This came across from another list and thought it contained info we could all use. ~gina~ Last week I noted the following entries in the "History and Antiquities of the County of Dorset."  The three entries are found together in Vol. II, on p. 805 and are placed in an isolated listing with the title "The Register of Marriages begins 1539."  These are transcripts from the Piddlehinton, Dorset marriage register.  The entries are: Mr. Robert Swain and Mrs. Eleanor Churchill . . .  1656 Mr. Henry Churchill and Mrs. Hannah Galler  . . .  1661 Mr. Henry Churchill and Mrs. Elizabeth Cheek . . . 1682 I have seen the Henry and Galler/Cheek marriages from other sources but without the use of Mr. for Henry.  I had always assumed that the use of Mrs. simply indicated that Henry had married widows.  However, I knew that this Eleanor Churchill was unmarried, so the use of Mistress for Eleanor could not be an indicator of her marital status. After a bit of research and confirming queries from individuals knowledgeable on the subject, I discovered the true meaning of the above entries.  So others don't jump to the same conclusions I initially made, here is the meaning of the entries. In the 17th and 18th century Mrs. (a contraction of Mistress) was a prefix used ONLY for unmarried ladies or girls.  It was equivalent to the modern use of MISS but was applied only to gentlewomen, that is to say women of gentry class. The Oxford dictionary says about the use of Mrs: " . . . Originally distinctive of a gentlewomen, the use of the prefix has gradually extended downwards; at the present time, every married woman who has no superior title is styled 'Mrs.' even though her husband is of so humble a position as not ordinarily to be referred to as 'Mr.'. . . " The use of Mr. indicates gentry status for the men.  Mr places them at the social level immediately below a titled individual and generally tells you they were not titled -- but I understand that Mr could be applied to a knight. The consensus from my queries is that John Hutchins, the author of the "History and Antiquities of the County of Dorset" extracted the above three marriage entries and placed them in an isolated grouping simply to emphasize that the families were prominent.  A distinction that escapes us today. The actual individual parish marriage entries would have been written over time by (probably) the rector(s).  In their use of Mr. and Mrs. the rectors were saying about each couple that they were of gentry class and that the women were never previously married.  This intended information about the martial status of the women is in stark contrast to our modern interpretation which is that all three women were previously married. Good hunting, Bill Churchill Greenville, Texas, USA