Author Topic: (*Completed with thanks*)Almost illegible Latin, c. 1625  (Read 338 times)

Offline lucymags

  • RootsChat Senior
  • ****
  • Posts: 263
  • Slowly but surely...
    • View Profile
(*Completed with thanks*)Almost illegible Latin, c. 1625
« on: Sunday 25 February 18 01:17 GMT (UK) »
I think that this clip (from this page here, South Malling marriage licences - open but need to be signed in https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:S3HT-DT69-18J?i=812&cat=604182) might be the marriage referred to in the marriage index, which I've copied as:
Edward Hart(e) gent. Of Ringmer m. Rachel Weekes of Haustmanden/Hostmanden, lic. Kent 5 Jun/5 Jul 1625 St Thos a Beckett Cliffe, South Malling Sdry. (2 cards) sureties, said E.H., Richard Bradburt, and John Osborn.

However I find it so hard to read that I cannot positively identify it, and wonder if anyone else can match up enough words with the above entry? (I don't need all the words - would just like to know if it's the right one!)



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 goldie61

  • RootsChat Aristocrat
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,667
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: Almost illegible Latin, c. 1625
« Reply #1 on: Sunday 25 February 18 03:22 GMT (UK) »
If you look at the 3 words on the left hand side:

Hart
et
Weekes

The capital letters of both their names are very ‘flowery’, but classic script from this time.
The letter ‘e’ was written in reverse to how we write it now - you can see them in ’et’. and then two together after the fancy ‘W’, and also after the curly ‘k’ in Weekes.

The line across the top is the date - ‘Quinto die mensis Julij Anno dim 1625’
I am no Latin scholar (but have seen a lot looking at old registers etc, so picked up a bit thanks to help on here), but I’d read that as 5th day the month of July Year of our Lord 1625’

No doubt somebody will be along who IS a Latin scholar, and will be able to translate it - it is by no means illegible.

I can see ‘Edwardi Harte gent de Ringmer’ on the second line - from the 3rd word on to the end of the line.
If you go down to the 8th line, it says ‘inter  eum (I think) et Rachell Weekes de Haustmanden’ - which is ‘between him and Rachell Weekes of Haustmanden’.

It will be interesting to see what all the rest of it says!  :)
Wouldn’t hold out too much hope for any more genealogical information though.
Lane, Burgess: Cheshire. Finney, Rogers, Gilman:Derbys
Cochran, Nicol, Paton, Bruce:Scotland. Bertolle:London
Bainbridge, Christman, Jeffs: Staffs

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 horselydown86

  • RootsChat Aristocrat
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,413
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: Almost illegible Latin, c. 1625
« Reply #2 on: Sunday 25 February 18 04:29 GMT (UK) »
It definitely refers to the marriage you have specified.  However, I'm not certain exactly what it is.

Parts are characteristic of a Marriage Allegation.  From the end of the fourth line to most of the sixth line are the Latin version of the standard stuff about lawful Impediment, by Reason of any Pre-Contract, Consanguinity, Affinity etc.

It doesn't contain the words teneri et firmiter obligari, so it's not a Bond.

However, at the bottom is a list of those giving sureties (as per your summary) to what appears to be 100 pounds:

Obligantur dictis Harte Richus      }
Bradburt et Joh(an)es Osborn in  }        Cl


Near the end someting is granted (Concessit) in relation to solemnization of marriage at the Church of (what I think is written) Clivo.

The word after Concessit starts with li, but I'm struggling to see any form of  licenciam in it?  (Also, what is the last word of that line?.)

With luck Bookbox will provide a definitive answer.

ADDED:

Is it:

...ad petic(i)o(n)em Edwardi...facientis fidem quod credit nullum esse hoc tempore...

Roughly:

...to the petition of Edward...made in good faith that there is at this time no (Impediment etc)...

Offline lucymags

  • RootsChat Senior
  • ****
  • Posts: 263
  • Slowly but surely...
    • View Profile
Re: Almost illegible Latin, c. 1625
« Reply #3 on: Sunday 25 February 18 07:00 GMT (UK) »
Belated thanks for those, goldie and horselydown. That's great. I thought that it could be Hart and Weekes but had to make sure it wasn't just my wishful thinking!

I should have also posted link to the marriage index cards, which are also somewhat baffling to me. https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:S3HY-D1ZZ-NZ?i=2401&cat=1112952

The first card says 5 July, and appears to refer to the record I posted, but the next card seems to say 5 June, at the church (St Thomas a Beckett, aka St Thomas-at-Cliffe Church). I thought that the licence was supposed to come before the marriage or contract? Or have I got this wrong?

I'll don't think that those St Thomas records are available from home, but I'll have another look now. (This is an uncle rather than a grandfather so I don't intend going to the nth degree digging up everything on him - just thought I'd have a nose around and see if there's anything of value. This is all adding to my general knowledge about these record though, which will help with the next time!)

Offline lucymags

  • RootsChat Senior
  • ****
  • Posts: 263
  • Slowly but surely...
    • View Profile
Re: Almost illegible Latin, c. 1625
« Reply #4 on: Sunday 25 February 18 07:19 GMT (UK) »
Ah - I've found the St Thomas marriage record! https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:S3HT-62RQ-PWL?i=15&cat=216922 (rhs near the bottom)

I can't actually make out the day, but it does seem to say July. And now that I re-read the transcript card, I realise that it says Jul, not Jue (which I took to be a hastily written June). So the licence and the marriage on the same day?

Offline Bookbox

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 4,278
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: Almost illegible Latin, c. 1625
« Reply #5 on: Sunday 25 February 18 10:51 GMT (UK) »
The essential wording has been covered by HD above. It’s basically an allegation, confirming that no lawful impediment to the marriage had been found, and sanctioning the issue of a licence for the marriage to be performed at Cliffe, which was in a Peculiar Jurisdiction of the Archbishop of Canterbury – see here ...

https://www.familysearch.org/wiki/en/Court_of_the_Peculiar_of_the_Archbishop_of_Canterbury_for_the_Exempt_Deanery_of_South_Malling

... and noting at the foot those who were bound ('the said Harte ...' etc.)

As you say, the licence was issued the same day as the marriage, 5 July 1625, which wasn’t that uncommon if there was easy physical access to the licensing authority in the area.

The word after Concessit starts with li, but I'm struggling to see any form of  licenciam in it?  (Also, what is the last word of that line?.)

It’s well disguised by contractions ...

... in Com(itatu) Cancie Concessit lic(enci)am ad solemnizandum hu(iusm)o(d)i
matrimoniu(m) in Eccl(es)ia de Clivo


... in the county of Kent, granted a licence for solemnizing this
marriage in the church of Cliffe

NB - huiusmodi, often contracted to huoi = 'of this kind', usually just translated as 'this'.



Offline lucymags

  • RootsChat Senior
  • ****
  • Posts: 263
  • Slowly but surely...
    • View Profile
Re: Almost illegible Latin, c. 1625
« Reply #6 on: Sunday 25 February 18 11:02 GMT (UK) »
Oh, thanks Bookbox.

I've now got the information I needed, understand some of the whys and wherefores, and have learnt a bit about the Latin wording to boot. Excellent result. I can call this one completed now as well.
:)

Offline horselydown86

  • RootsChat Aristocrat
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,413
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: (*Completed with thanks*)Almost illegible Latin, c. 1625
« Reply #7 on: Sunday 25 February 18 13:56 GMT (UK) »
Bookbox, thank you for explaining those Latin words.

Lucy, regarding the date in your marriage record, the wording is:

...were marryed allsoe
by Lycense here the vth daye of Julye


vth = 5th

I'm interested in the word after kent.  Is it pues(er) = pusa = girl, meaning she was a minor?

Offline Bookbox

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 4,278
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: (*Completed with thanks*)Almost illegible Latin, c. 1625
« Reply #8 on: Sunday 25 February 18 14:31 GMT (UK) »
I'm interested in the word after kent.  Is it pues(er) = pusa = girl, meaning she was a minor?
It's ... puel(la) = girl. It might imply she was very young.

ADDED - sorry it's puel(lam), accusative case.