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.


Messages - Zacktyr

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 ... 73
1
Hello, Rootschatters,

I have a photograph of an ancestor and on the back of it there are three lines at the top that read (I think):

Meine ------------------- Mutter

Meine ------------------- Mutter

Meine ------------------- Mutter

They are not written by the same person who wrote the deceased's name at the bottom and identified her as their great-great-grandmother.

If anyone can fill in the three gaps, I'd be very grateful.

2
Kent / Re: East Sutton COOK records mid 1700's
« on: Saturday 30 March 24 19:33 GMT (UK)  »
Hi, PJWELLS,

I have checked the original register of East Sutton for the marriage of William Cook and Dorothy Hammond and attach a copy of the image for you.  It is the last entry on the image.  Generally speaking, marriages pre-1754 don't include marital status and the banns aren't recorded formally in registers - at least not ones that were ever microfilmed.

I would suggest that you sign up on https://www.findmypast.co.uk/ as that site has the original parish registers for East Sutton, Chart Sutton and Aylesford.  Even doing a search for Cook within a narrow geographical area may help you determine quicker if there were any other baptisms, burials and marriages.

I hope this helps.

3
Kent / Re: Kent Will 1697
« on: Saturday 30 March 24 15:17 GMT (UK)  »
Hi, buttons,

Locating the Wills on the microfilms can be a bit of a daunting task so here's a few helping aids.

From your information I can see that the court is Archdeaconry - PRC17 - this is the group of registered Wills.

The next numbers are the volume number - 79.

The third numbers are the folio numbers - 123b. 

The link you are going to need to get to the Archdeaconry registered Wills volume 79 is
https://www.familysearch.org/search/film/007905015?cat=232273
This covers the years 1696-1701.  Once you log in at your Family History Centre and sign on to FamilySearch the above link will take you to the group of Wills.  To find the image look at the upper left corner of the screen and you will see a navigation tools that shows how many images are on the film.  Even though your Will says its on folio 123b, that won't correspond to what image number it is on the film.  Wills are arranged in chronological order and if it were me looking for folio 123b I would go to image 123 and check the folio number on that page.  Doing the math for the difference between the image number and the folio number will get you closer to the folio you need, quicker.  Then once you find folio 123 you will likely have quite a few pages to go through one-by-one until you find the 123b.  123a will appear before 123b and each of these a and b can take more than one page.

For future use the links to the entire list of Archdeaconry registered Will volumes is
https://www.familysearch.org/search/catalog/232273?availability=Family%20History%20Library

The PRC16 reference is to the original Will before it was proved at Court.  Sometimes there can be great differences in bequests between the original Will and the proved Will.  If you wanted to locate the original Will, that is in an entirely different area on FamilySearch.

Here's the link you need to access the original Wills - PRC16 - and the inventory that you refer to as PRC11 - these are the original inventories - the ones proved at Court are in a different place on FamilySearch:
https://www.familysearch.org/search/collection/1949814
You have to click on "Browse all images" and then on the next window click on "Kent, Archdeaconry of Canterbury" and click on "Inventories" and then click on the year you need. Registered inventories were only filmed up to 1643 so most inventories are in this other area of FamilySearch.  Sometimes you can find Inventories in the PRC10 category in this section.  Otherwise, those haven't been microfilmed.

The same dual system applies to Consistory Court Wills and Inventories.  Registered Consistory Wills are PRC32 and original Consistory Wills are PRC31.

I hope this helps to cut through the confusion over the Wills.  The volunteers at your centre may or may not know the procedure as they are not required to have any knowledge of research or genealogy.

Have fun at your centre!

4
Kent / Re: Kent Will 1697
« on: Saturday 30 March 24 00:00 GMT (UK)  »
Hi, buttons,

Yes, I can confirm for you that the films contain the microfilms of the original Wills.  I am a non-member (non-LDS) librarian and European Research Specialist at our local FamilySearch Centre and have used the Will films since 1983.  The quality is very good but, of course, there are Wills that were damaged in the Canterbury Cathedral archive and those are not so great.  But, I've never had a problem with them.

5
Kent / Re: Appleton family from Kent; a quagmire.
« on: Friday 29 March 24 01:37 GMT (UK)  »
Hi, treedigger,

ColC has provided the correct information.  But, I have checked the actual Preston next Wingham parish records and attach the baptism for John Appleton in 1778.  Definitely the parents were recorded as James and Elis: Appleton.  This may be an error by the church as all other Appleton children surrounding that time are recorded as being the children of James and Mary Appleton.  I've also looked at the parish register for Adisham for the marriage of James Appleton and Mary Ellender and can say that James is definitely recorded as being of Preston parish and Mary of Adisham.

Marriage at Adisham:
James Appleton of the Parish of Preston, Bachelour and Mary Ellender of this Parish, Spinster were Married in this Church by Banns this 16th day of April in the Year One Thousand seven Hundred and Seventy by me J. Lucas Curate
This Marriage was solemnized between us: the mark of James Appleton, the mark of Mary Ellender
In the Presence of John Wood, Samll. Nash.

Baptisms at Preston next Wingham extracted from the Parish Register:
Jany 26th, 1772 James son of James & Mary Appleton
Feby 6, 1774 Edward son of James & Mary Appleton
April 14, 1776 William son of James & Mary Appleton was baptised at Preston
June 14th, 1778 John, son of James & Elis: Appleton
August 6th, 1780 Philip son of James and Mary Appleton
July 27th, 1783 Timothy, son of James & Mary Appleton
Sept 11, 1785 Henry, son of James & Mary Appleton


6
Kent / Re: Kent Will 1697
« on: Friday 29 March 24 01:07 GMT (UK)  »
Hi, buttons,

The Archdeaconry and Consistory Courts Wills are, as David Boulding mentioned, available on the familysearch.org website.  Although you need to be signed in to Family Search at a local Family Search Centre, there are also now hundreds of public libraries around the world that are "affiliates" of the Salt Lake Library.  The Wills can be viewed at those affiliate public libraries by signing into Family Search at the library.  You will need to have a free Family Search account, which you can sign up for at home.

Here is a link to locate either a FamilySearch Centre or affiliate public library where you are:
https://locations.familysearch.org/en/search

7
Hi davecapps,

Thank you so much for taking a look at this document.  I appreciate your efforts and time greatly.

I agree that it appears to be some sort of tenancy agreement, perhaps something to do with timber cutting.

Your "feeble attempt" has cleaned up much of the miss-spelled words, which now helps to make sense of this document.  So, a master stroke, not feeble.

Thank you, again.

8
Hello, all,

Thank you, all, for your input on this document.  I, too, wondered if it was in German, but German doesn't make much sense in the context.

This bit of paper was found among a deceased relative's papers, which included certificates from France written in Latin in 1827 to prove identity in Argentina for the purposes of immigrating there. The certifications of the certificates were written in French and were sworn to by the Mayor of the town they were leaving.  There is no known travel or business in Germany by this person, Gregory Stirling. So, this is quite a surprise!

Zefiro, thank you so much for transcribing this document.  I agree it must be a very regional variation as it doesn't make much sense to me, either.  Thank you for also sending a request to davecapps.  Hopefully, he can make more sense of this mysterious paper.  At the suggestion of arthurk, I've added "German Kurrent" to the title of this post.

9
Hi, Rootschatters,

This is the worst document I've ever seen!  I can't even tell if it's written in Latin, Spanish, or French.

If anyone can help decipher this document, I'd be very grateful.

Thank you.

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 ... 73