Pages: [1]

Author Topic: 1695 Marriage Mary Ste....  (Read 503 times)

Offline farmeroman

  • RootsChat Veteran
  • *****
  • Posts: 632
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
1695 Marriage Mary Ste....
« on: Monday 01 July 19 15:02 BST (UK) »
Any ideas on the maiden name of Benjamin Bell's bride? I've seen it transcribed as Stef..n and  Stephen, but I'm not sure beyond the first three letters being Ste.  :-\

Offline horselydown86

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 3,437
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: 1695 Marriage Mary Ste....
« Reply #1 on: Monday 01 July 19 15:56 BST (UK) »
It's most likely to be:  Steflin

It would do no harm to post another example of an f in a mid-word position, if you can find one nearby - just to be sure.

Offline farmeroman

  • RootsChat Veteran
  • *****
  • Posts: 632
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: 1695 Marriage Mary Ste....
« Reply #2 on: Monday 01 July 19 16:28 BST (UK) »
Quote from: horselydown86 on Monday 01 July 19 15:56 BST (UK)
It's most likely to be:  Steflin

It would do no harm to post another example of an f in a mid-word position, if you can find one nearby - just to be sure.

Yes, it could be Steflin. I haven't managed to find an f in the middle of a word in the same hand, but this of from a couple of entries below looks similar.

Offline horselydown86

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 3,437
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: 1695 Marriage Mary Ste....
« Reply #3 on: Monday 01 July 19 16:34 BST (UK) »
Quote from: farmeroman on Monday 01 July 19 16:28 BST (UK)
...this of from a couple of entries below looks similar.

Yes, I agree.  Mainly I wanted to check that other examples of f were extended well below the line; as indeed they all are in this clip.

Offline farmeroman

  • RootsChat Veteran
  • *****
  • Posts: 632
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: 1695 Marriage Mary Ste....
« Reply #4 on: Monday 01 July 19 16:40 BST (UK) »
Ah, now this is interesting. The original marriage is from the parish of Stanhoe with Barwick (Norfolk) and is dated 11 May 1695. I have just found another marriage, this time from the parish of Burnham Overy (about four miles away) dated 13 May 1695. Definitely the same couple, although this time her name appears to be Stiffliing (yes with a double i).  ???

Offline horselydown86

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 3,437
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: 1695 Marriage Mary Ste....
« Reply #5 on: Monday 01 July 19 16:55 BST (UK) »
It's not certain that it's a double i.  It could just be the attack line for the n.

Whether it's Stiffling or Stiffliing, it's well within the normal range of spelling variation for the era.

You can see the spelling of Stannow is different to the first clip.  His spelling of Beniaimin is quite individual as well.  (Note that the first i is to be read as j.)

Offline farmeroman

  • RootsChat Veteran
  • *****
  • Posts: 632
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: 1695 Marriage Mary Ste....
« Reply #6 on: Monday 01 July 19 18:44 BST (UK) »
Quote from: horselydown86 on Monday 01 July 19 16:55 BST (UK)
It's not certain that it's a double i.  It could just be the attack line for the n.

Whether it's Stiffling or Stiffliing, it's well within the normal range of spelling variation for the era.

You can see the spelling of Stannow is different to the first clip.  His spelling of Beniaimin is quite individual as well.  (Note that the first i is to be read as j.)

Yes he certainly had some interesting ideas regarding the spellings of names and places. It appears that her name could be Steflin, Stiffling or something in between. It's interesting that the marriage was recorded in two parishes with slightly different dates. I wonder if the earlier one could have been reading of the banns rather that the actual marriage?
Pages: [1]