19
Handwriting Deciphering & Recognition / Re: Difficult to read cause of death
« on: Sunday 19 May 24 14:10 BST (UK) »
Coroner for Oldham, perhaps? And A G Smith? Otherwise I agree with bearkat.
Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
20
Family History Beginners Board / Re: The workhouse and Probate
« on: Sunday 19 May 24 14:06 BST (UK) »
I see that Edwin's probate record is actually an administration, meaning there was no will. Enoch didn't necessarily get the whole of the amount shown; the index records that the grant of administration was issued to him, but the estate would have been divided according to the intestacy rules. Administration records don't usually name anyone other than the deceased and the administrator, but if you wanted it you could get a copy for £1.50.
I didn't see an entry in the probate index for the mother Mary, but there's one which looks like the father Enoch in 1878. This was a will, and a copy of that would be £1.50 too. This might be key to understanding what the situation was; one possibility might be that Enoch the father set up some kind of trust for Edwin (and possibly for Mary until she died), and after Edwin's death it became part of his estate. But that's only a guess - the only way to be sure would be to look at what the will actually says.
I didn't see an entry in the probate index for the mother Mary, but there's one which looks like the father Enoch in 1878. This was a will, and a copy of that would be £1.50 too. This might be key to understanding what the situation was; one possibility might be that Enoch the father set up some kind of trust for Edwin (and possibly for Mary until she died), and after Edwin's death it became part of his estate. But that's only a guess - the only way to be sure would be to look at what the will actually says.
21
Handwriting Deciphering & Recognition / Re: One word in page title of 1491 will
« on: Friday 17 May 24 14:13 BST (UK) »
nuper (= formerly; or in this context, late)
22
Handwriting Deciphering & Recognition / Re: Help needed with name on back of photo
« on: Wednesday 15 May 24 20:09 BST (UK) »
Hi Edna, and welcome to RootsChat.
The style of writing is a bit unusual, isn't it, but maybe one of our American members will recognise it. Meanwhile, my best guess for the name is William A. French, but I could be wrong.
The style of writing is a bit unusual, isn't it, but maybe one of our American members will recognise it. Meanwhile, my best guess for the name is William A. French, but I could be wrong.
23
The Common Room / Re: Double Marriage?
« on: Tuesday 14 May 24 14:12 BST (UK) »
It's not exclusively a Roman Catholic thing, either. I've come across a couple who married in a register office in the first quarter of 1859, with a daughter born that April. Then in July the following year they had a church ceremony - but I can only speculate as to whose decision this might have been.
It's been written up on what looks like a quarterly return form in the manner of a marriage, and inserted in the marriage register, but it includes the words "After having been previously married in the presence of the Registrar....", and the wife's name is given as "(married surname) late (maiden surname)". This ceremony doesn't appear in the GRO indexes, and I only found out about it because the website it's on decided to include it in their index.
It's been written up on what looks like a quarterly return form in the manner of a marriage, and inserted in the marriage register, but it includes the words "After having been previously married in the presence of the Registrar....", and the wife's name is given as "(married surname) late (maiden surname)". This ceremony doesn't appear in the GRO indexes, and I only found out about it because the website it's on decided to include it in their index.
24
Handwriting Deciphering & Recognition / Re: Latin 1344 (again) Scottish Roll
« on: Sunday 05 May 24 14:22 BST (UK) »
From the context, I think that phrase is
o(mn)iu(m) alia(rum) t(er)ra(rum) n(ost)ra(rum) - "of all our other lands"
There are various other contractions, most marked by a horizontal line above a letter or through an ascender. In this case, though, there's a special symbol for the -rum ending, also seen just before the end of the non-italic text.
o(mn)iu(m) alia(rum) t(er)ra(rum) n(ost)ra(rum) - "of all our other lands"
There are various other contractions, most marked by a horizontal line above a letter or through an ascender. In this case, though, there's a special symbol for the -rum ending, also seen just before the end of the non-italic text.
25
Handwriting Deciphering & Recognition / Re: text probably copied by a drunk official
« on: Saturday 04 May 24 16:54 BST (UK) »Could you make sense out of tresbage on p. 127? I concluded, it could be leafage – the only thing that made sense to me in the context?
I think it's 'herbage' - and in this case written correctly. I wouldn't consider it to be an everyday word, but maybe it was more common then. Some of these more obscure words probably survived longer than they might have done because writers often used 'elegant variation', preferring unusual synonyms and circumlocution to simply using the most obvious word more than once.
26
Handwriting Deciphering & Recognition / Re: text probably copied by a drunk official
« on: Saturday 04 May 24 13:44 BST (UK) »...viewing the steps
»steps« at that place in the sentece in my opinion would be too far from context. there were no steps mentioned elsewhere in connection with the temple.
Having read the full transcription, I now wonder if mckha was right after all:
I wondered if “etope”” was slope.
I did too for a time, but the tall letter is crossed like a 't'.
Yes - but this is a document that has been copied from another document. So it could be a mistranscription. Slope makes sense if you consider the description of viewing petrifried wood which could be on a slope of a river bank for instance.
The temple is on a "hilldoh", which I think must be a hilltop. It's surrounded by something which is prevented from falling by these small palings made of petrified wood. For someone approaching and seeing them for the first time, "the first impression left upon the mind in viewing the slope" would make good sense.
It's most unfortunate that a word seems to have been missed out ("a little ... raised all round it") so we can't really envisage the scene. Or can we make "raised" into a noun that would fit the context?
27
Handwriting Deciphering & Recognition / Re: text probably copied by a drunk official
« on: Saturday 04 May 24 11:32 BST (UK) »From the first one:
"bear" - I can make better sense of what follows if it's "hear", but as a misspelling of "here".
I like your suggestion there. Also: one has to keep in mind, that the punctuation is more or less missing. In that way a full stop behind »bear« is possible too.
So the sentence could go even in the way of: »…by which this conversion of wood into stone <verb> here[.] the first impression left upon the mind…«
Another thought, which involves a gross misreading, is that 'scites bear' is actually 'takes place'. (s=t, ci=a, t=k; b=p, e=l, r=ce)
One of these confusions in a word might be easily spotted, but here it would mean having a whole lot of them all together. I wonder...?