RootsChat.Com
Old Photographs, Recognition, Handwriting Deciphering => Handwriting Deciphering & Recognition => Topic started by: Davedrave on Saturday 05 January 19 09:18 GMT (UK)
-
I’d be grateful for an opinion on a name in a parish record. There seem to have been people named both Lea and Sea around at the same time in Market Bosworth. Here, Elizabeth Lea daughter of William Lea was baptised in 1581. In 1582 a Judith was baptised. The vicar made a transcript in the C19th and he has her name as “Lea”, as does Findmypast, but the initial letter of the surname doesn’t look like “L” to me, though the initial of the name following “Will”(?) looks different again.
(There is a 1671 entry where “Sea” and “Lea” appear quite unambiguously on the same page of the register).
Dave :)
(Market Bosworth parish register in Record Office for Leics., Leicester and Rutland)
-
I see it as an L , so it's Lea.*
S is usually far more squiggly, if you see what I mean
Gadget
* added - this for Elizabeth.
-
I find this listing useful:
http://broadcast.lds.org/elearning/FHD/Community/en/FamilySearch/Handwriting/English/Lesson_1/English_Secretary_Hand_Alphabet_Examples.pdf
Gadget
-
Sorry - I missed the Judith surname. That does look more like an S.
-
I'd agree,
The capital letter of the surname for Judith looks like an 'S' - so Sea.
The surname of Elizabeth is Lea.
-
the initial letter of the surname doesn’t look like “L” to me, though the initial of the name following “Will”(?) looks different again.
I think what has happened here is that the initial of the surname following Judith is a capital 'S',
whereas that after Will[ia]m is a lower case 's'.
-
Thank you for the replies. I suppose that this sort of issue all adds to the fun of FH.
Dave :)
-
I haven't heard of Sea as a surname? I would guess that it was always Lea. The confusion between a written "l" and "s" in lower case affects my research into my Chilwell family, often mistranscribed as Chiswell. Even in one case as Chitwell. I have looked at the original documents and the letters are quite easily confused, which shows clearly in Gadget's link (thank you for that).
P