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.

Topics - horselydown86

Pages: [1] 2 3 4
London and Middlesex / 1752 Marriage - Supposedly St Gabriel's Pimlico
« on: Tuesday 15 September 20 18:47 BST (UK)  »
I have found a potential marriage for an ancestor in a volume in the Westminster, London, England, Church of England Baptisms, Marriages and Burials, 1558-1812 collection on Ancestry.

The marriage took place in October 1752 and appears in a volume labelled by Ancestry as St Gabriel, Warwick Square, Pimlico 1710 - 1754.

Online research on St Gabriel's Pimlico has produced nothing to suggest that it existed - even as an administrative entity - before 1830.

I have checked the beginning and end papers of the volume but there's no title information.  Other than a (probably later) note about tax stamps, it launches into marriages in March 1710 without preamble.  The last marriage is on 24 March 1754 - presumably the result of Hardwicke's Act.

This is the only volume for St Gabriel's Pimlico in this collection.  With the Westminster, London, England, Church of England Marriages and Banns, 1754-1935 collection in browse mode, the only volumes listed for St Gabriel's are from the C20th.

I can only conclude that the 1710 - 1754 volume is mis-labelled and belongs to another church.  Does anyone have further thoughts?

Thank you for your help.

Handwriting Deciphering & Recognition / Phrase from Writ of Entry - Latin 1280
« on: Tuesday 19 May 20 14:44 BST (UK)  »
I would like some help please with the transcription and translation of a phrase from a Writ of Entry in the Per from 1280.

The record is about half-way down the page here:

I need help with the second half of line 4, from iudicio onwards.  Some of it seems to be a (regnal?) year but I'm in the dark otherwise.

In addition I have questions about these matters:

1.  The two references to the manor in line 2 appear to have a superscipt rider - va in the first case and cat in the second.  What does this mean, if anything?

2.  I presume the quond is quond(am), even though there's no mark to indicate contraction? 

3.  In line 4, I can conclude from context that it must have been Theobald who disseised Henry of the manor, rather than the reverse.  However, can that be worked out from the available grammar?  In other words, does anything signify that the qui references Theobald?

My transcript and translation are here:

Henr(icus) de Bohun petit v(ersus) Theobaldu(m) de Verdon & Marg(er)iam ux(orem) eius man(er)ium de Castelwaledene cu(m) p(er)tin(entiis) ex(cep)tis

decem libr(as) t(er)re & advo(ca)c(i)o(n)e ecc(lesi)e eiusd(e)m man(er)ii ^[va?]^  Et v(ersus) Joh(anna)m ^de^ Boun decem libr(as) terre cu(m) p(er)tin(entiis) in p(re)d(i)c(t)o man(er)io ^[cat?]^

ut Ius &c  In que ijd(e)m Theobaldus & Marg(er)ia & Johanna no(n) h(abe)nt ing(re)ssum nisi p(er) Humfr(idu)m de Boun [quond(am)?] Com(item)

Hereford qui p(re)d(i)c(tu)m Henr(icum) inde iniuste et sine iudicio [disseyss?] [p(os)(t)?] [p(ra)?m?] [t(ra)?] Ann(o) H [R?] [p?us] [R?] no(n) in [Br?]

Henry de Bohun demands against Theobald de Verdon & Margery the wife of the same the manor of Castlewalden with the appurtenances excepting
ten pounds of land & the advowson of the church of the same manor  And against Joan de Boun ten pounds of land with the appurtenances in the aforesaid manor
as right &c  In regard to which the same Theobald Margery & Joan do not have entry unless by means of Humphey de Boun formerly the Earl
of Hereford [who?] did wrongfully and without jurisdiction disseise the aforesaid Henry therefrom…

Thank you for your help.  I am in no hurry, so whenever is convenient will be fine.

I would like a little help please with one word and one phrase of Latin from this grant in 1341.

The problem is the word in line 4 which is apparently h(ab)em(us).  This is singular but should be plural (as is what I think is h(abu)im(us) in line 5).

Also, how should que quid be translated (near the end of line 4)?

The context is as follows:

Om(n)ibus xpi fidelibus ad quos hoc p(re)sens Scriptum p(er)ven(er)it Will(elmu)m Sapurton capell(am) & Joh(ann)em Roger Sal(u)t(e)m in

d(omi)no Semp(i)t(ernam) Nov(er)itis nos p(re)fat(us) Will(el)m(u)s & Joh(an)nes Rog(er) dedim(us) concessim(us) & hac p(re)senti carta n(ost)ra confirmavimus

Walt(ero) Monnt gom(er)y man(eriu)m n(ost)r(u)m de Cubbeley cu(m) p(er)tin(entijs) nec non man(er)ia n(ost)ra de Sudbure [&?] Aston cu(m) p(er)tin(entijs) ac eciam om(n)ia

mesu(a)g’ n(ost)ra terr’ & tene(men)t’ cu(m) om(n)ib(us) suis p(er)tin(entijs) que [h(ab)em(us)?] in Hill Som(er)sall & Potter Som(er)sall que [quid?] man(er)ia et cet(era) p(re)no(m)i(n)at’

Nos p(re)fat’ Will’ & Joh’ Roger nup(er) h(abu)im(us) ex dono & feoffament(o) p(re)dict(i) Walt(eri) Monnte gom(er)y H(ab)end(um) & Tenend(um)...

Thank you for your help.

I would like a little help please to properly translate the plea wording of an otherwise standard entry in the Common Plea Rolls from Hilary Term in 1444.

The Latin is: pl(ac)ito q(uo)d claudat Cur(iam) suam in Mirkaston que ap(er)ta est ad nocumentu(m) lib(er)i [ten?] ip(s)or(um) Joh(ann)is et Joh(ann)is  ^in eadem villa^ quam

claudere debet et solet...

Which I have translated as:

...concerning a plea that he [William Atkynse] will close his Court in Mirkaston, which is open, to the nuisance of [the freehold? / the free tenements?] of them the same John and John in the same village....

My questions are:

First, can we infer with certainty from the Latin lib(er)i ten' that John Curson and John Sacheverell jointly held a single freehold in Mercaston; does it represent some other situation; or can no definite conclusion be drawn?

Secondly I can't figure out the sub-clause ...quam claudere debet et solet....  I know what the individual words mean (more or less) but can't arrive at their combined meaning.

The original entry is third down on Image 535 from this AALT index:

Thank you for your help.

I would like to ask for some help please to identify the word between Concessim(us) and p(re)d(i)c(t)is in the attached image.

I am assuming it is a separate word rather than a further ending upon Concessim(us)?

The full context to this point is:

Sciant p(re)sentes & fut(ur)i q(uo)d nos Ph(illip)a que fuit [ux(or)?] Will(elm)i  de Mungom(er)y chivaler hugo de Mungom(er)y P(ar)sona eccl(es)ie de Cubbeley & Will(elmu)s de Mungom(er)y:  dedim(us) concessim(us) & hac p(re)senti carta n(ost)ra confirma

m(avi)m(us) Walt(er)o de Mungom(er)y chivaler & Matill ux(or)i eius & he(re)dib(us) de corpore ip(s)ius Walt(er)i l(egit)ime exeunt(e) man(er)ia n(ost)ra de Sudbury & de Cubbeley & cu(m) advocac(i)o(n)ib(us) eccl(es)iar(um) de Sudbury & de

Cubbeley & cu(m) om(n)ib(us) p(er)tin(entijs) suis Concessim(us) [?] p(re)d(i)c(t)is Walt(er)o & Matill...

Thank you for your help.

The Common Room / Regnal Year Change Within the Quindene
« on: Friday 03 January 20 01:47 GMT (UK)  »
I have a Fine in which the date is expressed as follows:

...a die s(an)c(t)i Hillar' in quindecim dies Anno Regni Edwardi Reg(is) Angl' t(er)cij a conquestu decimo septimo...

Showing my working:

January 13 of 1343 is the Feast of Saint Hilary in 16 Edward III.
January 13 of 1344 is the Feast of Saint Hilary in 17 Edward III.

I understand that the fifteen days should be counted inclusively, so the Quindene of St Hilary is January 27.

However, the regnal year of Edward III changed within the fifteen days, with the new regnal year beginning on 25 January.

So does the regnal year description in the Fine refer to the date of the Quindene (in which case the date of the Fine is January 27 of 1343) or does it refer to the date of the Feast of St Hilary (in which case the date of the Fine is January 27 of 1344)?

My instinct is for the earlier date but I would like to confirm if possible.

Thank you for your help.

Handwriting Deciphering & Recognition / One word of Latin - About 1350
« on: Thursday 12 December 19 15:25 GMT (UK)  »
I would like to ask for help please to identify the word which is contracted to ee in the attached clip.

It is from a charter of around 1350.  The context is as follows:

...h(ab)end(um) & tenend(um) p(re)d(i)c(t)a man(er)ia nec non p(re)dict' mesuag' cu(m) om(n)ib(us) & singulis

suis p(er)tin(entijs) p(re)fato Will(el)mo Akover & hered suis ad usum mei p(re)fat(i) Walt(eri) Monnte Gom(er)y p(ro) t(er)mi(n)o vite me & post meu(m) decessum p(re)dict(us) Will(el)m(u)s

Akover & hered' sui [ee?] sei(si)t' de & in p(re)dict' man(er)iis ac cet(er)is p(re)missis ad usum...

From internet searches using the surrounding phrases I have found a handful of transcriptions where the word in this position is essent.

If it is essent, how would you translate the imperfect active subjunctive in this context?  Or is it just esse?

Thank you for your help.

I would like some help please to identify a word in an IPM from 1507.

It's in the standard statement of the age of the deceased's next heir:

                                                          q(uo)d fuit etatis viginti quatuor annor(um) in
festo s(an)c(t)i laurencij [iur?is] ultimo p(re)t(er)ito ante diem capc(i)onis hui(us) Inquisic(i)onis indentat’...

I understand everything but the iur?is.  Does it refer adjectivally to St Lawrence or does it modify the ultimo p(re)t(er)ito?

Thank you for your help.

I would like to ask for help please with the translation of this Latin phrase from the IPM of Walter Curson in about 1527.

This reference to Quarendon may be significant in my long-term quest to properly establish Walter's parentage, so I would like to know exactly what it says about his landholding of Carbonell.

The end of the previous line is:

...Et dicunt ult(er)ius Jur' p(re)dict' q(uo)d p(re)dic(tu)m man(er)(iu)m de carbonell cu(m) p(er)tin(entiis) tenet(ur)...

...And the aforesaid Jurors lastly say that the aforesaid manor of Carbonell with the appurtenances is held...

I have a sense of what follows but the relationships from the King through Quarendon to the Earl of Warwick aren't clear.

Thank you for your help.

Pages: [1] 2 3 4