> Hi Gordon; > I don't know of your Trained Bands but, is there any mention of a Sir > William Bowles who was Master of his Majesty's Tents, ?. ?. and Pavilions. > In his will Sir William mentions that his son Wm Bartholemew Bowles will > take over the office after his decease. I have been unable to find out > exactly what was required of this position, or the correct title. In his > will of 1681 he mentions that King Charles 11 owed him mega money. > Thanks for any info and good luck on your Trained Bands. > Mary No, my books ("The King's Peace" and "The King's War", both by C V Wedgwood) don't mention either of those Bowleses, but they do mention a Captain Charles Bowles who died in the King's service at the minor Battle of Alton. By the way, on the Trained Bands: some of them must have been quite well trained, at that. The London Trained Bands were headed by a General (or, he was called a General, at least) - Philip Skippon, who later became a Major-General in the New Model Army. They stopped the King's Army at Brentford, in one of the early skirmishes of the Civil War. Gordon

Donald I don't know the answers to all of your queries but those I do know are below: > DISSIEZED - forcibly evicted (I think) ENFEEOF - surrendering of property to trustees DEFORCIANTS - defendants Mary

I'd be very glad of an explanation of the following terms in a Plea of Assize of 1384: CHIVALER DISSIEZED (dispossessed?) WRIT OF FOMEDON SIESIN (possession?) MESNE TENANT ENFEEOF BANCO Also in Final Concords,1609 DEFORCIANTS Don Tomkinson

DISSIEZED (dispossessed?) - To put in possession of (1300's term, England). Gary

DEMESNE - Land devoted to the lord's profit, whether a manor or portion of land within a manor, worked by peasants as part of their obligations. Gary

In Shakespeare's Henry V II 1 line 71, Pistol, in a sword-fight, says "Give me thy fist, thy fore-foot to me give". This word (fore-foot with the meaning fist) is one of Shakespeare's 5000 odd inventions. Well over 50 words prefixed 'fore-' were invented in his lifetime; to him alone we owe at least 15, including fore-end, forehead, forehand, foredoom, fore-rank, and foretell. Many didn't make it to the language, being only intended as witticisms.'Forenoon' for example, is superfluous to 'morning'.Some didn't even get to the dictionary. One in particular, probably because it hasn't been discovered. This is 'forescore', meaning 19. Disguised in the text (Winter's Tale, Act 4 Sc.3) as 'fourscore'. The passage in question runs: Clown: "Come on lay it by: and let's first see more ballads; we'll buy the other things anon". Autolycus: [the thief]: "Here's another ballad of a fish, That appeared upon the coast, on wednesday the fourscore of April, forty thousand fathom above water, and sang this ballad against the hard hearts of maids: it was thought she was a woman, and was turned into a cold fish, for she would not exchange flesh with one that loved her: the ballad is very pitiful, and as true". This is supposed to be a fantastic burlesque upon contemporary ballads, with the nonsensical date 80th April. Maybe that was the outward deliberate red herring - 'Shake-speare' often has puns with double and even triple meanings, he never wrote nonsense without hiding something. But in David Garrick's 1758 version of the play ('Florizel and Perdita', but the text mainly unchanged) the word doesn't fool him - he spells it 'forescore', with no doubts as to its intended meaning. Perhaps someone with a similar name (Shaksper, without the hyphen) 'stole' (i.e. claimed and got away with it) the plays, frequented the Mermaid Tavern, refused to exchange identities, was 'washed up' (born) on the coast of Stratford-on-Avon 40,000 fathoms (43 miles) from the sea (Bristol Channel), on 19th April 1564 (which happens by a one in seven chance to be a Wednesday), being exactly the usual period of a week before the date he is known to have been baptised. There being no justification for the traditional/customary birthdate of 23rd April, chosen merely because there must be a date for medals etc, it's a Sunday, it's St. Georges Day, and it is the same day he died. Is 'the real author' here taking a 'dig' at him? Not that I want to debate authorship, beyond that the only scholarly view for a century or so has been that we simply don't know who wrote the plays.In spite of the invective poured on this view by those with commercial interests. Baker's Chronicle incidentally, for 1564, describes "a monstrous fish cast ashore in Lincolnshire in 1564, which measured...". And Baker's Chronicle also descibes an earthquake in Kinnaston on 17 Feb 1575: "The earth began to open and a Hill with a rock under it ...lifted itself to a great height, and began to travel,... it left a gaping distance forty foot broad, and FORESCORE ells long". An instance of alternative spelling of this word. Still, if the rest of the world thinks the date 80th April more likely than 19th, who am I to argue? John Barton

When I go to London- about once every 20 years on average- one thing I miss is Cockney rhyming slang. It was more than a local underworld cant to fool cops and children; it had its own history; always changing. "Putting your dooks up" in a fist fight, for example. A "Duke (or Duchess) of Teck" was a cheque; "Duke of York" meant to talk, to walk (later ball [of chalk]), or a fork. With the counterpart "Duke of Fife" for knife. But things got confused; the latter could also be 'wife'. Ambiguous and sexually inappropriate, it soon changed to "Duchess of Fife". Thence, by 1880, shortened to "Dutch" (my old dutch). That in turn became "old Dutch china", and "China".(Which was dear!).Helped - since a man's wife was his 'mate', by china for pal or mate (china plate). So "Duke of Fife" was now exclusively knife. Often used not of table-knives, but transferred more to the hands that held them in the street. The fingers of which were suggestive of knives (Dukes/dooks/ Fifes/ bunch of fives, i.e. 5 fingers) or forks (Yorks/ dooks again).To 'put up the dooks' was to engage in a fight; to grease the dooks meant to accept a bribe. An etymology as involved as this lies behind hundreds more rhyming slang words, origins now almost lost. John Barton

Hi Gordon; I don't know of your Trained Bands but, is there any mention of a Sir William Bowles who was Master of his Majesty's Tents, ?. ?. and Pavilions. In his will Sir William mentions that his son Wm Bartholemew Bowles will take over the office after his decease. I have been unable to find out exactly what was required of this position, or the correct title. In his will of 1681 he mentions that King Charles 11 owed him mega money. Thanks for any info and good luck on your Trained Bands. Mary ----- Original Message ----- From: "Gordon Barlow" <barlow@candw.ky> To: <OLD-ENGLISH-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Saturday, July 31, 2004 7:29 PM Subject: [OEL] Trained Bands > A book I'm reading contains references to "the Trained Bands" of the time of > King Charles I. The book does not explain exactly what their functions > were, or how they were distinguishable from the later county militias. "In > time of peace [the armed forces of the realm] consisted only of the Trained > Bands, but in any national emergency it lay with [the King] to raise and > organise an army." The Trained Bands (always capitalised) participated as > soldiery in the Civil War. > > Would some Lister kindly tell me what the terms of employment were for the > Bands' members, and how they were chosen, and how well they were trained and > by whom? > > Elsewhere I have been told that after 1660 the locally controlled (county?) > militias were paid 8 pounds a year for "homeland defence" and law > enforcement. But were they still called "Trained Bands"? 8 pounds seems a > lot of money: is that figure correct? > > Gordon Barlow > > > ==== OLD-ENGLISH Mailing List ==== > To contact the list administrator: > OLD-ENGLISH-admin@rootsweb.com > >

----- Original Message ----- From: "norman.lee1" <norman.lee1@virgin.net> To: "John Barton" <bartonlander@free.net.nz>; <OLD-ENGLISH-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Monday, August 02, 2004 8:21 AM Subject: Re: [OEL] Rhyming slang > And then there's the common ones such as 'trouble and strife' for wife; > apples and pears for stairs; Rosy Lea for tea; Barnet Fair for hair and many > more. Everyone in my childhood knew these. Some of those you mention, John, > weren't familiar to me. Although I knew that dukes were fists I had no idea > of the original phrase. All of them got to be shortened in some way and it > was a sort of code I suppose, but more to keep outsiders outside. It may > have fooled some people but children? Can't remember being fooled for one > moment. Now, if you were talking about the mysteries of life, what went on > between men and women was one of the most puzzling. Rhyming slang was easy > compared to this. > > Audrey > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "John Barton" <bartonlander@free.net.nz> > To: <OLD-ENGLISH-L@rootsweb.com> > Sent: Monday, August 02, 2004 4:20 AM > Subject: [OEL] Rhyming slang > > > > When I go to London- about once every 20 years on average- one thing I > miss > > is Cockney rhyming slang. It was more than a local underworld cant to > fool > > cops and children; it had its own history; always changing. "Putting your > > dooks up" in a fist fight, for example. A "Duke (or Duchess) of Teck" was > a > > cheque; "Duke of York" meant to talk, to walk (later ball [of chalk]), or > a > > fork. With the counterpart "Duke of Fife" for knife. But things got > > confused; the latter could also be 'wife'. Ambiguous and sexually > > inappropriate, it soon changed to "Duchess of Fife". Thence, by 1880, > > shortened to "Dutch" (my old dutch). That in turn became "old Dutch > china", > > and "China".(Which was dear!).Helped - since a man's wife was his 'mate', > by > > china for pal or mate (china plate). So "Duke of Fife" was now exclusively > > knife. Often used not of table-knives, but transferred more to the hands > > that held them in the street. > > The fingers of which were suggestive of knives (Dukes/dooks/ Fifes/ bunch > of > > fives, i.e. 5 fingers) or forks (Yorks/ dooks again).To 'put up the dooks' > > was to engage in a fight; to grease the dooks meant to accept a bribe. > > An etymology as involved as this lies behind hundreds more rhyming slang > > words, origins now almost lost. > > > > John Barton > > > > > > > > ==== OLD-ENGLISH Mailing List ==== > > OLD-ENGLISH Web Page > > http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~oel/ > > >

It would seem that men may have been afraid of the processes of womankind. What do you think? Audrey ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sandra Lovegrove" <lovegrove@one-name.org> To: <OLD-ENGLISH-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Saturday, July 31, 2004 2:34 PM Subject: [OEL] Purification of women > <<I know we shouldn't judge the past with the eyes of the present, and > I > knew the thrust of this 'law' (and the Mikvah) but seeing it set out > in > detail does bring you up short. I wonder if there was a similar > ceremony for the man? Doubt it, somehow>> > > Still observed by the strictly orthodox observant who derive spiritual > uplift and personal integrity from following unbroken ancient > tradition (not the sacrificing of course, because that ceased with the > destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem, but the keeping apart and > ritual immersion). And no, it does not apply to men: they do not > menstruate or give birth. > > SANDRA LOVEGROVE > > Researching LOVEGROVEs in all places and at all times. > Please do visit the LOVEGROVE Information Centre on > http://www.lovegrove.org.uk > > > ==== OLD-ENGLISH Mailing List ==== > Going away for a while? > Don't forget to UNSUBSCRIBE! > OLD-ENGLISH-L-request@rootsweb.com > >

A book I'm reading contains references to "the Trained Bands" of the time of King Charles I. The book does not explain exactly what their functions were, or how they were distinguishable from the later county militias. "In time of peace [the armed forces of the realm] consisted only of the Trained Bands, but in any national emergency it lay with [the King] to raise and organise an army." The Trained Bands (always capitalised) participated as soldiery in the Civil War. Would some Lister kindly tell me what the terms of employment were for the Bands' members, and how they were chosen, and how well they were trained and by whom? Elsewhere I have been told that after 1660 the locally controlled (county?) militias were paid 8 pounds a year for "homeland defence" and law enforcement. But were they still called "Trained Bands"? 8 pounds seems a lot of money: is that figure correct? Gordon Barlow

<<I know we shouldn't judge the past with the eyes of the present, and I knew the thrust of this 'law' (and the Mikvah) but seeing it set out in detail does bring you up short. I wonder if there was a similar ceremony for the man? Doubt it, somehow>> Still observed by the strictly orthodox observant who derive spiritual uplift and personal integrity from following unbroken ancient tradition (not the sacrificing of course, because that ceased with the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem, but the keeping apart and ritual immersion). And no, it does not apply to men: they do not menstruate or give birth. SANDRA LOVEGROVE Researching LOVEGROVEs in all places and at all times. Please do visit the LOVEGROVE Information Centre on http://www.lovegrove.org.uk

On Wednesday, July 28, 2004, 10:24:47 AM, Sandra wrote: S> I have seen quite modern (mid-20th century) baptismal register S> entries recorded as conducted (for example) "by Mary Jones S> S.R.N." Sometimes this sort of entry has been matched by a S> burial entry "age 30 minutes" I was baptised by the ward sister in hospital in 1957 at 6 weeks old just before I underwent an operation that it was thought I may not survive, so the baptism was just in case! -- Cheers, Anne mailto:docwras@yahoo.co.uk

Although this message does not pertain specifically to midwives, it does follow on, in a way, from a couple of earlier replies mentioning the gentry. They of course could do pretty much as they pleased many years ago, especially if the individual happened to be the lord of the local manor and held the advowson for the parish as well. In my family there were 4 baptisms on one day in 1812. The children, all illegitimate but born of the same parents, were born variously from 1797 to 1800. The parents had married in 1802 and there were several born legitimate. The parish register records that the dates of birth were supplied by Mr B. (older brother of the father concerned) and the original surname recorded shows both the father and mothers surnames, ie double-barrelled. This was altered to show only the father's surname. The Mr B. was the advowson-holder and the lord of the manor. Apart from that, his wife (a widow when they married) was the mother of the children's mother. All lived in perfect harmony it would seem and I've always been perplexed as to why the couple delayed getting married for a number of years - money was not a problem as the woman was an heiress in her own right. Eve and I had some correspondence a few years ago on the possible reasons for the delay but no conclusion was reached. I bet the local gossips had a field day! John ---------------------------------------- My Inbox is protected by SPAMfighter 1508 spam mails have been blocked so far. Download free www.spamfighter.com today!

Hi all, A huge thank you to Eve for taking the time to answer my query re the passage in Nash. It is very much appreciated that you take the time to answer queries sent to the list by pillocks like myself. Pillocks being a new word I learnt on another list last week. I guess it's an English word used to describe people like me! I rather like the sound of it though. :-) Seriously you have answered any questions I may have had in a manner easily understood and I do thank you for your help. Your knowledge is invaluable. Regards, Rhonda Thompson, Sydney, Australia Eve McLaughlin wrote: >In message <410200C1.2060103@optushome.com.au>, Rhonda Thompson ><rhonda11555@optushome.com.au> writes > > >>Hi all, >> >>I have never posted to this list but do enjoy reading it. However, due >>to my total lack of Latin, except when it refers to BDMs, I hoped >>someone might be able to translate the following. It is from Nash: >>Collections for the History of Worcestershire: 1781-1782. >> >>This is the passage: >> >>The Lords of Acton Beauchamp have always been Patrons of the Rectory >> >> >The owners of the manor of Acton Beauchamp have always had the right to >nominate the rector of the parish (who would then be approved by the >Bishop (a rubber stamp affair) and duly instituted > > >>there are no arms nor monuments of note. >> >> >You woulkd rather expect there to be some fine tombs and armorial >brasses in the church, (or churchyard) but there is nothing that >matters, so presumably the Lords were generally non-resident. > > >>In the first column: >> >>Johannes Fyncher de Shelve ratione advocations Will Berkeley de >>Cotheridge, Nathaniel Brooke, cl. facte, et ei affignate. >> >> >John Fincher of Shelf, [prob]/ by advice or at suggestion of his lawyer >[advocationis] (or counsellor/trustee, maybe because he was under age) >Wm Berkeley of Cotheridge made (rector) Nathaniel Brooke and by his >assigns > > >>In the second column: >> >>Georgius Ffyncher, cl. 29 Maii, 1600 R.33.f.19.a >> >> >George Fincher, clergyman, on 29 May 1600 (rest of ref must apply to >this book or to another book as described in the list of abbreviations.) > > > > >

> >Leviticus 12 shows the Biblical origins of churching, and refers clearly to >the purification of women after childbirth. Here's the Revised Standard >Version. > "Say to the people of Israel, If a woman conceives, and bears a male >child, then she shall be unclean seven days; as at the time of her >menstruation, she shall be unclean. > 3 > And on the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised. > 4 > Then she shall continue for thirty-three days in the blood of her >purifying; she shall not touch any hallowed thing, nor come into the >sanctuary, until the days of her purifying are completed. > 5 > But if she bears a female child, then she shall be unclean two weeks, as >in her menstruation; and she shall continue in the blood of her purifying >for sixty-six days. > 6 > "And when the days of her purifying are completed, whether for a son or >for a daughter, she shall bring to the priest at the door of the tent of >meeting a lamb a year old for a burnt offering, and a young pigeon or a >turtledove for a sin offering , I know we shouldn't judge the past with the eyes of the present, and I knew the thrust of this 'law' (and the Mikvah) but seeing it set out in detail does bring you up short. I wonder if there was a similar ceremony for the man? Doubt it, somehow. > 7 > and he shall offer it before the LORD, and make atonement for her; -- Eve McLaughlin Author of the McLaughlin Guides for family historians Secretary Bucks Genealogical Society

I have seen quite modern (mid-20th century) baptismal register entries recorded as conducted (for example) "by Mary Jones S.R.N." Sometimes this sort of entry has been matched by a burial entry "age 30 minutes" etc. SANDRA LOVEGROVE Researching LOVEGROVEs in all places and at all times. Please do visit the LOVEGROVE Information Centre on http://www.lovegrove.org.uk

"CHURCHING OF WOMEN: A ceremony of thanksgiving for a safe delivery performed at the altar rails after the baptism of a child. Was grossly associated with superstition and believed (erroneously) to be a rite of purification. Unmarried mothers were not permitted to be Churched". So far as I know the ceremony has never been abolished, just in less demand these days. In holier days, much to the frustration of modern genealogists, dates of birth seem to have been regarded as an accident of conception /delivery, and thus of little interest legally or civilly. Baptism, on the other hand, was the real 'birth', and the preferred date to record in bibles. In the 16th and 17th century, with neonatal death already high, it must have been a hazardous affair; unheated churches, cold stone fonts, and (though the practice was becoming obsolete) sometimes total immersion in cold water. The date it was done therefore was important; too early, and you might kill the babe from pneumonia, too late and it might die with soul unsaved. A common compromise seems to have been seven days after birth. (I'd be much obliged if anyone can add to this line of discussion, confirming or refuting). Damnation was worse than death. Now William Shaksper, thought by some to be a candidate for the authorship of the ''Shakespeare" plays, was baptised on 26th april 1564. The world demands a birthdate, so they invented one - 23rd april. St. George's Day, and the same date he died. But there is no reason whatever why it shouldn't have been the more likely 19th april. In fact, there is a hint in one of the plays (Winters' Tale) that it was. But that's another story! I've always regretted the abolition in Victorian times of the Gunpowder Treason church service, Happy Restoration of Charles II, etc. John Barton ----- Original Message ----- From: "Gordon Barlow" <barlow@candw.ky> To: <OLD-ENGLISH-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Tuesday, July 27, 2004 5:59 PM Subject: [OEL] baptisms by midwives > Googling for details of the churching ("purification" - yes, really!) of women after childbirth*** I came across a report that in 17th-Century England - or maybe Britain - midwives had "quasi-clerical" authority to baptize newly born babies if they seemed about to die. Would such baptisms have been recorded in the Parish Registers? And, if the babies lived would they have been obliged to be baptized again in church? If there was no such obligation, and no other recording, that might explain why some baptisms are missing. Am I on the right track here? > > *** When was churching abolished in the civilised world, by the way? I seem to recall reading that the Orthodox Churches still observe the practice: could that be correct? Seems a bit primitive, in these days of (Western) respect for women. > > Gordon Barlow > > > ==== OLD-ENGLISH Mailing List ==== > OLD-ENGLISH Web Page > http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~oel/ > >

Hello Audrey The Celts arrived in England about 400 BC here is a good website for the chronology of England. http://www.stedmundsbury.gov.uk/sebc/visit/beginning-of-man.cfm#700bc http://www.stedmundsbury.gov.uk/sebc/visit/700bc-410ad.cfm regards Chris Bartlett

The following shows that some women, as in the case of my Brenchley ancestor, had strong views on this required ceremony. From the Archdeacon records...St Peter's, Sandwich, Kent. "Anne Brenchlie, the wife of Augustine Brenchlie, in the month of August 1596, came to the church at Wodensbergh to give God thanks for her safe delivery of childbirth, and being in the church and required by the minister to sit in the usual place appointed for the women to sit in such case, she utterly refused to do so, in contempt of that good time out of mind and evil example of all women there present, so as she resteth yet unchurched". Kristin Slater