RootsChat.Com

Old Photographs, Recognition, Handwriting Deciphering => Handwriting Deciphering & Recognition => Topic started by: Janet Waterhouse on Friday 07 December 18 10:40 GMT (UK)

Title: 1635 burial extract 7
Post by: Janet Waterhouse on Friday 07 December 18 10:40 GMT (UK)
Good morning,

just tidying the transcriptions by cross checking with the Bishop's transcripts (BT).

Transcribed:

Alice ? was buryed the same day.

Stuck with Alice's surname in the BT, her entry does not appear in the burial register.

Regards,

Janet
Title: Re: 1635 burial extract 7
Post by: oldtimer on Friday 07 December 18 16:24 GMT (UK)
Boone??  :-\
Title: Re: 1635 burial extract 7
Post by: horselydown86 on Friday 07 December 18 17:10 GMT (UK)
Boone??  :-\

The last letter is s.  I've been staring at this on and off for hours and that's the only letter I'm certain of.

Janet, is this record on Ancestry or the generally accessible FamilySearch?

I would like to have a much better look at this man's handwriting.
Title: Re: 1635 burial extract 7
Post by: philipsearching on Friday 07 December 18 17:16 GMT (UK)
Boone??  :-\

The last letter is s.  I've been staring at this on and off for hours and that's the only letter I'm certain of.

Janet, is this record on Ancestry or the general accessible FamilySearch?

I would like to have a much better look at this man's handwriting.

I can't discount the last letter being e (see "the" later in the line).

We really do need a few more lines to see how letters are formed in other entriers.

Philip
Title: Re: 1635 burial extract 7
Post by: Janet Waterhouse on Friday 07 December 18 17:32 GMT (UK)
A big thank you to all of you.

I'm working from a paper copy of the 1635 Bishop's Transcript.  I do not subscribe to any of the commercial sites, so I do not know if the page is available.  I'm not sure if I'm allowed to upload the whole page?

I've attached a larger section of the page, I hope it helps.

Janet

Title: Re: 1635 burial extract 7
Post by: Bookbox on Friday 07 December 18 23:33 GMT (UK)
I've been wondering about Urvens, with the first letter written as V rather than U (they are often interchangeable at this date). This first letter looks a bit like 'half' the W in William elsewhere in the extract, which would tend to support its being V or U.

ADDED - or maybe Uwens, though the w would not be a perfect match with others here.
Title: Re: 1635 burial extract 7
Post by: horselydown86 on Saturday 08 December 18 03:30 GMT (UK)
I've been wondering about Urvens, with the first letter written as V rather than U (they are often interchangeable at this date). This first letter looks a bit like 'half' the W in William elsewhere in the extract, which would tend to support its being V or U.

ADDED - or maybe Uwens, though the w would not be a perfect match with others here.

You may well be right, Bookbox.

Last night I went through every paleography exemplar I have collected and couldn't match that initial.  Casting the net wider today I found this:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/archievenorg/3388094434/

See the pair in the U/V row corresponding to the 1607 manuscript.

(I don't think it is Uwens.)
Title: Re: 1635 burial extract 7
Post by: Bookbox on Saturday 08 December 18 08:17 GMT (UK)
Useful exemplar, HD. Thanks for posting. It does seem that U/V is likely. Any advance on Urvens, which I'm not fully confident about?
Title: Re: 1635 burial extract 7
Post by: Janet Waterhouse on Saturday 08 December 18 09:36 GMT (UK)
Good morning,

a curious name indeed.

Whilst checking the following year, 1636, it appears that two entries have been written again, namely,
Willm Lewis and Alice ?

I've attached the image for comparison.  It appears that the entry was made by a different hand.  Note the 'W' on Willm  and the first letter of Alice's surname, could this be 'V' without the preceding vertical character?

Janet
Title: Re: 1635 burial extract 7
Post by: horselydown86 on Saturday 08 December 18 12:53 GMT (UK)
Interesting new image, Janet.

I believe we have Vevers in both cases.

I'm a little concerned that the Lewis date on the first image may be xxij whereas the second is clearly xxiij.  It's hard to be sure of the first date.

ADDED:

The second image makes clear that the last five letters are:  evers
Title: Re: 1635 burial extract 7
Post by: Janet Waterhouse on Saturday 08 December 18 17:08 GMT (UK)
Thanks to everyone who's helped to unravel the surname of Alice. 
I've had a quick look for Vevers on the IGI, and surprise, surprise between the years 1600-1800, several families are shown living in villages within a ten-mile radius of the church.

Regards,

Janet
Title: Re: 1635 burial extract 7
Post by: Bookbox on Saturday 08 December 18 17:10 GMT (UK)
Well done finding a second entry, Janet!

I believe we have Vevers in both cases.

I agree with Vevers.