RootsChat.Com
Old Photographs, Recognition, Handwriting Deciphering => Handwriting Deciphering & Recognition => Topic started by: lucymags on Wednesday 28 February 18 08:20 GMT (UK)
-
This is the last of the Ringmer records I needed to cover. I had a bit of success spotting a few Harts which I was able to decipher quite easily; some pages are just too faint to even attempt recognition and then there are these three, possible wishful thinking, but if anyone can give an opinion that would be great.
https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:S3HY-D148-FX?i=362&cat=85294 1610 John? Rhs, 3rd one down. (And if anyone wants to look at the very long entry starting on the previous page, about a marriage I think (not Harts), I'm somewhat curious to know what it is and why so long!)
https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:S3HY-D14D-L3?i=365&cat=85294 92 – John Hart & Mary (1616)?
https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:S3HY-D14X-7S?i=370&cat=85294 March 1622 burial of Mr John Hart?
-
3rd snip
March 22 was buried ? John Hart?
the same day was buried a child of Joshua? . . . laws.
Can't read the rest
Wiggy
-
2nd snip
? November 26 was married John Hart ? senior and Mary. . Cull(?batch) of
this parish. .
Maybe. Not too sure about Hart, but you are saying so. I am wondering about Reid. But presumably you found it when looking for Hart!
Hope someone else will come and either agree or read better! ;D
Wiggy. ;)
-
Thanks very much, Wiggy. :)
I'm not at all sure about Hart - was just looking for anything that could possibly be one! I would just like to know whether to rule them in or out. I'll see if I can manipulate the images some more to make them clearer.
-
The 2nd snip amendment .
. . . . Mary Cull both of
this parish
Wiggy.
-
A darker version of the first one. Does that help?
I do know that the probate of one of the John Harts' will was administered/registered on 15 May 1622, which made me think that he may have been buried around then. I don't think that the child is necessarily related to him, as I think I noticed other records using the same wording ("on the same day") rather than rewrite the date.
-
Sorry - doesn't help much - :-\ :-\ :-\
I think I see
? ?6 (or 10) day of June ? ? baptized ( possibly the name) John ? I don't think the surname - if that is what it is - is Hart . . but I really don't know.
Do hope some others drop by soon!
Wiggy :)
-
Ah, no, ignore that 2nd one, sorry. I just thought to check the surname in the FS index, and it came up with that actual marriage, to John Foord, 26 Nov 1616. They seem to have just started adding names and transcript to their indexes very recently:
"England Marriages, 1538–1973 ," database, FamilySearch (https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:NK47-9PL : 10 February 2018), John Foord and Mary Call, 26 Nov 1616; citing Ringmer,Sussex,England, reference , index based upon data collected by the Genealogical Society of Utah, Salt Lake City; FHL microfilm 1,067,274.
- because I noticed that some other Ringmer records (c.1630s) I was looking for about a week ago which were definitely not there, turned up yesterday. I don't know how complete their coverage is though - they may be uploading in batches. They haven't got a John Hart burial in 1722, but I'll poke around some more. You were mostly correct though! (And they probably have clearer images to work from.)
No worries, Wiggy, and thanks for your efforts. It's possible that none of them turn out to be Harts...
-
Hmmm, I wonder if the 1610 one could be this entry:
Name John Rede
Event Type Christening
Event Date 10 Jun 1610
Event Place Ringmer, Sussex, England
Gender Male
Father's Name John Rede
Mother's Name Marye
It's just too difficult to make out at all, but Rede seems just as likely.
Searching for all of the John burials in Ringmer in 1622 shows this one:
Name John *Art
Event Type Burial
Event Date 22 Mar 1621
Event Place Ringmer, Sussex, England
Gender Male
- which I think is likely to be this one. With the baptisms I was checking yesterday, several fell before March 24th and they dated them with the previous year, Gregorian style (which I didn't think that they usually did). I suspect that this matches my John Hart(e), who was in Ringmer and died around then.
So I think I'm happy to take that one, for which I'll make appropriate notes.
-
Good oh!
And now you say you've found Ford, I can see it of course with the couble 'f' 'signifying' upper case. :)
-
Yes, it looks obvious once you know, doesn't it?! :)
-
I have arrived late to this one.
I agree with you that only the third is possibly a Hart(e).
You are right about Rede, and there are is a burial for a Marye Rede daughter of Richard Rede further down.
Regarding the third image, the word after buried is old.
I'm not sure the surname is Hart. Really it looks more like three letters than one, but it doesn't seem to make sense as three letters - has anyone ever been named fefart?
So it could be Hart with an extra large H.
I glanced at the beginning of the long entry near Image 1. It's not a BMD.
It's about agreements among feoffees relating to certain premisses and a person named Elizabeth Cheyney, after whose death the premisses will be used to house two poore aged men or women unmaried not abell to maintayne them sellves of good and honest life.
-
Thanks very much, horselydown.
I agree, the H is definitely iffy - lol, fefart! ;D
However, I think on balance it probably is old Mr Hart, i.e. John Hart senior, as his son is also living in the village at the time. The fact that probate on his will happened a couple of months afterwards adds to the likelihood. And also that there's no other burial for him. I will make notes about it on my entry, but am happy to accept this date of burial for now.
Thanks also for satisfying my curiosity about the long entry - interesting.
-
Contact me via www.ringmer.info
Quite a bit of info on Ringmer Hart family.
Only the third entry is HART. The baptism is REDE and the marriage FOORD/CATT