South Fambridge 1784. Faded register entry

[Jebber]

Hi nannyj,


I am also using my iPad for ease of magnification. What you are reading as a 9 seemed too far away from the 84 to indicate a coverage of years, but you may very well be correct.

Have you been able to decipher the name of the first witness? I think I can possibly see Thomas, but the surname defeats me.

[nannyj]

Hi Jebber
Think it might be Thomas ... well or wall or hall, maybe?

Where are you getting the 1784 from?

[nannyj]

Bingo!
Witness is Thomas Mathew or walker, I think. Have a look at the top entry on the next page. I think it’s the same signature anyway.

[Jebber]

We are agreed Thomas is the first name of the witness, I can't say either way regarding the two surnames you suggest.
Nannyj

The date I am going by is the first line of the entry, where it is written in full the image is too faded.

As you said, it is unusual the way some of the years seen written, such as 1772-3 on the previous record.

Just as a matter of interest, have you noticed the signatures of the Curate and the first witness on that previous record? Jos or Jas  Wifen the look the same, I have never seen anything like that before.

[nannyj]

Yes. Jos wise seems to be both curate and witness. Perhaps rules were different then. Not seen it, or at least, not noticed it before.