Pages: [1]

Author Topic: Spelling Eatock -  (Read 1017 times)

Offline YukonHall

  • RootsChat Extra
  • **
  • Posts: 58
    • View Profile
Spelling Eatock -
« on: Wednesday 02 March 05 01:46 GMT (UK) »
I knew Eatock was going to be a problem but I never thought it would be this difficult!  How many ways can you spell it anyway?  Well let me see, Etoke, Etock, Etough, Atough, Aetock, Ettocce, and I haven't finished!  I struggled through the 19th century - not too bad - its a semi rare name so easy to find, they got married had lots of kids etc, got through 18th century a bit wobbly but with a little help from my half, fourth cousin in law (yes that is the relationship) I managed to get back to 1711 - pretty good.  The finishing touch was the marriage of Timothy Eatock to Mary Winstantley - I had the names and the date and the place - just needed to verify this - couldn't find it under his name no matter how I spelt Eatock - then I tried Mary and up it popped - yeap Mary Winstanley married Timothy alright on the 24th January 1711 but for some reason someone had transcribed his name as Timothy Mough! ::)
I'm doing Blaggs now! 8)
Frances
FB

Offline JillJ

  • Deceased † Rest In Peace
  • RootsChat Aristocrat
  • ********
  • Posts: 1,791
    • View Profile
Re: Spelling Eatock -
« Reply #1 on: Wednesday 02 March 05 20:35 GMT (UK) »
That's why we all love genealogy and family history!

Jill
Jowett & Broadbent in Leeds.
Perry, Hartshorn/e & Wilkes in Birmingham & Dudley. Walker and Dabill in Sheffield & Notts.
Farrar in Darlington & Leeds.
Kidd & Taylor in Hartlepool & Teesside
Census information is crown copyright from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk

Offline YukonHall

  • RootsChat Extra
  • **
  • Posts: 58
    • View Profile
Re: Spelling Eatock -
« Reply #2 on: Thursday 03 March 05 00:06 GMT (UK) »
There are over 90 ways of spelling Eatock!  Beginning with Aytalgh!  A tonsil twister!
Frances
FB

Offline Berlin-Bob

  • Caretaker
  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • ********
  • Posts: 7,443
    • View Profile
Re: Spelling Eatock -
« Reply #3 on: Thursday 03 March 05 06:37 GMT (UK) »
Hi Frances,

maybe you should get in touch with JudyP:

Quote
It pays not to be too fussy about spelling - our ancestors certainly weren't!

Standard (I wouldn't necessarily use the word 'correct') spelling is something which is of relatively recent origin.  And remember that many of our ancestors in times past were not literate so what was recorded was simply what the minister or clerk heard.

One of the names in my tag I have listed as McLaws.  By the 1901 census, there were just a few variations in Scotland - McLaws, McLehose and Hose.   However, from the IGI I have close to 80 different spellings!  And that's only counting entries extracted from Parish Registers - there would be many more if I were to count spelling variants in submissions from LDS patrons.
on: http://www.rootschat.com/forum/index.php/topic,37583.msg150096.html#msg150096

You could (quietly) let off steam together !  ;D  ;D
Any UK Census Data included in this post is Crown Copyright (see: www.nationalarchives.gov.uk)
Pages: [1]