Author Topic: Wife of William Gill of Long Bredy  (Read 1049 times)

Offline toby webb

  • RootsChat Veteran
  • *****
  • Posts: 876
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.natio
    • View Profile
Wife of William Gill of Long Bredy
« 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.

RootsChat is the busiest, largest free family history forum site in the country. It is completely free to use. Register now.
Also register instantly with Facebook or Twitter (and other social networks). Start your genealogy search now.


Offline rjknott

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 3,084
    • View Profile
Re: Wife of William Gill of Long Bredy
« Reply #1 on: Friday 13 October 17 17:59 BST (UK) »
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
All the families I am researching are listed on the main page here:
www.64regencyancestors.com

Census: Crown Copyright www.nationalarchives.gov.uk

RootsChat is the busiest, largest free family history forum site in the country. It is completely free to use. Register now.
Also register instantly with Facebook or Twitter (and other social networks). Start your genealogy search now.


Offline toby webb

  • RootsChat Veteran
  • *****
  • Posts: 876
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.natio
    • View Profile
Re: Wife of William Gill of Long Bredy
« Reply #2 on: Saturday 14 October 17 10:10 BST (UK) »
     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

Offline rjknott

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 3,084
    • View Profile
Re: Wife of William Gill of Long Bredy
« Reply #3 on: Tuesday 17 October 17 20:22 BST (UK) »
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
All the families I am researching are listed on the main page here:
www.64regencyancestors.com

Census: Crown Copyright www.nationalarchives.gov.uk

Offline toby webb

  • RootsChat Veteran
  • *****
  • Posts: 876
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.natio
    • View Profile
Re: Wife of William Gill of Long Bredy
« Reply #4 on: Wednesday 18 October 17 14:25 BST (UK) »
I think you are probably correct with your Elizabeth in 1684.
Ancestry have 1693 wong for John Gill's baptism. Should be 1695.

Offline toby webb

  • RootsChat Veteran
  • *****
  • Posts: 876
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.natio
    • View Profile
Re: Wife of William Gill of Long Bredy
« Reply #5 on: Monday 06 November 17 13:11 GMT (UK) »
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.

Offline rjknott

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 3,084
    • View Profile
Re: Wife of William Gill of Long Bredy
« Reply #6 on: Monday 06 November 17 13:29 GMT (UK) »
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
All the families I am researching are listed on the main page here:
www.64regencyancestors.com

Census: Crown Copyright www.nationalarchives.gov.uk

Offline Bookbox

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 4,681
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: Wife of William Gill of Long Bredy
« Reply #7 on: Monday 06 November 17 13:35 GMT (UK) »
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.

Offline toby webb

  • RootsChat Veteran
  • *****
  • Posts: 876
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.natio
    • View Profile
Re: Wife of William Gill of Long Bredy
« Reply #8 on: Monday 06 November 17 14:41 GMT (UK) »
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.