John Holroyd son of Mary and ?

[bbart]

The nearest letter I can find for the start of the  amble word is clipped below, but I still don't know what it is.... it was transcribed as John Whewell??  I can't make a W out of it, so maybe search for other "for sure" W's?

[JenB]

Deleted. Looking at the wrong clip 

[horselydown86]

I doubt it is Martha in your first clip.  The extra letters would run into the next word.

The best way to find what families with ?amble surnames are in the locality is to check through the baptisms.

[horselydown86]

The nearest letter I can find for the start of the  amble word is clipped below, but I still don't know what it is.... it was transcribed as John Whewell??  I can't make a W out of it, so maybe search for other "for sure" W's?

It's possibly an N, but I'm not sure without an example to check against   I agree it's unlikely to be a W.

[avm228]

Looks like Whewell to me.  The fact that it is followed by an h rather narrows down which consonants it can be.

But I don’t think it is the same as the first letter of -amble.

Added: For my money it is Gamble.

[horselydown86]

Looks like Whewell to me.  The fact that it is followed by an h rather narrows down which consonants it can be.

Looking again there's evidence of an upstroke at the bottom of the second vertical, which could join to the curved line which co-exists with the top of the h.

So maybe it is a W.

[bbart]

In the original clip, post 1, preceding the amble there is a faded loop just to the right of the visible loop.  Could it possibly match the Sh in Shaw at the bottom of the clip attached in this post?
The attached post also has a W, and three times Haigh is written, with the third being a slightly different loopless H.

To hol: when you are trawling through the books, note that there are other Holroyd's getting their children baptized, as they may be Mary's siblings.

[bbart]

Is there any significance to the mark above the l in amble, which I have marked with a question mark on the attached snip?
I ask because the bottom of the clip is from the marriage of what is transcribed as George Gamble of Leeds, St. Peter, and it has a similar mark over the l, even though it would be a different person's handwriting.

[horselydown86]

Is there any significance to the mark above the l in amble, which I have marked with a question mark on the attached snip?

If it's the mark I think it is, it's part of the loop on the b.

In both records, the b and the l are both looped.

Thanks for posting the earlier set of examples.  I think this W does largely confirm the earlier W, although its top curves in the opposite direction.