Thanks alot for your help Gus and Bill . Im new to this but learning quick thanks to your help. I was a bit out with my boundaries whilst looking for a death of william Knight it seems. The fact of the matter is I am hoping to find some proof that William Knight the Baker in 41 and 51 census did in fact do a runner on his wife Rebbeca. My gt gt Grandfather Wm Knight a Master Baker came to Australia in the 1860 goldrush. I cant find anybody that fits the slot as it were.Im probably clutching at straws ha but > From: [email protected] > Subject: WARWICK Digest, Vol 5, Issue 154 > To: [email protected] > Date: Mon, 26 Jul 2010 01:01:34 -0600 > > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. William knight (russel knight) > 2. tr: Re: Latin 101 (ramaix) > 3. Re: William knight (Bill Churchill) > 4. Re: William knight (Gus Tysoe) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Sun, 25 Jul 2010 22:00:49 +1200 > From: russel knight <[email protected]> > Subject: [WAR] William knight > To: <[email protected]> > Message-ID: <[email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > > > Oh dear I may need to think again. I guess my only chance is to get the certificate with my fingers crossed. If William Knight had run away and left Rebecca Knight she could have remarried but how would you check this out do you think and Id like to thank you for your response too very nice.Regards Russel Knight > _________________________________________________________________ > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Sun, 25 Jul 2010 14:12:42 +0200 (CEST) > From: ramaix <[email protected]> > Subject: [WAR] tr: Re: Latin 101 > To: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected] > Message-ID: <[email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 > > > Am resending attached message as ithas come back undelivered, blocked by spamcop. This happens periodically to messages from Orange. I am not sending spam, but it's possible someone else has hijacked my address for the purpose. Hope this one will get through. > > MAR in France. > > > > > > Message du 25/07/10 07:42 > > De : "ramaix" > > A : > > Copie ? : > > Objet : Re: [WAR] Latin 101 > > > > Sorry to correct you, but shouldn't "baptizavi Mariam Reed" be translated "baptized Mary (or just possibly Maria) Reed", as it is a direct object, not a nominative? Lots of Mariams in places like Mali, but that's not Latin! > > On Wendy's query, I have seen this distinction too and assumed that children recorded as born (natus/nata) in the parish rather than baptized were either baptized in another parish (mother's parish for instance) or did not live long enough to be baptized > > It may be interesting to note that in earlier times mothers did not attend baptisms. They took place very soon after birth when the woman would still be considered unclean. This is why very often only the father's name is given. Where the child was born out of wedlock, the mother often brought the child to be baptized surreptiously, for instance at a very early or very late hour. Not only was she physically unclean if it was soon after the child's birth, but of course she had also committed a sin. > > MAR in France. > > > > > > > Message du 25/07/10 03:18 > > De : [email protected] > > A : [email protected] > > Copie ? : > > Objet : Re: [WAR] Latin 101 > > > > > > Wendy: I am in the United States and have recently gone through Catholic > > registers of births, deaths, marriages written by 19th century Irish and > > German Catholic priests. For what it is worth, an example: > > Die 10 julii baptizavi Mariam Reed, filiam Guiliel Reed et Juliae Reed, > > natae Walsh, natum die 18th Junii 1886. I translated: The 10th of July I > > baptized Mariam Reed, daughter of William Reed and Julia Reed, born Walsh > > (referring to the mother), born on the 18th of June 1886 (referring to the > > child). > > I found these priests to be semiliterate and with lousy handwriting. > > Don't envy your task. Best, Cynthia in California > > > > > > In a message dated 7/24/2010 5:06:16 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, > > [email protected] writes: > > > > Thank you Ann > > > > It's a possiblity but he usually adds spuria / us > > and gives the mother's name. > > A few entries he has written the reputed father's name as well. > > > > I might play safe and add the latin to the notes. > > > > all the best > > Wendy > > > > > > Hi Wendy, > > I did not do well in Latin either, but an wondering if the > > "nata/natus" would be the natural born (illigitimate) child of ....... > > Congratulations on "having a go" and attempting this very difficult > > task. We will very appreciate your work when it is completed. > > Thank you, Wendy Anne > > > > WABoland wrote: > > > Hello Searchers. > > > I am transcribing an early parish register - which is in latin- > > > and having failed Latin 101, I need some help please from some-one who > > knows latin as written in the parish registers of the 16th Century. > > > > > > Baptisms > > > The clerk records baptizavi filia/us for some entries > > > and gives the father's name (no women's names recorded) > > > for other entries (often on the same page so it's the sma eperson > > writing ) > > > he records > > > nata/us then gives what I assume is the father's name. > > > I translate these as > > > I have baptised - ..... the daughter/ son of ....... and > > > ... born of ....... > > > > > > > > List archives are at > > http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/index/WARWICK > > ------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > > [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and > > the body of the message > > > > List archives are at http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/index/WARWICK > > ------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 3 > Date: Sun, 25 Jul 2010 14:09:47 -0500 > From: "Bill Churchill" <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [WAR] William knight > To: <[email protected]> > Message-ID: <[email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > > From: russel knight <[email protected]> > Subject: [WAR] William Knight > Date: Sat, 24 Jul 2010 23:16:49 +1200 > > Hello is there anyone in the position to look up parish register for the > death of a William Knight who died in 1853 in March at Coleshill, > Warwickshire. I need to know if his wife was called Rebbeca? > > This man was married in 1851 to a Rebecca Knight but he disappeared by 1861 > and Rebecca had remarried. I'm wondering if he died . Thanks from New > Zealand. Rgards Russel Knight > > I guess my only chance is to get the certificate with my fingers crossed. If > William Knight had run away and left Rebecca Knight she could have > remarried? > > > > Russel, She could not have legally remarried unless the 1853 William Knight > died. > > For all practical purposes there was no devoice in England until the reforms > of the early 20th Century. If Rebecca married a William Knight in 1851, > then married a William Knight in 1861 there were two William Knights and the > first William had died. > > Bill. > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 4 > Date: Mon, 26 Jul 2010 07:38:20 +0100 > From: "Gus Tysoe" <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [WAR] William knight > To: <[email protected]> > Message-ID: <[email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; > reply-type=original > > Hello again, Russel, > > I take it that your information about William in 1851 comes from the > Census - and unfortunately from a very poorly-written page :-( > > 1851 Census - [HO107/2063/116/83] - Coleshill, WAR > William Knight, Head, M, 37, M, Baker, WOR, Offenham > Rebben** Knight, Wife, M, 35, F, [Do??], HEF[?], [H????] > Elizabeth Knight, Dau, U, 15, F, Scholar, WAR, [prob Coleshill] > William Knight, Son, 12, M, Scholar, WAR, [prob Coleshill] > Joseph Knight, Son, 10, M, Scholar, WAR, [prob Coleshill] > Rebbams** Knight, Dau, -, 8, F, Scholar, WAR, [prob Coleshill] > Mary E Knight, Dau, -, 6, F, Scholar, WAR, [prob Coleshill] > Benjamin Knight, Son, -, 3, M, Scholar, WAR, [prob Coleshill] > Thomas Knight, Son, -, 11 Mo, M, -, WAR, [prob Coleshill] > ** Both look likely to be "Rebbeca"; but the mother's stated birthplace > doesn't match [for 'shape'] any known Parish in Herefordshire.... > > Because of the uncertainties, it seemed advisable to see what the 1841 had > to offer - which proved much more helpful than usual... > > 1841 Census - HO107/1128-1/40, p2 - High St, Coleshill, WAR > William KNIGHT, 25, M, Baker, N > Rebecca KNIGHT, 20, F, -, N > Sarah KNIGHT, 6, F, -, N > Elizabeth KNIGHT, 4, F, -, Y > Jas [or Jos] KNIGHT, 6m, M, -, Y > [Ages of those over 15 were rounded-down to the next-lower multiple of 5; > 'N' = Not born in WAR] > > So his wife *was* named Rebecca, so your next task should be to find her > maiden name by buying the birth certificate of one of their children. > Benjamin has the least-common forename, so should be readily-findable using > FreeBMD. [Colehill was in Meriden Registration District.] > With the names of both parties known, it *should* be reasonably simple to > find their marriage on FamilySearch - and on the face of it looks very > probably to've been between (roughly) 1833 & 1836. > > It's clear from your initial posting that you'd found "a" Rebecca of a > different surname in the 1861- it'd've been a big help had you given the > surname - but it looks to be this: > > 1861Census - RG9/2188/66/69 - [Probably High St], Coleshill, WAR > Thomas BEDWARD, Head, M, 35, M, Licenced Beerseller & Painter, Hereford > Rebecca BEDWARD, Wife, M, 43, F, -, HEF, Hureland*** > Benjamin KNIGHT, Son, U, 13, M, Scholar, WAR, Coleshill > Thomas KNIGHT, Son, U, 10, M, Scholar, WAR, Coleshill > Charles DAVIS, Neph, U, 25, M, Wheelwright, RAD, Tillen[?] > *** "Hureland" matches the 'shape' of the 1851 birthplace - but doesn't > appear on Google Maps...... But she'd seem to be consistent in her belief. > > It would also be simple to find any marriage of a Thomas BEDWARD and a > Rebecca KNIGHT [or her original maiden name] using FreeBMD. The certificate > should also give her marital status - presumably 'widow', but marriage > certs often include lies....... > > For this marriage to have been legal, Thomas KNIGHT would've had either to > die or to've been "presumed dead" at an inquest. [Divorce at that time > would've been out of the question for 'ordinary' folk.] > > Which brings the question full circle.... Why do you believe William mght > have died in "March 1853"? Of the 20 "William KNIGHTs" whose deaths are > included on FreeBMD as being registered in that Quarter, only one was in > WAR - in Coventry District, which doesn't include Coleshill. Of course, he > *could* have died "away from home" [for deaths are registered in the > District where they occurred, and *NOT* where the deceased was normally > resident] but I would suggest searching FreeBMD for William KNIGHTs dying in > Meriden District. He would *seem* to've died in Sep Q 1856 - with a lesser > possibility of Dec Q 1858. > > Yet again, it's "Buy the Certificate" time if you really want to know what > happened..... > > Gus > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "russel knight" <[email protected]> > To: <[email protected]> > Sent: Sunday, July 25, 2010 11:00 AM > Subject: [WAR] William knight > > > > > > Oh dear I may need to think again. I guess my only chance is to get the > > certificate with my fingers crossed. If William Knight had run away and > > left Rebecca Knight she could have remarried but how would you check this > > out do you think and Id like to thank you for your response too very > > nice.Regards Russel Knight > > _________________________________________________________________ > > > > List archives are at > > http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/index/WARWICK > > ------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > > [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > > quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > > > ------------------------------ > > To contact the WARWICK list administrator, send an email to > [email protected] > > To post a message to the WARWICK mailing list, send an email to [email protected] > > __________________________________________________________ > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] > with the word "unsubscribe" without the quotes in the subject and the body of the > email with no additional text. > > > End of WARWICK Digest, Vol 5, Issue 154 > *************************************** _________________________________________________________________