George, Joy Bristow in her glossary states : stang/stong - rood of land or at http://www.unc.edu/~rowlett/units/dictS.html stang a traditional Welsh unit of land area generally equal to 3240 square yards, 0.6694 acre, or 0.2709 hectare Hope this helps, Best regards, Martyn GCH <gch@freedomnames.co.uk> wrote: Looking at an account of lands belonging to an ancestor dated c. 1580 I came accross a measuremnt of land of one acre and half a stonge. Does anyone know what a "Stonge" was and how many Stonges were in an acre? George ==== OLD-ENGLISH Mailing List ==== Going away for a while? Don't forget to UNSUBSCRIBE! OLD-ENGLISH-L-request@rootsweb.com

Looking at an account of lands belonging to an ancestor dated c. 1580 I came accross a measuremnt of land of one acre and half a stonge. Does anyone know what a "Stonge" was and how many Stonges were in an acre? George

"45. Examination of John Healey, servant to Lancelot Carnaby. Sicklmore said the rising in Warwickshire was for the Catholic cause, and bade Catholics pray for its success, and not be faint-hearted. Particulars of private masses in Northumberland and Lincolnshire, and of the priests who celebrated them. April 26.46. John Healey to Lord ______, Sicklemore had half persudaded him to murder the Earl of Salisbury, because he said the papists should not prevail, as long as he lived. April? 47. Same to Lord [Salisbury] Discloses all he knows relative to the proceedings of recusants, Holtby, Sicklemore, Rich. Fulwood and several others, priests. Discovers their mode of conveying letters and passengers beyond seas." "Dean James to Salisbury. Arrest and examinations of John Sicklmore, alias Ward, a priest; curous specimens ofhis equivocation. Salisbury's Exposure of Equivocatons is greedily read. William Tailbois, Percy's man, indicted for murder of Roger Smith." The year of the above is 1606. Thus, my question regarding priests vs. parsons. The Sicklemores using the Ratcliffe alias and vice versa. This practice continued in Virginia in the early 1600's. Appreciate your definitions of the differences among church functionaries. Gary

Hello, I wonder which men, and where were they listed? Generally speaking, a priest is person who offers a sacrifice, so it is usually in churches which believe that the Holy Communion service is a repeat of Christ's sacrifice on the cross that the minister is referred to as a "priest". So in Roman Catholic churches, the clergyman is called a priest. "Parson", strictly speaking, is an Anglican (Church of England) term meaning the incumbent of a benefice in a parish. He is called parson (from the Latin "persona ecclesiae") because he represents the Church for various purposes. Nowadays some Anglican churches (sometimes referred to as "Anglo-Catholic" or "High Church") do refer to their clergymen as "priests". Anyway, without knowing more of the context, it would be difficult to be certain what difference was meant in the particular list you refer to. "Priest" and "parson" are not the only words you may find used to describe ministers of churches. Others include: vicar, rector, pastor, elder, presbyter. I don't know if that helps answer the question - I hope so. David Lamb (Paignton, Devon, UK) ----- Original Message ----- From: <GaryIvoDe@aol.com> To: <OLD-ENGLISH-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Monday, April 12, 2004 9:58 AM Subject: PRIEST or PARSON? > About 1579 some men were listed as priests and some as parsons. > Does anyone know if there was a great difference between the two? > > Gary >

In message <102.426a13b5.2dabb423@aol.com>, GaryIvoDe@aol.com writes >About 1579 some men were listed as priests and some as parsons. >Does anyone know if there was a great difference between the two? A parson (person) should be the clergyman in charge of a parish. A priest is a general term for anyone in Holy Orders, who might be a private chaplain or a cathedral clergyman etc,.] 'Priest' also means a Catholic priest, but those would be keeping their heads down pretty carefully in 1578, unless they wished to be arrested and imprisoned, since Catholicism was illegal -- Eve McLaughlin Author of the McLaughlin Guides for family historians Secretary Bucks Genealogical Society

Just what I was hoping for, Eve. Many thanks, Gary A parson (person) should be the clergyman in charge of a parish. A priest is a general term for anyone in Holy Orders, who might be a private chaplain or a cathedral clergyman etc,.] 'Priest' also means a Catholic priest, but those would be keeping their heads down pretty carefully in 1578, unless they wished to be arrested and imprisoned, since Catholicism was illegal

Hi Steve The document reads: for gutoring in the park maddows three hundred and forty 6 Rudes - £1 8s 10d for gutoring in the Blithe medous three hundred and twenty 5 Rudes - £1 7s 1d A "gut" is a small stream or an underground drain for water and a "rude" would be a "rod" which was five and a half yards or 16½ feet So this is a payment for drainage work. If they were water meadows, it may well be that surface "gutters" were what is intended here, as underground drainage would also involve the cost of the tiles. Looks like you have some very interesting documents there! Kind regards Polly

Eve: > I haven't looked at the original - but a rood is a square measure, a > quarter of an acre which doesn't fit in with guttering, which would be > lineal measure. 356 roods would be almost 90 acres.Even if the word > intended is rod, of which 40 make up a rood, it is still square measure > and around 20+ acres. If I remember my school mathematics, a rod is the same as a pole or perch and is a linear measurement of 5.5 yards, or a quarter of a chain. I believe that in some parts of the UK it can also be a square measure, but not universally. Best wishes Paul Prescott --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.634 / Virus Database: 406 - Release Date: 18-03-2004

I too think it is Rudes, as in the measurement. I also think it is gutering (guttering) and not qutoring. Cheers, Liz in Melbourne Quoting "Charles.Russell" <charles.russell@ntlworld.com>: > Could the word be "rudes" as in "roods", the unit of measure, rather than > ruck? > > Charles > > -----Original Message----- > From: Steve Baggaley [mailto:s.baggaley@tesco.net] > Sent: 11 April 2004 14:27 > To: OLD-ENGLISH-L@rootsweb.com > Subject: [OEL] Bill for farm work, 1749, North Staffordshire > > > Dear Listers, > > This is my first posting to the list. I have recently acquired a box of 18c > documents which are directly related to the parish genealogy and local > history study. I think > I can read most of the handwriting but some of it needs a more expert eye. > Please could I ask for opinions on the last four lines. I think it states - > `for qutoring in the park maddows three hundred and forty 6 Rukes. for > qutoring in the Blythe medows three hundred and twenty five Rukes`. The > present day word `Ruck` is commonly used locally to describe a pile or stack > of hay. > > http://www.caverswall.org.uk/document_transcriptions > > Thanks, > > Steve Baggaley

About 1579 some men were listed as priests and some as parsons. Does anyone know if there was a great difference between the two? Gary

In message <1081719408.4079ba703dd2e@webmail.hotkey.net.au>, emagar@hotkey.net.au writes >I too think it is Rudes, as in the measurement. I also think it is gutering >(guttering) and not qutoring. I haven't looked at the original - but a rood is a square measure, a quarter of an acre which doesn't fit in with guttering, which would be lineal measure. 356 roods would be almost 90 acres.Even if the word intended is rod, of which 40 make up a rood, it is still square measure and around 20+ acres. I could see drainpipes in a meadow, but guttering is normally round a building not in a meadow./ An alternative could have been quartering, meaning possible the provision of hay for soldiers' horses and bedding, in a camp. However, though this would make a lot of sense in 1745, when soldiers were on the move all over, by 1749 there would have been much less of this. If the word ruck is used for the more normal cock or stook, then this is a possibility iof the militia or army habitually went on manoeuvres here. I will try to get around to looking at the actual document. -- Eve McLaughlin Author of the McLaughlin Guides for family historians Secretary Bucks Genealogical Society

Could the word be "rudes" as in "roods", the unit of measure, rather than ruck? Charles -----Original Message----- From: Steve Baggaley [mailto:s.baggaley@tesco.net] Sent: 11 April 2004 14:27 To: OLD-ENGLISH-L@rootsweb.com Subject: [OEL] Bill for farm work, 1749, North Staffordshire Dear Listers, This is my first posting to the list. I have recently acquired a box of 18c documents which are directly related to the parish genealogy and local history study. I think I can read most of the handwriting but some of it needs a more expert eye. Please could I ask for opinions on the last four lines. I think it states - `for qutoring in the park maddows three hundred and forty 6 Rukes. for qutoring in the Blythe medows three hundred and twenty five Rukes`. The present day word `Ruck` is commonly used locally to describe a pile or stack of hay. http://www.caverswall.org.uk/document_transcriptions Thanks, Steve Baggaley ==== OLD-ENGLISH Mailing List ==== OLD-ENGLISH Web Page http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~oel/

Hi Steve - Ricks in Somerset & Dorset, after Hayricks! Devon & Cornwall also I reckon. The word "qutoring" may be a spelling of guttering? This fits with the other items of thatching and is possibly the small trenches dug around the ricks to drain away the rain water, in the same fashion that campers do (or should do) when setting up their tents. Kind Regards and a Happy Easter June & Roy http://www.btinternet.com/~roy.cox/index.htm -----Original Message----- From: Steve Baggaley [mailto:s.baggaley@tesco.net] Sent: Sunday, April 11, 2004 2:27 PM To: OLD-ENGLISH-L@rootsweb.com Subject: [OEL] Bill for farm work, 1749, North Staffordshire Dear Listers, This is my first posting to the list. I have recently acquired a box of 18c documents which are directly related to the parish genealogy and local history study. I think I can read most of the handwriting but some of it needs a more expert eye. Please could I ask for opinions on the last four lines. I think it states - `for qutoring in the park maddows three hundred and forty 6 Rukes. for qutoring in the Blythe medows three hundred and twenty five Rukes`. The present day word `Ruck` is commonly used locally to describe a pile or stack of hay. http://www.caverswall.org.uk/document_transcriptions Thanks, Steve Baggaley ==== OLD-ENGLISH Mailing List ==== OLD-ENGLISH Web Page http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~oel/

Dear Listers, This is my first posting to the list. I have recently acquired a box of 18c documents which are directly related to the parish genealogy and local history study. I think I can read most of the handwriting but some of it needs a more expert eye. Please could I ask for opinions on the last four lines. I think it states - `for qutoring in the park maddows three hundred and forty 6 Rukes. for qutoring in the Blythe medows three hundred and twenty five Rukes`. The present day word `Ruck` is commonly used locally to describe a pile or stack of hay. http://www.caverswall.org.uk/document_transcriptions Thanks, Steve Baggaley

Without actually looking at the script, can I make a suggestion? If the document were written in Latin, the phrase would probably be 'post proxime' which means next after, or even easier, after next. In other words after the next feast of St. Barnabas the apostle. Is it possible that the writer is combining the two languages here and leaving those who are very conversant with the Latin phraseology to understand the meaning of the ommission. Audrey ----- Original Message ----- From: Steve Cadd To: norman.lee1 ; OLD-ENGLISH-L@rootsweb.com Sent: Friday, April 09, 2004 7:15 PM Subject: Re: [OEL] Will of John Cadde of Herefordshire I have had the same problem. The transcription wasn't too difficult but finding the place is, which is why I thought I had made a mistake and transcribed incorrectly. However, many thanks too all those that have contributed to my request. If I may I would like to ask another question. What do people think is the best way to transcribe words that have run together. In this will there is a line which states: "To be payde at St Barnabye thâppostle next". This is a letter for letter transcription where the circumflex represents a mark above and between the 'a' and 'p' and a lazy and stretched apostophe shape. My question is how do I transcribe this? Steve Cadd,

>"To be payde at St Barnabye thâppostle next". > >This is a letter for letter transcription The convention is to separate the words th'apostle th'elder etc -- Eve McLaughlin Author of the McLaughlin Guides for family historians Secretary Bucks Genealogical Society

In message <1081341447.4073f6074512e@webmail.hotkey.net.au>, emagar@hotkey.net.au writes >Wouldn't a hotel-broker therefore be someone who matches up buyers and >sellers of the hotels themselves rather than their contents? This would be the normal meaning of the words - though it is an unusual and rather limited occupation for the C19. Only in London would there be any chance of making an income from such a specialisayion (and you would think it must include other licensed premises) -- Eve McLaughlin Author of the McLaughlin Guides for family historians Secretary Bucks Genealogical Society

Steve, Lyn: Different organisations use different ways of showing the expanded forms of words contracted in original documents, but in my experience it is normal to indicate letters added by the transcriber by placing them in brackets. These are often angled as in "th<e> apostle" or simple as in "th(e) apostle". Square brackets [ ] are usually reserved for transcriber's comments. One reason for indicating even obvious extensions is that what is obvious to one person may not be to another. For example even "thapostle" might, depending on the context, be "th<e> apostle". "th<is> apostle", th<at> apostle", etc. But the main reason is that any transcription should be as faithful to the original as possible. Best wishes Paul Prescott ----- Original Message ----- From: "Lyn Boothman" <annys@boothman27.fsnet.co.uk> To: <OLD-ENGLISH-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Friday, April 09, 2004 9:14 PM Subject: RE: [OEL] Will of John Cadde of Herefordshire > Steve > The line above thapostle is to show you that there is something missing. > What you show depends what you are transcribing for. If you need an > absolutely accurate transcription you might do th[e] apostle or the > apostle with the e of the underlined (can't make my IE do that at the > moment) but if you want to make it as readable as possible, and there is > no doubt about the missing letter/s, you can just transcribe it as the > apostle without showing that it was abbreviated. I am doing a > publication for Suffolk Record Society and their guide says 'obvious > abbreviations should be abbreviated without comment'. > > Of course if there is an abbreviation where there are several > possibilities and you are opting for one of them, then you need to show > that. > > Lyn B > > > > > ==== OLD-ENGLISH Mailing List ==== > Going away for a while? > Don't forget to UNSUBSCRIBE! > OLD-ENGLISH-L-request@rootsweb.com > --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.634 / Virus Database: 406 - Release Date: 18-03-2004

Steve The line above thapostle is to show you that there is something missing. What you show depends what you are transcribing for. If you need an absolutely accurate transcription you might do th[e] apostle or the apostle with the e of the underlined (can't make my IE do that at the moment) but if you want to make it as readable as possible, and there is no doubt about the missing letter/s, you can just transcribe it as the apostle without showing that it was abbreviated. I am doing a publication for Suffolk Record Society and their guide says 'obvious abbreviations should be abbreviated without comment'. Of course if there is an abbreviation where there are several possibilities and you are opting for one of them, then you need to show that. Lyn B

I have had the same problem. The transcription wasn't too difficult but finding the place is, which is why I thought I had made a mistake and transcribed incorrectly. However, many thanks too all those that have contributed to my request. If I may I would like to ask another question. What do people think is the best way to transcribe words that have run together. In this will there is a line which states: "To be payde at St Barnabye thâppostle next". This is a letter for letter transcription where the circumflex represents a mark above and between the 'a' and 'p' and a lazy and stretched apostophe shape. My question is how do I transcribe this? Steve Cadd,