<<I am intrigued to see that three Judsons are listed as archers in 1417 in the French expedition under the command of Humphrey, Duke of Gloucester. Judsons were my maternal ancesters whom I've traced in Cheshire back to the 16th century. Was Cheshire known for providing archers in the 15th. century?>> Yes, it certainly was! Most books on English archers, or armies generally, during the Hundred Years War will comment on it, but most will give their source as P. Morgan, 'War and Society in Medieval Cheshire, 1277-1403' (Manchester, 1987). <<Is there a possibility that these archers would have been at Agincourt in 1415?>> It must be possible, as the duke of Gloucester was present at the battle. The indenture listing the men under his command at the start of the campaign is in the PRO, reference E 101/45/13, but I believe there's a printed version of it in a list of all the men-at-arms and archers in the entire army in an appendix to Anne Curry's 'Agincourt: a New History' (the 2005 hardback edition, not the 2006 paperback). Matt Tompkins

I am intrigued to see that three Judsons are listed as archers in 1417 in the French expedition under the command of Humphrey, Duke of Gloucester. Judsons were my maternal ancesters whom I've traced in Cheshire back to the 16th century. Was Cheshire known for providing archers in the 15th. century? Is there a possibility that these archers would have been at Agincourt in 1415? I'd be grateful for any comments. Don Tomkinson

I am intrigued to see that three Judsons are listed as archers in 1417 in the French expedition under the command of Humphrey, Duke of Gloucester. Judsons were my maternal ancesters whom I've traced in Cheshire back to the 16th century. Was Cheshire known for providing archers in the 15th. century? Is there a possibility that these archers would have been at Agincourt in 1415? I'd be grateful for any comments. Don Tomkinson

Many thanks for this link Keith - very-very useful, wish I could get to Southampton University as it is about 20 minutes drive!!! Regards Roy -----Original Message----- From: old-english-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:old-english-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Keith Griffiths Sent: 22 July 2009 06:07 To: Old English mailing list Subject: [!! SPAM] [OEL] Later medieval soldiers database - find an ancestor Go to: http://www.icmacentre.ac.uk/soldier/database/index.php and click on Database. Input a surname, select surname (not first name) from the drop down menu and click search. Try the other two databases. ~~ Keith Griffiths Elmsted PS my thanks to Barbara, Eve, Jim, Nuala and Roy for their comments on Banns ==================================== WEB PAGE: http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~oel/ ARCHIVES: http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/index?list=OLD-ENGLISH ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to OLD-ENGLISH-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Go to: http://www.icmacentre.ac.uk/soldier/database/index.php and click on Database. Input a surname, select surname (not first name) from the drop down menu and click search. Try the other two databases. ~~ Keith Griffiths Elmsted PS my thanks to Barbara, Eve, Jim, Nuala and Roy for their comments on Banns

Firstly, thanks to Eve; I haven't a copy of the image but will make one next time I visit the archives and post it as you suggest. The placename possibility occurred to me but Jid is not a Dorset placename as far as my quite good knowledge goes and doesn't sound right either. Other placenames in the register are preceded by "of" eg "John Eyres of Rixon" and there are no "ofs" in either of the Jid entries so it's fairly clear that it's not a placename. Thanks for confirming that "2nd" wasn't in use. Next, thanks to Margaret (Margaret's suggestion:>>>>>>>Could it possibly be a sum of money - two pence? ij d would be usual format. You do sometimes get such sums in parish registers - payment to the clerk or for tolling the bell etc.<<<<<<<<) That's a good idea, but seems unlikely given that this baptism and this burial seem to be the only entries in the register with this, or with possible sums of money, indicated. Also, the entry is Jid rather than ijd. Thanks next to Paul: (Paul's suggestion: >>>>>>>Or a fine for not being buried in wool? <<<<<<<<) This wouldn't apply to the baptism, so another good idea which won't work I'm grateful to Margaret, Paul and the other kind listers (some of whom who have contacted me off list with their ideas) - so far none of the ideas seem to work though so the mystery remains. Thanks to all for sharing your experience and ingenuity, Robert

Interestingly enough, St. Peters, Wolverhampton was a very popular church for the marriages of Bromsgrove nailers and iron workers from Tipton. I don't know the reason for this but some of my ancestors married there. It was suggested to me that the vicar charged special rates for them, but I have no proof of this. Nuala ----- Original Message ----- From: "Keith Griffiths" <griffiths370@btinternet.com> To: "Old English mailing list" <OLD-ENGLISH@rootsweb.com> Sent: Monday, July 13, 2009 7:26 AM Subject: [OEL] Banns >I thought I'd catch up on researching on my own family rather than the >local > history of where I live in Kent. > > The banns of marriage were read in the parish of St Peters Church, > Wolverhampton on the Sundays of 18 Sep, 25 Sep and 2 Oct in 1757. > > It was between "Thomas Griffiths of this parish bachelor and Elizabeth > Aston > of the same spinster". > > The marriage was recorded as taking place at St Peters on 24 Oct 1757, she > a > spinster and he a bachelor. Witnesses, William Steventon and John Cartee. > > I note that the five entries on the banns page all say "of this parish" > for > both the male and female. > > And in the parish records for the marriage, a few entries say "both of > this > parish" or give the parish of where they are from. For Thomas and > Elizabeth > nothing is written. > > I don't have substantive evidence of their ages only that as a bachelor > and > spinster possibly that they were born in 1757 less the average age of > marriage. > > My questions are:: > > What does "of this parish" mean? > > What are the chances of Thomas Griffiths actually being born in St Peters > parish? > > I suspect the answer to the last question is how long is a piece of string > but any advice would be appreciated. > ~~ > Keith > Elmsted > > > > ==================================== > WEB PAGE: http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~oel/ > ARCHIVES: http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/index?list=OLD-ENGLISH > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > OLD-ENGLISH-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message >

> And in the parish records for the marriage, a few entries say "both of > this parish" Meaning they are currently residing in the parish - a few clergymen would actually check if they had been working there for a full year and so established a settlement right, and, if their residence was less, say 'sojourner' - but most wouldn't bother. r give the parish of where they are from. For Thomas and > Elizabeth nothing is written. Only if he was then asked to account for himself and give evidence of settlement would there be any further information (In Overseers' records of the parish, at local archives)> > I don't have substantive evidence of their ages only that as a > bachelor and spinster possibly that they were born in 1757 less the > average age of marriage. On the whole, the average age then was in the mid twenties - though his status and employment could make a difference. If he is in a craft trade, he would have been apprenticed and marriage under 21 was not normally allowed. Otherrwise, his financial status counts. If he was something like a nailer, he could have been making enough to marry earlier than if he was an ag lab, for example. > What are the chances of Thomas Griffiths actually being born in St > Peters parish? 50-50 -lot of people coming in (?from Wales) to join the boom in metal working in the Midlands. >

Hello Keith On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 7:26 AM, > What does "of this parish" mean? > > What are the chances of Thomas Griffiths actually being born in St Peters > parish? "OTP" often means very lttle. At the time of the banns being read you had to do little more than provide an address in the parish. This address, in populous urban parishes in particular could mean lttle more than you had left a bag there and probably paid the occupant for the privilege. Such claims to an address were not always, and in some cases even seldom, checked - there is an interesting and amusing court case (though later than 1757) where the task of checking residence was passed from vicar to curate to churchwarden to clerk to sexton and then to the pew-opener who found it all too much for her ! Though if in 1757 the parish was small and rural, as it probably was, then the chances of it having some meaning would have been quite high. But that meaning did not include the necessity of birth in the parish. Jim Halsey

Morning Keith "Of this Parish" means that he was living there at the time of the event as was his spouse Elizabeth. The chances of them having been born in that parish are very good, and a search of the birth registers will prove or disprove it. I usually take a persons age at marriage as being 18. This obviously may not correct, but I have found it to be as good an estimate as one can get. Cheers Roy -----Original Message----- From: old-english-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:old-english-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Keith Griffiths Sent: 13 July 2009 07:26 To: Old English mailing list Subject: [OEL] Banns I thought I'd catch up on researching on my own family rather than the local history of where I live in Kent. The banns of marriage were read in the parish of St Peters Church, Wolverhampton on the Sundays of 18 Sep, 25 Sep and 2 Oct in 1757. It was between "Thomas Griffiths of this parish bachelor and Elizabeth Aston of the same spinster". The marriage was recorded as taking place at St Peters on 24 Oct 1757, she a spinster and he a bachelor. Witnesses, William Steventon and John Cartee. I note that the five entries on the banns page all say "of this parish" for both the male and female. And in the parish records for the marriage, a few entries say "both of this parish" or give the parish of where they are from. For Thomas and Elizabeth nothing is written. I don't have substantive evidence of their ages only that as a bachelor and spinster possibly that they were born in 1757 less the average age of marriage. My questions are:: What does "of this parish" mean? What are the chances of Thomas Griffiths actually being born in St Peters parish? I suspect the answer to the last question is how long is a piece of string but any advice would be appreciated. ~~ Keith Elmsted ==================================== WEB PAGE: http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~oel/ ARCHIVES: http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/index?list=OLD-ENGLISH ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to OLD-ENGLISH-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

I thought I'd catch up on researching on my own family rather than the local history of where I live in Kent. The banns of marriage were read in the parish of St Peters Church, Wolverhampton on the Sundays of 18 Sep, 25 Sep and 2 Oct in 1757. It was between "Thomas Griffiths of this parish bachelor and Elizabeth Aston of the same spinster". The marriage was recorded as taking place at St Peters on 24 Oct 1757, she a spinster and he a bachelor. Witnesses, William Steventon and John Cartee. I note that the five entries on the banns page all say "of this parish" for both the male and female. And in the parish records for the marriage, a few entries say "both of this parish" or give the parish of where they are from. For Thomas and Elizabeth nothing is written. I don't have substantive evidence of their ages only that as a bachelor and spinster possibly that they were born in 1757 less the average age of marriage. My questions are:: What does "of this parish" mean? What are the chances of Thomas Griffiths actually being born in St Peters parish? I suspect the answer to the last question is how long is a piece of string but any advice would be appreciated. ~~ Keith Elmsted

Or a fine for not being buried in wool? That depends on the the date of this burial - I'm afraid I've lost track of the start of this thread. Paul ----- Original Message ----- From: <Willtranscribe@aol.com> To: <OLD-ENGLISH-admin@rootsweb.com>; <old-english@rootsweb.com> Sent: Sunday, July 12, 2009 9:36 PM Subject: Re: [OEL] Fw: Iid or Jid - Latin in Parish Register? > > Could it possibly be a sum of money - two pence? ij d would be usual > format. You do sometimes get such sums in parish registers - payment to > the > clerk or for tolling the bell etc. > > Best wishes, > Margaret. > > In a message dated 12/07/2009 16:36:54 GMT Daylight Time, > OLD-ENGLISH-admin@rootsweb.com writes: > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: <eve@varneys.org.uk> > To: "Robert Hillier" <robert@hillieruk.demon.co.uk>; > <old-english-bounces@rootsweb.com> > Sent: Sunday, July 12, 2009 7:43 AM > Subject: Re: [OEL] Iid or Jid - Latin in Parish Register? > > > |> I can give an update on my recent enquiry. Thanks to the archivist > at > | > the Dorset History Centre, who took the time to study the original > | > register, the mystery word/abbreviation I need help with is > definitely > | > Jid. He pointed out that if the full form were Latin, J could be > | > standing for capital I and so the mystery word could be Iid. > > > > > > ==================================== > WEB PAGE: http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~oel/ > ARCHIVES: http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/index?list=OLD-ENGLISH > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > OLD-ENGLISH-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message >

Could it possibly be a sum of money - two pence? ij d would be usual format. You do sometimes get such sums in parish registers - payment to the clerk or for tolling the bell etc. Best wishes, Margaret. In a message dated 12/07/2009 16:36:54 GMT Daylight Time, OLD-ENGLISH-admin@rootsweb.com writes: ----- Original Message ----- From: <eve@varneys.org.uk> To: "Robert Hillier" <robert@hillieruk.demon.co.uk>; <old-english-bounces@rootsweb.com> Sent: Sunday, July 12, 2009 7:43 AM Subject: Re: [OEL] Iid or Jid - Latin in Parish Register? |> I can give an update on my recent enquiry. Thanks to the archivist at | > the Dorset History Centre, who took the time to study the original | > register, the mystery word/abbreviation I need help with is definitely | > Jid. He pointed out that if the full form were Latin, J could be | > standing for capital I and so the mystery word could be Iid.

Hello listers ........ Am hoping someone can guide me in the interpretation of this Conditional from the Haddenham Manorial Records which I photographed at the Aylesbury Archives Sep 2008. I have tried to trim it down – hopefully without losing any of its meaning… I have no experience with this kind of document, but it would seem to me as if an Elizabeth Loosley lent Joseph Ricketts £100 23rd Apr 1872 which had to be repaid by 23rd Oct 1873 otherwise she effectively took over his premises. Is such a Conditional like a modern-day mortgage? I am assuming the reference to …. "the full sum of One thousand pounds with interest etc" is an error made by the clerk/scribe? It definitely says "thousand" in this case, but "hundred" elsewhere. The premises referred to [No 771] in this document were sold by Joseph Ricketts in 1911. Any help/suggestions much appreciated. Regards Pat in Western Australia Conditional …. on 23 April 1872 Elizabeth Loosley of Moreton (Oxford) …. delivered to the said Steward a certain Memorandum of Surrender … that since the last Court to wit on this same twenty third day of April one thousand eight hundred and seventy two Joseph Ricketts of Haddenham in the County of Buckingham Carpenter one of the Copyhold or customary Tenants of this Manor came before the said Steward and in consideration of the sum of one hundred pounds sterling to the said Joseph Ricketts in hand paid by the said Elizabeth Loosely Did out of Court in his own proper person surrender unto the hands of the Lord of the Manor by the hands and acceptance of the said Steward by the Rod according to the custom of the Manor ALL THAT customary or copyhold Messuage or Tenement with the outbuildings yard gardens and appurtenances thereunto belonging heretofore in the possession ….. … now converted and occupied in two Cottages or Tenements one of which is in the occupation of the said Joseph Ricketts and the other of Henry Cox together with the Orchard or Close adjoining to the said Cottages or Tenements which is now converted into and used as a garden ground and is in the occupation of the said Joseph Ricketts And which said Messuage Cottages Garden Orchard and premises are numbered 771 on the Plan annexed to the Haddenham Inclosure Award ... and premises the said Joseph Ricketts was admitted Tenant out of Court on the twenty sixth day of October one thousand eight hundred and fifty six on the surrender of Thomas Read and John Read Together with all and singular house outhouses buildings ... To the use of the said Elizabeth Loosely and her heirs according to the custom of this Manor SUBJECT nevertheless to and upon this express CONDITION that if the said Joseph Ricketts ... do or shall on or before the twenty third day of October now next ensuing pay or cause to be paid to the said Elizabeth Loosley …. the full sum of One thousand pounds with interest for the same at the rate of Five Pounds per centum per annum without any deduction or abatement whatsoever then the said Surrender was to be void and of no effect otherwise it was to be and remain in full force and virtue ... And it should be lawful for the said Elizabeth Loosley her heirs or assigns in case default should be made in payment of the said sum of one hundred pounds or the interest thereof or any part thereof respectively on the said twenty third day of October next without any further consent or concurrence of the said Joseph Ricketts his heirs or assigns absolutely to sell the said hereditaments ………….

The following is forwarded to the list; I have no idea why the message bounced. -Judith ----- Original Message ----- From: <eve@varneys.org.uk> To: "Robert Hillier" <robert@hillieruk.demon.co.uk>; <old-english-bounces@rootsweb.com> Sent: Sunday, July 12, 2009 7:43 AM Subject: Re: [OEL] Iid or Jid - Latin in Parish Register? |> I can give an update on my recent enquiry. Thanks to the archivist at | > the Dorset History Centre, who took the time to study the original | > register, the mystery word/abbreviation I need help with is definitely | > Jid. He pointed out that if the full form were Latin, J could be | > standing for capital I and so the mystery word could be Iid. | | That doesn't make sense at all - can you post a copy of the entry to | the appropriate site? | One possibility, which the archivist should have spotted, | is that it refers to a hamlet or other location in the parish. | Which parish? then we could investigate. | | | > It has occurred to me that it might stand for "second", ie | > "Christopher Eyers the 2nd" | Never used in England - apart from senr and junr, there does | sometimes occur | ygr for younger, partnered by Eld(er) and Eldest, where three | generations of the same family are alive at the same time. |

<<it would seem to me as if an Elizabeth Loosley lent Joseph Ricketts £100 23rd Apr 1872 which had to be repaid by 23rd Oct 1873 otherwise she effectively took over his premises. Is such a Conditional like a modern-day mortgage? I am assuming the reference to …. "the full sum of One thousand pounds with interest etc" is an error made by the clerk/scribe? It definitely says "thousand" in this case, but "hundred" elsewhere.>> You're correct on every point, Pat. It's a mortgage and the reference to a thousand pounds must be a copying error by the clerk. Matt ________________________________________ From: Pat Ricketts [pri48937@bigpond.net.au] Sent: 12 July 2009 05:44 To: OLD-ENGLISH@rootsweb.com Subject: [OEL] 1872 Conditional Hello listers ........ Am hoping someone can guide me in the interpretation of this Conditional from the Haddenham Manorial Records which I photographed at the Aylesbury Archives Sep 2008. I have tried to trim it down – hopefully without losing any of its meaning… I have no experience with this kind of document, but it would seem to me as if an Elizabeth Loosley lent Joseph Ricketts £100 23rd Apr 1872 which had to be repaid by 23rd Oct 1873 otherwise she effectively took over his premises. Is such a Conditional like a modern-day mortgage? I am assuming the reference to …. "the full sum of One thousand pounds with interest etc" is an error made by the clerk/scribe? It definitely says "thousand" in this case, but "hundred" elsewhere. The premises referred to [No 771] in this document were sold by Joseph Ricketts in 1911. Any help/suggestions much appreciated. Regards Pat in Western Australia Conditional …. on 23 April 1872 Elizabeth Loosley of Moreton (Oxford) …. delivered to the said Steward a certain Memorandum of Surrender … that since the last Court to wit on this same twenty third day of April one thousand eight hundred and seventy two Joseph Ricketts of Haddenham in the County of Buckingham Carpenter one of the Copyhold or customary Tenants of this Manor came before the said Steward and in consideration of the sum of one hundred pounds sterling to the said Joseph Ricketts in hand paid by the said Elizabeth Loosely Did out of Court in his own proper person surrender unto the hands of the Lord of the Manor by the hands and acceptance of the said Steward by the Rod according to the custom of the Manor ALL THAT customary or copyhold Messuage or Tenement with the outbuildings yard gardens and appurtenances thereunto belonging heretofore in the possession ….. … now converted and occupied in two Cottages or Tenements one of which is in the occupation of the said Joseph Ricketts and the other of Henry Cox together with the Orchard or Close adjoining to the said Cottages or Tenements which is now converted into and used as a garden ground and is in the occupation of the said Joseph Ricketts And which said Messuage Cottages Garden Orchard and premises are numbered 771 on the Plan annexed to the Haddenham Inclosure Award ... and premises the said Joseph Ricketts was admitted Tenant out of Court on the twenty sixth day of October one thousand eight hundred and fifty six on the surrender of Thomas Read and John Read Together with all and singular house outhouses buildings ... To the use of the said Elizabeth Loosely and her heirs according to the custom of this Manor SUBJECT nevertheless to and upon this express CONDITION that if the said Joseph Ricketts ... do or shall on or before the twenty third day of October now next ensuing pay or cause to be paid to the said Elizabeth Loosley …. the full sum of One thousand pounds with interest for the same at the rate of Five Pounds per centum per annum without any deduction or abatement whatsoever then the said Surrender was to be void and of no effect otherwise it was to be and remain in full force and virtue ... And it should be lawful for the said Elizabeth Loosley her heirs or assigns in case default should be made in payment of the said sum of one hundred pounds or the interest thereof or any part thereof respectively on the said twenty third day of October next without any further consent or concurrence of the said Joseph Ricketts his heirs or assigns absolutely to sell the said hereditaments ………….

Strange - I posted this nearly a week ago (last Saturday, the 4th), and although it has been visible in the archives ever since then, it took until yesterday (Friday the 10th) to re-appear via the List. Matt ________________________________________ From: old-english-bounces@rootsweb.com [old-english-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Tompkins, M.L.L. [mllt1@leicester.ac.uk] Sent: 04 July 2009 15:25 To: Old English mailing list Subject: Re: [OEL] Two inventories - are they for the same house or a different house <<... two inventories for a husband and then his wife who died a year later. Each heading has been given a number according to its position in the inventory. The heading numbers for Henry go down the page 1 - 13 but Mary's dodges around a bit where I have to tried to match them with Henry's. The question is do these inventories apply to the same house? They don't seem to but I'd be grateful for the views of others.>> I agree with Audrey, Keith - I'd say they're the same house. The widow's Chamber over the Parlour is probably what was called the Green Chamber in her husband's inventory, while the widow's first Buttery is probably the same as the husband's Larder. That leaves only the Beer Buttery and the Men's' Chamber as differences between the two inventories. The Beer Buttery, just a little office or outbuilding, is too small a difference to be significant - there were clearly other outbuildings which haven't been listed by name (and anyway the husband's Larder may have been a two-room affair equating to both of the widow's Butteries). The absence of the Men's' Chamber is a bit more odd, but perhaps it just didn't contain any of the widow's goods (maybe it contained nothing but male servants and their personal property, or some adult male who was running the farm for the widow, or maybe it was occupied by the nephew and heir Richard or some other relative - did the husband's will confer a right of habitation on anyone?). Incidentally, it was common to store wool and grain and minor agricultural implements in the first floor sleeping chambers of a house (note the reference to 'wheat in the house' in the widow's inventory), so it may well be that the first two or four items under 'Outdoors B from 12 above' in the husband's inventory were in fact stored in the Men's Chamber where they were listed (incidentally the Men's and Maidens' Chambers would probably have been where the male and female servants in husbandry slept). I think the items listed under the Hall in the husband's inventory, which you speculate ought to have belonged to the Kitchen, probably were in fact in the Hall. At that time the hall was often still the largest room in the house and was its main living and eating room. It was sometimes even still used for cooking. It looks as though in these inventories the word 'kitchen' described a brewhouse. It's interesting to see how the husband's inventory, made in the autumn, lists a great deal of grain and other harvested crops, but that the widow's inventory, made in the summer before the harvest, does not. Comparing these two inventories would be a useful exercise for students - may I download them and use them for that purpose, Keith? Matt Tompkins ==================================== WEB PAGE: http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~oel/ ARCHIVES: http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/index?list=OLD-ENGLISH ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to OLD-ENGLISH-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Yes, there have been gremlins afoot at RootsWeb. Hopefully, it's cleared up now or soon will be. That was an excellent reply. It seemed like the same house to me also but I couldn't explain all the discrepancies. cheers, Judith Werner Salt Lake City, Utah, USA Administrator, OLD-ENGLISH http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~oel/ ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tompkins, M.L.L." <mllt1@leicester.ac.uk> To: "Old English mailing list" <OLD-ENGLISH@rootsweb.com> Sent: Saturday, July 11, 2009 4:40 AM Subject: Re: [OEL] Two inventories - are they for the same house or a different house | Strange - I posted this nearly a week ago (last Saturday, the 4th), and although it has been visible in the archives ever since then, it took until yesterday (Friday the 10th) to re-appear via the List. | | Matt |

I can give an update on my recent enquiry. Thanks to the archivist at the Dorset History Centre, who took the time to study the original register, the mystery word/abbreviation I need help with is definitely Jid. He pointed out that if the full form were Latin, J could be standing for capital I and so the mystery word could be Iid. Can anyone suggest a plausible meaning, please? It has occurred to me that it might stand for "second", ie "Christopher Eyers the 2nd" but I've never come across this usage before, only ever senior/junior.and I can't see it elsewhere in the register, whereas "Sen" does appear for some men. Iidem apparently is sometimes abbreviated to iid but wouldn't make sense here, I think. Thanks in advance, Robert My original [edited] query follows: >>>>>>>In a Dorset baptismal record [ for Jane daughter of Christopher Eyers Jid] in a parish register in 1687, the father's name (Christopher Eyers) is followed by what I read a few weeks ago as Jid. Today I found the _father's_ burial record in 1701 - this time I read the word/abbreviation after his surname as Jid or fid (not Fid). No other entry that I've seen in this register has this word. It's not Sen or Jun (wrong shapes for the letters and I've also seen Sen elsewhere). The i and d seem quite clear - I'm not so sure of the J or possibly the f (it's not F, which is written as ff here). It's not a placename (no "of" before it, as occurs for other entries). Since this occurs in the burial record as well, it can't be one of the abbreviations ux etc which denotes "and of his wife" in the baptismal records. It's not Wid (which is used elsewhere for widows).............<<<<<<<<<

My thanks to Audrey and Matt for their comments on this topic which I have replied to off list. ~~ Keith ----- Original Message ----- From: <old-english-request@rootsweb.com> To: <old-english@rootsweb.com> Sent: Sunday, July 05, 2009 8:00 AM Subject: OLD-ENGLISH Digest, Vol 4, Issue 68 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ============= WEB PAGE: http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~oel/ ARCHIVES: http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/index?list=OLD-ENGLISH ============= -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Today's Topics: 1. Re: Fw: Executor who is a minor in 1719 will (A Lee) 2. Re: Two inventories - are they for the same house or a differenthouse (A Lee) 3. Re: Fw: Executor who is a minor in 1719 will (John Barton) 4. Re: Old documents (Willtranscribe@aol.com) 5. Fw: Old documents (OEL Admin) 6. Re: Two inventories - are they for the same house or a different house (Tompkins, M.L.L.) 7. Re: Common recovery (was: Old documents) (Tompkins, M.L.L.) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- To contact the OLD-ENGLISH list administrator, send an email to OLD-ENGLISH-admin@rootsweb.com. To post a message to the OLD-ENGLISH mailing list, send an email to OLD-ENGLISH@rootsweb.com. __________________________________________________________ To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to OLD-ENGLISH-request@rootsweb.com with the word "unsubscribe" without the quotes in the subject and the body of the email with no additional text.