subject: [OEL] MARIAGE FEES CATHEDRALS Apologies if this is off topic. Am researching a Herefordshire family, 17th C who were leaseholders and renters. Two generations married in Hereford Cathedral. From other documents they were not wealthy, just your ordinary country yokels. My question - what was the difference in fees for a cathedral wedding and a rural parish wedding at this period? I am trying to firm up on who paid the (presumably) higher fees -in this case the in-laws perhaps. I presume many Cathedral weddings were a matter of "status"? Appreciate your comments. Adrtian ==== OLD-ENGLISH Mailing List ==== OLD-ENGLISH Web Page http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~oel/

Hello, I've found a puzzling case of a late c18 Whitechapel family who did not baptise their first two children. I have quite a lot of background information about them and can find no obvious explanation. I wonder if anyone has further ideas? Phineas Johnson and Mary Taylor married 1772 and lived on White Lyon Street in Whitechapel (the South end of today's Leman Street). The baptisms of nine of their children are registered at St Mary Whitechapel between 1777 and 1792. However, there are (at least) two more: (1) Henry George Johnson, apprenticed a Painter Stainer and baptised in his 40s at St Mary Lambeth (giving his date of birth 1773) (2) James Taylor Johnson, apprenticed a Stationer in 1790. Presumably born 1776 or earlier. Two explanations occurred to me, but neither seems probable: I wondered if Phineas might be a nonconformist -- certainly a popular option in Whitechapel at this time. But I've found no evidence for this. He was baptised himself, as were all his brothers and sisters, at St Mary Whitechapel and he married at St John Wapping. Also, Phineas appears to have been financially ok for most of his life, if not particularly wealthy. He was apprenticed a Painter Stainer, became free of the City and worked as an oilman or colourman. He paid taxes on the property in White Lyon St until his death in 1804; he also inherited property in Hendon which he sold in the 1780s. None of the parish records identify him as poor. thanks, Michael -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.10.4/399 - Release Date: 25/07/2006

Someone replied to my post about marriage fees in cathedrals but unfortunately it managed to delete before I'd read it - would you re-post please ? ... Elizabeth Atherton ..... this account of mass weddings at Manchester Cathedral was published recently on the Cheshire list The Cathedral charged lower, not higher fees than parish churches. "Another account of multiple weddings from The Bridal Bed by Joseph Braddock ( Robert Hale Ltd. 1960): 'Then there were ... multiple weddings.. .....round the turn of the last century as many as forty couples were married together. One marriage service only was read, but the sacred words of union were spoken by the clergyman to each couple. In the nineteenth century, because of the low fees charged, the Manchester Parish Church became so popular that numerous wholesale weddings took place there. Sir George Head has described, with entertaining detail, one such multiple wedding in The Old Church at Manchester on a Monday morning. " The couples were all poor people, and as to the brides and bridegrooms, as few were dressed in special costume, and all were very generally attended by friends and relatives, it was not easy to say which was which. One party arrived at the church-door evidently wishing to belong to the higher classes, and, though dragged by one solitary horse, made a strenuous effort to outshine. Their carriage, a narrow vis-a-vis fly intended for two persons, now contained four, besides a fat man with bushy whiskers, probably the bride's brother, who occupied the box with the coachman. Within, packed as close as they could possibly sit, on one side were two bridesmaids; opposite to these the bride and bridegroom; the latter a spruce, sandy-haired young man, looking flushed and eager. One of his arms circled the waist of the young lady, on whose blooming countenance he bestowed glances of the very tenderest description - in fact, his looks were so particularly expressive, that, attitude and all considered, I hardly knew whether to compare him, in my mind, to the statue of cupid regarding his Psyche, or a Scotch terrier watching at a rat hole. The people sat in the fly until the church-door was opened, and then the ladies got out and tripped across the pavement into the church. They wore short petticoats and white satin bonnets scooped out under the hind part, with sugar-loaf crowns, and their back hair underneath combed upwards. When all was ready, and the church-doors opened, the clergyman and clerk betook themselves to the vestry, and the people who were about to be married and their friends seated themselves in the body of the church opposite the communion-table, on benches placed there for the purpose. There was little 'mauvais honte' among the women, but of the men, poor fellows! some were seriously abashed. At the advance of a sheepish-looking bridegroom, he was immediately assailed on all sides with, 'Come in, man; what art afraid of? Nobody'll hurt thee.' And then a general laugh went round in a suppressed tone, but quite sufficient to confound and subdue the newcomer. At last a sudden buzz broke out - 'the clergyman's coming!' and then all was perfectly silent. About twelve couples were there to be married; the rest were friends and attendants. The clerk now called upon the former to arrange themselves together round the altar. In appointing them to their proper places, he addressed each in an intonation of voice particularly soft and soothing, and which carried with it the more of encouragement as he made use of no appellative but the Christian name of the person spoken to. Thus he proceeded: 'Daniel and Phoebe; this way, Daniel; take off your gloves, Daniel. - William and Anne; no, Anne; here, Anne; t'other side, William. - John and Mary; here, John; oh, John; gently, John'. And then addressing them all together:'Now all of you give your hats to some person to hold.' Although the marriage service was generally addressed to the whole party, the clergyman was scrupulously exact in obtaining the accurate responses from each individual." Another story has been reported of the Rev. Joshua Brookes, who also ministered at this church, that once, having been told that he had accidently joined in wedlock the wrong parties, replied~~~~~:"Pair as you go out; you're all married; pair as you go out".' Apologies if this is off topic. Am researching a Herefordshire family, 17th C who were leaseholders and renters. Two generations married in Hereford Cathedral. From other documents they were not wealthy, just your ordinary country yokels. My question - what was the difference in fees for a cathedral wedding and a rural parish wedding at this period? I am trying to firm up on who paid the (presumably) higher fees -in this case the in-laws perhaps. I presume many Cathedral weddings were a matter of "status"? Appreciate your comments. Adrtian ==== OLD-ENGLISH Mailing List ==== OLD-ENGLISH Web Page http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~oel/ ==== OLD-ENGLISH Mailing List ==== SEARCHABLE archives for OLD-ENGLISH: http://listsearches.rootsweb.com/cgi-bin/listsearch.pl?list=OLD-ENGLISH

Hello Adrian, I don't know about Hereford bust most of the ancient cathedrals were also parish churches with a parish and parishioners. Quite a few of my 18th c family were baptised, married or buried in Canterbury Cathedral and its "cloyster yard" one of the graveyards in the Close. These events had nothing to do with status or fees - they lived (and worked) in the parish. One of them was a servant to a Canon and then when the Canon died became watchman and greenkeeper. There were many such, as the parish was a busy and well populated area. Jim Halsey

I don't know if this applied to all Cathedrals, but this account of mass weddings at Manchester Cathedral was published recently on the Cheshire list The Cathedral charged lower, not higher fees than parish churches. "Another account of multiple weddings from The Bridal Bed by Joseph Braddock ( Robert Hale Ltd. 1960): 'Then there were ... multiple weddings.. .....round the turn of the last century as many as forty couples were married together. One marriage service only was read, but the sacred words of union were spoken by the clergyman to each couple. In the nineteenth century, because of the low fees charged, the Manchester Parish Church became so popular that numerous wholesale weddings took place there. Sir George Head has described, with entertaining detail, one such multiple wedding in The Old Church at Manchester on a Monday morning. " The couples were all poor people, and as to the brides and bridegrooms, as few were dressed in special costume, and all were very generally attended by friends and relatives, it was not easy to say which was which. One party arrived at the church-door evidently wishing to belong to the higher classes, and, though dragged by one solitary horse, made a strenuous effort to outshine. Their carriage, a narrow vis-a-vis fly intended for two persons, now contained four, besides a fat man with bushy whiskers, probably the bride's brother, who occupied the box with the coachman. Within, packed as close as they could possibly sit, on one side were two bridesmaids; opposite to these the bride and bridegroom; the latter a spruce, sandy-haired young man, looking flushed and eager. One of his arms circled the waist of the young lady, on whose blooming countenance he bestowed glances of the very tenderest description - in fact, his looks were so particularly expressive, that, attitude and all considered, I hardly knew whether to compare him, in my mind, to the statue of cupid regarding his Psyche, or a Scotch terrier watching at a rat hole. The people sat in the fly until the church-door was opened, and then the ladies got out and tripped across the pavement into the church. They wore short petticoats and white satin bonnets scooped out under the hind part, with sugar-loaf crowns, and their back hair underneath combed upwards. When all was ready, and the church-doors opened, the clergyman and clerk betook themselves to the vestry, and the people who were about to be married and their friends seated themselves in the body of the church opposite the communion-table, on benches placed there for the purpose. There was little 'mauvais honte' among the women, but of the men, poor fellows! some were seriously abashed. At the advance of a sheepish-looking bridegroom, he was immediately assailed on all sides with, 'Come in, man; what art afraid of? Nobody'll hurt thee.' And then a general laugh went round in a suppressed tone, but quite sufficient to confound and subdue the newcomer. At last a sudden buzz broke out - 'the clergyman's coming!' and then all was perfectly silent. About twelve couples were there to be married; the rest were friends and attendants. The clerk now called upon the former to arrange themselves together round the altar. In appointing them to their proper places, he addressed each in an intonation of voice particularly soft and soothing, and which carried with it the more of encouragement as he made use of no appellative but the Christian name of the person spoken to. Thus he proceeded: 'Daniel and Phoebe; this way, Daniel; take off your gloves, Daniel. - William and Anne; no, Anne; here, Anne; t'other side, William. - John and Mary; here, John; oh, John; gently, John'. And then addressing them all together:'Now all of you give your hats to some person to hold.' Although the marriage service was generally addressed to the whole party, the clergyman was scrupulously exact in obtaining the accurate responses from each individual." Another story has been reported of the Rev. Joshua Brookes, who also ministered at this church, that once, having been told that he had accidently joined in wedlock the wrong parties, replied~~~~~:"Pair as you go out; you're all married; pair as you go out".' Apologies if this is off topic. Am researching a Herefordshire family, 17th C who were leaseholders and renters. Two generations married in Hereford Cathedral. From other documents they were not wealthy, just your ordinary country yokels. My question - what was the difference in fees for a cathedral wedding and a rural parish wedding at this period? I am trying to firm up on who paid the (presumably) higher fees -in this case the in-laws perhaps. I presume many Cathedral weddings were a matter of "status"? Appreciate your comments. Adrtian ==== OLD-ENGLISH Mailing List ==== OLD-ENGLISH Web Page http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~oel/

test

Eve, John, Couldn't agree more. Regards, Martyn ----- Original Message ---- From: Eve McLaughlin <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Saturday, 29 July, 2006 3:18:23 PM Subject: Re: [OEL] Transcriptions of old hands In message <[email protected]>, John Barton <[email protected]> writes >If 'ff' is transcibed 'F', and I'm not debating that it shouldn't, then >consistency in the rule (of using the symbol that was intended by the writer) >gets a bit murky. I don't feel that a style manual designed for the Public >Records Office, or British Library, should be necessary for less lofty >publications. Otherwise, special typewriter/computer keyboards/fonts would be >needed for minutiae not noticeable to most readers. In this respect, 19th >century scholarly productions must have exasperated typesetters working with a >vast array of tiny font symbols. >Ideally, I suppose, >ff should, as a capital, be F. >u and v, i and j, should be as used. >Long s should be the actual symbol, like an f, but with only half the cross-bar. >Ligatures such as oe, ae, ct, should be copied as is. >Smaller font should be used for superscript abbreviations. >Thorn should be used in 'ye' etc, and the other anglo-saxon letters used >appropriately. >'W' should not be used where the original print has 'VV'. >'viij' strictly needs a long 'i', not i or j. >Deletions should be printed in crossed-out form, underscoring respected, as also >textual lacunae, marginal script, italics, capitalisation, etc. >Tildes copied over words such as aia (anima, spirit). >Spelling errors copied with or without [sic]. And much more. > >But all this would reduce work to a standstill. The best compromise is a short >prefatory note explaining the rules that have been employed. This is a very good point - if a transcription has been made for the purpose of making a manuscript more intelligible to the ordinary reader, then it is important not to obscure that intention with pedantic clutter. The explanation in an introduction is useful, then common sense takes over. -- 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/

In message <[email protected]>, John Barton <[email protected]> writes >If 'ff' is transcibed 'F', and I'm not debating that it shouldn't, then >consistency in the rule (of using the symbol that was intended by the writer) >gets a bit murky. I don't feel that a style manual designed for the Public >Records Office, or British Library, should be necessary for less lofty >publications. Otherwise, special typewriter/computer keyboards/fonts would be >needed for minutiae not noticeable to most readers. In this respect, 19th >century scholarly productions must have exasperated typesetters working with a >vast array of tiny font symbols. >Ideally, I suppose, >ff should, as a capital, be F. >u and v, i and j, should be as used. >Long s should be the actual symbol, like an f, but with only half the cross-bar. >Ligatures such as oe, ae, ct, should be copied as is. >Smaller font should be used for superscript abbreviations. >Thorn should be used in 'ye' etc, and the other anglo-saxon letters used >appropriately. >'W' should not be used where the original print has 'VV'. >'viij' strictly needs a long 'i', not i or j. >Deletions should be printed in crossed-out form, underscoring respected, as also >textual lacunae, marginal script, italics, capitalisation, etc. >Tildes copied over words such as aia (anima, spirit). >Spelling errors copied with or without [sic]. And much more. > >But all this would reduce work to a standstill. The best compromise is a short >prefatory note explaining the rules that have been employed. This is a very good point - if a transcription has been made for the purpose of making a manuscript more intelligible to the ordinary reader, then it is important not to obscure that intention with pedantic clutter. The explanation in an introduction is useful, then common sense takes over. -- Eve McLaughlin Author of the McLaughlin Guides for family historians Secretary Bucks Genealogical Society

In message <[email protected]>, Norman Lee <[email protected]> writes >I entirely agree with Eve but there are a few out there who still want to >write it as it says, ie. ffry or ffish. It's particularly difficult when >it's used for a word for which we wouldn't use a capital at the beginning. >Capitals were often used rather haphazardly so you have to decide what you >are going to do. Personally, I think the main thing is to be consistent and >if you decide to use F for ff, then do it wherever it occurs. However, if >you were writing the word differently, you wouldn't then write it diFerently The query was about an initial letter written (apparently) as ff, and normally with a slight tie mark. medial f f is different. -- Eve McLaughlin Author of the McLaughlin Guides for family historians Secretary Bucks Genealogical Society

If 'ff' is transcibed 'F', and I'm not debating that it shouldn't, then consistency in the rule (of using the symbol that was intended by the writer) gets a bit murky. I don't feel that a style manual designed for the Public Records Office, or British Library, should be necessary for less lofty publications. Otherwise, special typewriter/computer keyboards/fonts would be needed for minutiae not noticeable to most readers. In this respect, 19th century scholarly productions must have exasperated typesetters working with a vast array of tiny font symbols. Ideally, I suppose, ff should, as a capital, be F. u and v, i and j, should be as used. Long s should be the actual symbol, like an f, but with only half the cross-bar. Ligatures such as oe, ae, ct, should be copied as is. Smaller font should be used for superscript abbreviations. Thorn should be used in 'ye' etc, and the other anglo-saxon letters used appropriately. 'W' should not be used where the original print has 'VV'. 'viij' strictly needs a long 'i', not i or j. Deletions should be printed in crossed-out form, underscoring respected, as also textual lacunae, marginal script, italics, capitalisation, etc. Tildes copied over words such as aia (anima, spirit). Spelling errors copied with or without [sic]. And much more. But all this would reduce work to a standstill. The best compromise is a short prefatory note explaining the rules that have been employed. Else we land up with the kind of vanity press productions of the leisurely and wealthy. I would include the first edition of OED in this class; besides considerable use of anglo-saxon, words are transcribed in umpteen alphabets - Arabic, Hebrew, Greek, etc - where 'necessary', never transliterated. And such works as "Two Early English Versions of the Gesta Romanorum", a large book printed in a tiny edition by and for the Roxburgh Club in 1838. I also recall reading in a questions section of a ca 1917 Mechanics Institute magazine a submitter complaining to the editor that he had incorrectly printed a Greek motto; with the latter's comment that it would be appreciated if correspondents refrained from quoting passages in non-Latin alphabets, since it was time-consuming for the proof-readers. Exact transcription is a lot of work, and only rarely worthwhile in terms of avoiding error. (Perhaps the classic one is Theobald's transliteration of 'j' as 'i' in the Shakespeare 4th folio, reverting to the spelling in the earlier folios, and causing the Spaniard in Othello to become 'Iago' instead of the intended 'Jago'). John Barton

I entirely agree with Eve but there are a few out there who still want to write it as it says, ie. ffry or ffish. It's particularly difficult when it's used for a word for which we wouldn't use a capital at the beginning. Capitals were often used rather haphazardly so you have to decide what you are going to do. Personally, I think the main thing is to be consistent and if you decide to use F for ff, then do it wherever it occurs. However, if you were writing the word differently, you wouldn't then write it diFerently so, once again, our language has developed inconsistently, unlike a number of other languages for which you can follow rules and know you'll always be right. Audrey ----- Original Message ----- From: "j halsey" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, July 28, 2006 3:53 PM Subject: [OEL] Transcription of old hands > Could I please have advice from the list re the "correct" transcription of > the old double "f" at the beginnining of words and, in particular, names, > such as "ffrye" which today would be written as "Fry". To maintain > accuracy > of transcription - which I suspect to most people means to report, as best > as one can, the form and content of old documents - should the 16th and > 17th cc "double-f" be shown in transcription as a single letter or as a > double? Should "ffry" (and similar) be written today as FFRY or FRY? > Or > is it of no consequence whichever is chosen as long as one is consistent? > > Jim Halsey > > > ==== OLD-ENGLISH Mailing List ==== > SEARCHABLE archives for OLD-ENGLISH: > http://listsearches.rootsweb.com/cgi-bin/listsearch.pl?list=OLD-ENGLISH > > > > -- > Internal Virus Database is out-of-date. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.10.3/395 - Release Date: 21/07/2006 > >

Thank you Eve for your helpful reply. Problem solved ! Jim Halsey

In message <[email protected]>, j halsey <[email protected]> writes >Could I please have advice from the list re the "correct" transcription of >the old double "f" at the beginnining of words and, in particular, names, >such as "ffrye" which today would be written as "Fry". To maintain accuracy >of transcription - which I suspect to most people means to report, as best >as one can, the form and content of old documents - should the 16th and >17th cc "double-f" be shown in transcription as a single letter or as a >double? It is really just a way of writing a capital F, so representing it by a modern capital F would be logical. It is like the capital W, which for a long period was written as a Vsuperimposed on a U (as the two letters were alternatives). We wouldn't write vv or uu for that, so we shouldn't write ff for F. Having said that, there were a number of families, come late in the day to literacy and fortune, who looked back and saw their name written as ffysh or ffoxe and insisted on reverting to that 'version'. The Barons French for some generations called themselves ffrench, till the penny dropped. The classical example is Sir Jasper ffloulenough, as a type name for a villain. -- Eve McLaughlin Author of the McLaughlin Guides for family historians Secretary Bucks Genealogical Society

Could I please have advice from the list re the "correct" transcription of the old double "f" at the beginnining of words and, in particular, names, such as "ffrye" which today would be written as "Fry". To maintain accuracy of transcription - which I suspect to most people means to report, as best as one can, the form and content of old documents - should the 16th and 17th cc "double-f" be shown in transcription as a single letter or as a double? Should "ffry" (and similar) be written today as FFRY or FRY? Or is it of no consequence whichever is chosen as long as one is consistent? Jim Halsey

I think that I would want to know, if at all possible, how many of the male population were sailors. Living at that distance from the coast, it's possible that many of them were employed in seagoing occupations but, equally, most of them may have been able to earn their livings in agriculture or other similar landbased employment. If there were a lot of sailors, then naming their daughters after the patron saint of sailors might have been regarded as a good luck token in the hope that St. Barbara would take special care of the fathers of girls so named. Audrey ----- Original Message ----- From: "Betsy" <[email protected]> To: "Norman Lee" <[email protected]>; <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, July 25, 2006 9:37 PM Subject: Re: [OEL] Wives names > Dear Audrey, > > Frithelstock and the others are about 10 miles inland, near Gt Torrington. > For me, here in the midst of the cornfields of Illinois, it's coastal! > But probably not considered so in Devon : ) Guess inland can be a > relative term.... > > Betsy > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Norman Lee" <[email protected]> > To: "Betsy" <[email protected]>; <[email protected]> > Sent: Tuesday, July 25, 2006 1:39 PM > Subject: Re: [OEL] Wives names > > >> Dear Betsy >> >> Was this inland Devon or near the coast? St. Barbara is the patron saint >> of sailors. >> >> Audrey >> > > > > -- > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.10.3/395 - Release Date: 21/07/2006 > >

Dear Betsy Was this inland Devon or near the coast? St. Barbara is the patron saint of sailors. Audrey ----- Original Message ----- From: "Betsy" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, July 25, 2006 5:37 PM Subject: [OEL] Wives names >I was trying to decide if Thomas & Barbara Gorvett having children in >Frithelstock, Devon could be the same as Thomas & Barbara GORVIN having >children in Monkleigh with in the same 15 year time frame, with Barbara >being on the more "uncommon name" side of things. I did my own little name >study in 5 neighboring towns in Devon for the time of early parish records >(late 1500s) through roughly 1750. I used names in the baptismal records >and it really isn't very scientific but interesting. I found that the >names Mary, Ann and Elizabeth accounted for almost 50% of the female >baptisms and the names Joan/Joanne and Grace or Jane accounted for the next >almost 15 percent. So those female name accounted for roughly 65 to 70 >percent of all women! Margaret and Susan/Susannah and Rebecca taking up the >next big chunks. But the names tended to be more popular in certain towns >(i.ei Rebecca being in 4.3% place in Petersmarland but only little more >than 1% in other towns). > > The men's side of things was even more drastic! John & William alone > accounted for almost 45% of all men. Thomas was third in most towns, > usually around 8-10% although Samuel was third in one town. > > I had looked at some research done using towns that were elsewhere in > England (sorry cannot find it now) and they had Barbara as a more common > woman's name. I found this not to be true in the little section of Devon > where I looked. Barbara was not even on the radar! > > > Like I said, very unscientific, but the chances of a man remarrying a > "Mary" would be much more likely than remarrying another "Frances" . > > Betsy > > > ==== OLD-ENGLISH Mailing List ==== > Going away for a while? > Don't forget to UNSUBSCRIBE! > [email protected] > > > > -- > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.10.3/395 - Release Date: 21/07/2006 > >

Hi Keith I think it is 1617/18. That is, for us and our present calendar it would be 1618 but as their year ended not in December but carried on until 24th March with new year's day on the 25th, their year would still be 1617. Audrey ----- Original Message ----- From: "Keith Griffiths" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, July 25, 2006 8:09 AM Subject: Re: [OEL] Old and New style years > Continuing this thread, there is a memorial inscription on the floor of a > church which reads: > > ".... DEPARTED THIS LIFE 21 JANVARY > Ao [i.e. 'A' followed by a superscript small 'o'] 1617 > ÆTATIS SVÆ 58 .." > > I am advised that this reads: > > ".... departed this life 21 January in the year 1617 of his age of 58 > [years] ....". > > What year is this likely to be I wonder. > ~~ > Keith Griffiths > Elmsted, Kent > > > ==== OLD-ENGLISH Mailing List ==== > SEARCHABLE archives for OLD-ENGLISH: > http://listsearches.rootsweb.com/cgi-bin/listsearch.pl?list=OLD-ENGLISH > > > > -- > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.10.3/395 - Release Date: 21/07/2006 > >

>>".... departed this life 21 January in the year 1617 of his age of 58 >>[years] ....". >> >>What year is this likely to be I wonder. > >calendar year 1617 I didn't look properly at the date - modern version of the year, 1618, so should be written 1617/8 >age of the deceased was between 57 and 58 (like 16 going on seventeen.) > the first 'year of his age' is birth to 12 months, the second 1 to 2 >and so on. -- Eve McLaughlin Author of the McLaughlin Guides for family historians Secretary Bucks Genealogical Society