RootsChat.Com
England (Counties as in 1851-1901) => England => Dorset => Topic started by: toby webb on Friday 13 October 17 17:08 BST (UK)
-
I would be pleased for opinions about her name. The impression is that Mary was originally written and that at some stage it has been overwritten 'Jane'. Or am I missing something else? Thanks, Toby.
-
It actually looks as if the Mary was written over the Jane, although all the evidence is that his wife was Jane (baptisms in 1687-93). As you will know, a settlement certificate of 1698 doesn't name his wife (only his four children); and she is called Elizabeth at William's baptisms in 1684 (unless Jane was William's second wife).
Richard
-
Thank you for your useful comments. It seems to me, however, that the original name was 'Mary' as it is written in the same bold hand that is seen in the rest of that entry. 'Jane' is quite different and unique. I think however, that 'Jane' is correct based on a Litton Cheney burial of 11 July 1695 - John s/o Wm. & Jane of Long Bredy.
Gill baptisms in 1684 are unknown to me at Litton Cheney.
Your comment about settlement certificates sounds interesting which are quite new to me. Where do I find more about them?
So far I have no evidence that William married twice. In fact Litton Cheney registers suggest he predeceased 2 Janes by a few years being buried on 30 Jan. 1725/6. Again the Long Bredy addition is most helpful. T
-
I assume you have these baptisms:
22.7.1684 Long Bredy William s William and Elizabeth GILL (an error by the vicar?)
21.5.1687 Long Bredy Sarah d William and Jane GILL
15.3.1691 Long Bredy David s William and Jane GILL
16.4.1693 Long Bredy John s William and Jane GILL
This says that William's place of legal settlement in 1698 is Longbredy:
http://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/9869f155-9871-4d3c-9af7-1f14321da132
It talks about his children (William, David, John and Sarah) but not his wife.
Richard
-
I think you are probably correct with your Elizabeth in 1684.
Ancestry have 1693 wong for John Gill's baptism. Should be 1695.
-
I managed to get to Dorchester and am busy transcribing the deed. Several words & particularly abreviations are foxing me however. Attached is an example from this 1697 document. Can I assume that the wording was not locally invented and that somewhere I might find something pretty well identical to help me? Any advice would be much appreciated. Thanks.Toby.
-
Yes, this appears to be fairly standard (and, of course, you have to take the non-standard spelling into consideration as well as the writing! - you have an 'againe' on the bit you show).
1697 is right at the end of Secretary Hand, but this might help you:
https://www.english.cam.ac.uk/ceres/ehoc/alphabets.html
Post the hard bits if you want help.
Richard
-
If this extract is part of a settlement document, I believe it should be read ...
... shall & will receive him or them
againe into o(ur) s(ai)d parish to be e(xamine)d
The sense of these documents is fairly standard, but the exact wording at this relatively early date might vary from parish to parish.
-
I should like to take you up on your offer Richard. There are 3 bits that are particularly troublesome which I will send one after the other. Hope they are not too much out of context to make it even more difficult for you. Many thanks, Toby.
-
Richard
Toby
-
Richard
Toby
-
Bookbox does these things about ten times faster than I do, so it's probably best to wait for him.
I'm just going out to another meeting, but here's an attempt:
1. Children which (although it looks like the abb. for 'with' to me) wee owne to bee our...
2. ..and your successors. That in case you will ??..
3. ..there to dwell a forefend. That then if the said William...
(Full of errors probably!)
R
-
Bookbox does these things about ten times faster than I do, so it's probably best to wait for him.
I've chosen to pass on this one. No doubt others will help.
-
I would be very pleased if I could finally put this to bed. I am stuck with the last word of line 18 after "Longbriddy" and all of line 19 save for the obvious "upon notice" "of unto us or them"
Thanks for any help one can give , Toby
-
Possibly:
(church)wardens & overseers of the said parish of Longbreddy of their
successors upon notice thereof unto us or them to bee ginen (be given) ...
Richard
-
Well done Richard. I think I got there in the end and had something that was coherent and meaningful. Thank you and also to Bookbox. I think this file can be closed now. Toby.
-
Just as a footnote, I'd suggest lines 18-19 should read ...
... parish of Longbriddy or o(ur)
successors upon notice thereof unto us or them ...