RootsChat.Com
Old Photographs, Recognition, Handwriting Deciphering => Handwriting Deciphering & Recognition => Topic started by: lucymags on Wednesday 20 June 18 09:02 BST (UK)
-
Can someone decipher the attached well enough to make out how it matches the transciption on FS here: https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:XT22-KMH? It's odd that all of FS's records of the siblings in this family have the surname as "Abercrummie", whereas I can see a b quite clearly in Abercrumbie/Abercromby.
Any other clues as to the strange wording of the baptism would also be interesting to hear! (I also have a PDF of the whole page - similar wording for other baptisms - but I think too big to attach here.)
-
in the last part I see
gave up ye names to be proclaimed in order to Marriage
-
It's not a baptism:
The S(ai)d [day?] - John Abercrumbie and [see below] both in [this?/the?]
paroch gave up yr names to be proclaimed in order to Marriage
paroch = parish
yr = their
I'm not sure of the female name.
I can't really see Margaret in any form. Could the first word be Widd(ow)?
I would also lean towards Tea rather than Lea.
The date is also a problem. My best reading is Ja(nua)ry 29 1704.
I don't know why the extra loop on the first number is there.
-
Ah, that makes sense. I also read the bit about marriage but thought that I must have misunderstood it, having been led to believe that the document contained baptisms. I see now that the others are marriages too (allthough the rest on the page begin with the man's name rather than "On this day..").
She is represented on multiple records as Margaret McLea or McLae. If she was a widow she must have been pretty young because there were children born between 1706 and 1716 - but it's possible, I suppose.
Abercrummie is a strange variation - other descendants are all Abercrombie or (later) Abercromby - but all of the children of this couple seem to have been baptised thus at St Ninian's in Stirling.
Yes, the date is difficult too - but I think you must be right, horselydown. The next date is "ffeb 5".
Thanks very much, both of you - this gives me the date of their marriage and a few further ideas about finding out more. :)
-
The date is also a problem. My best reading is Ja(nua)ry 29 1704.
I don't know why the extra loop on the first number is there.
I agree with the date being January 29.
I think the extra loop is not on the first digit, but a 'cup-mark' above the letter u in Abercrumbie in the line below. This sort of mark was sometimes used in early Scottish documents to distinguish between the letters u and n.
-
Abercrummie is a strange variation ...
I've heard the name 'Crombie' pronounced as 'Crummy' up here in Scotland.
-
Oh, that's interesting, thanks Bookbox - and I can see the cup-mark now that you have described it.
Thanks Henry - I wondered if it was a case of differing pronunciation. Interesting that it's still being pronounced that way up there.
-
lucymags - I don't know if it's still pronounced that way, but fifty years ago the village of Crombie in Fife was "Crummy" to native locals, but "Crom-bi" to incomers, like me.
-
Interesting! Thanks, Henry. :)