"COMPLETED" Can someone have a go at reading a name please

[dobfarm]

If you look at the a' on the writers other names also it could be Paul but there was no baptisms for a Paul in Halifax around then thus Sam'l

I look at thousands of these old writings in parish registers and old deeds

[dobfarm]

//

[Gadget]

Dobfarm ~

I'm sorry to tell you but Charlotte has found that it was Samuel


I'm desperately  trying to save server space now because no one else had told you 



Gadget

[dobfarm]

Hi Gadget
No worried about server space after seeing the off topic board one liners............................
I'm old fashioned -I like to solve the original puzzle as not one for short cuts

Anyway thanks for telling me.

Dobby

[charlotteCH]

Hi Dobby, Thank you for taking the time to reply.

If you look at the a' on the writers other names also it could be Paul but there was no baptisms for a Paul in Halifax around then thus Sam'l

I look at thousands of these old writings in parish registers and old deeds

May I make two comments:

1. That the second letter of the name is an "a" is I think beyond dispute.  However, "a" is the second letter not only of Paul but also of Sam.

2. That there is no baptism for a Paul in Hx does not mean there was no Paul Hargreaves in Hx. It surely means that there are available at present no records that show such a birth/baptism.
I am never comfortable with an argument from silence. 

charlotte

[aussiefriend]

I think it is an abbreviation of Samuel

[dobfarm]

Hi Dobby, Thank you for taking the time to reply.

If you look at the a' on the writers other names also it could be Paul but there was no baptisms for a Paul in Halifax around then thus Sam'l

I look at thousands of these old writings in parish registers and old deeds

May I make two comments:

1. That the second letter of the name is an "a" is I think beyond dispute.  However, "a" is the second letter not only of Paul but also of Sam.

2. That there is no baptism for a Paul in Hx does not mean there was no Paul Hargreaves in Hx. It surely means that there are available at present no records that show such a birth/baptism.
I am never comfortable with an argument from silence. 

charlotte

Hello Charlotte,
We seen to have a communication problem here!

It maybe our Yorkshire slang for accepting the obvious.

As there is only one later A in Paul and Sam'l we take it that there is no point in stating how many letter in the a is from the beginning. ie 2nd letter in.

Your statement 1) also refers to 'There is an 'A' in Sam'l
and in my Quote I state as there are no Paul's thus must be Sam (By elimination of Paul the obvious is only Sam'l Left)

Your other comment you make is because that there are no Paul  baptisms? does not mean there are none! This could have two meaning being that there are some unknown Paul baptisms or that there are some Paul births unbaptized.

OK! There is some foundation to that statement!  but! if the afore said is so or true ! an unknown baptism out there! but not known if there are or are not any unknown baptisms or unbaptized out there or NOT. Ancestry will always be epistemology! That accepted yard stick of argument in ancestry!

Also you may have seen that the word Som in Somerset on the image is similar to S=M in Sam.

There is another post thread where a poster seems to accept that a Baptism his her ancestor because the mother parent first names were the same as the first two born sibling firstnames of the afore said baptism after marriage as to identifing them as her ancestor! If you find this post you could argue with her about unknown also unbaptized births.
Poster replies try to help on this wedsite and go out of there way understanding the difficulties of overseas poster and communication problems of high tech superhighways. What they don't expect is some one nit picking over there view as if a political debate! and out there are people who make the own judgment from the view of reply poster.

People only get one chance if they want my help. (Free access to archives! and my time free! normal charge £24 an hour search charge with or with out a result by some archive offices ie WYAS)

Dobby

[Tephra]

Hi Dobby, Thank you for taking the time to reply.

If you look at the a' on the writers other names also it could be Paul but there was no baptisms for a Paul in Halifax around then thus Sam'l

I look at thousands of these old writings in parish registers and old deeds

May I make two comments:

1. That the second letter of the name is an "a" is I think beyond dispute.  However, "a" is the second letter not only of Paul but also of Sam.

2. That there is no baptism for a Paul in Hx does not mean there was no Paul Hargreaves in Hx. It surely means that there are available at present no records that show such a birth/baptism.
I am never comfortable with an argument from silence. 

charlotte

Hello Charlotte,
We seen to have a communication problem here!

It maybe our Yorkshire slang for accepting the obvious.

As there is only one later A in Paul and Sam'l we take it that there is no point in stating how many letter in the a is from the beginning. ie 2nd letter in.

Your statement 1) also refers to 'There is an 'A' in Sam'l
and in my Quote I state as there are no Paul's thus must be Sam (By elimination of Paul the obvious is only Sam'l Left)

Your other comment you make is because that there are no Paul  baptisms? does not mean there are none! This could have two meaning being that there are some unknown Paul baptisms or that there are some Paul births unbaptized.

OK! There is some foundation to that statement!  but! if the afore said is so or true ! an unknown baptism out there! but not known if there are or are not any unknown baptisms or unbaptized out there or NOT. Ancestry will always be epistemology! That accepted yard stick of argument in ancestry!

Also you may have seen that the word Som in Somerset on the image is similar to S=M in Sam.

There is another post thread where a poster seems to accept that a Baptism his her ancestor because the mother parent first names were the same as the first two born sibling firstnames of the afore said baptism after marriage as to identifing them as her ancestor! If you find this post you could argue with her about unknown also unbaptized births.
Poster replies try to help on this wedsite and go out of there way understanding the difficulties of overseas poster and communication problems of high tech superhighways. What they don't expect is some one nit picking over there view as if a political debate! and out there are people who make the own judgment from the view of reply poster.

People only get one chance if they want my help. (Free access to archives! and my time free! normal charge £24 an hour search charge with or with out a result by some archive offices ie WYAS)

Dobby

Dobby, I believe you might be under some misapprehension as to Charlotte's thoughts here.   I do believe she is going by majority rules inasmuch as most posters have said Samuel.........not that Charlotte is taking it as gospel, rather she is looking at it and saying 'Could be' rather than an emphatic 'No, 'tis not.'

Keep up the good work.

Barbara

[dobfarm]

Hi Dobby, Thank you for taking the time to reply.

If you look at the a' on the writers other names also it could be Paul but there was no baptisms for a Paul in Halifax around then thus Sam'l I look at thousands of these old writings in parish registers and old deeds

May I make two comments:

1. That the second letter of the name is an "a" is I think beyond dispute.  However, "a" is the second letter not only of Paul but also of Sam.

2. That there is no baptism for a Paul in Hx does not mean there was no Paul Hargreaves in Hx. It surely means that there are available at present no records that show such a birth/baptism.
I am never comfortable with an argument from silence. 

charlotte

Hello Charlotte,
We seen to have a communication problem here!

It maybe our Yorkshire slang for accepting the obvious.

As there is only one later A in Paul and Sam'l we take it that there is no point in stating how many letter in the a is from the beginning. ie 2nd letter in.

Your statement 1) also refers to 'There is an 'A' in Sam'l
and in my Quote I state as there are no Paul's thus must be Sam (By elimination of Paul the obvious is only Sam'l Left)

Your other comment you make is because that there are no Paul  baptisms? does not mean there are none! This could have two meaning being that there are some unknown Paul baptisms or that there are some Paul births unbaptized.

OK! There is some foundation to that statement!  but! if the afore said is so or true ! an unknown baptism out there! but not known if there are or are not any unknown baptisms or unbaptized out there or NOT. Ancestry will always be epistemology! That accepted yard stick of argument in ancestry!

Also you may have seen that the word Som in Somerset on the image is similar to S=M in Sam.

There is another post thread where a poster seems to accept that a Baptism his her ancestor because the mother parent first names were the same as the first two born sibling firstnames of the afore said baptism after marriage as to identifing them as her ancestor! If you find this post you could argue with her about unknown also unbaptized births.
Poster replies try to help on this wedsite and go out of there way understanding the difficulties of overseas poster and communication problems of high tech superhighways. What they don't expect is some one nit picking over there view as if a political debate! and out there are people who make the own judgment from the view of reply poster.

People only get one chance if they want my help. (Free access to archives! and my time free! normal charge £24 an hour search charge with or with out a result by some archive offices ie WYAS)

Dobby

Dobby, I believe you might be under some misapprehension as to Charlotte's thoughts here.   I do believe she is going by majority rules inasmuch as most posters have said Samuel.........not that Charlotte is taking it as gospel, rather she is looking at it and saying 'Could be' rather than an emphatic 'No, 'tis not.'

Keep up the good work.

Barbara

Hi Tep!
Thank you! for pointing it out!
As Bold

But I said I thought was Sam!

This is a Helping website not a debating one!

Best regards
Dobby