Author Topic: Ancestry London & Surrey (+ Essex + Herts) Marriage Licenses many mistranscribed  (Read 392 times)

Offline melba_schmelba

  • RootsChat Aristocrat
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,658
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
I think I posted before about the fact that when searching these, you should note that on the Bonds, they have usually transcribed the first male name at the top, the first name of which is in latin, instead of what they should have done, which is the couples' names, not in latin, which are in the centre of page ::), sometimes the bondsman is not the groom.
https://www.ancestry.co.uk/search/collections/2056/

Unfortunately, now I have discovered that the problem on older allegations is much worse, as the practice of having someone else, usually a vicar, parish clerk, sexton etc. present the couple seems to have been much more common, and unfortunately in a majority of cases, this name seems to have been transcribed as the groom's name :o which probably means hundreds if not thousands of male entries are incorrect (both surname and first name), for example this page of allegations from September, 1685 there are four wrong entries

https://www.ancestry.co.uk/imageviewer/collections/2056/images/32515_1831101883_0035-00084

The first entry is presented by William Smith of All Hallows, Barking, London, clarke, of the intended marriage of William Davis of St. Martin in the Fields, Middlesex, widower aged 48, and Mary Shipton of St. James in the Fields, widow aged 51. But the groom is transcribed as William Smith.

The second entry is presented by Ralph Wootton of St James Westminster, hackney coachman, of the intended marriage of Isaac Vardon of Chelsea, Middlesex, aged 30, and Margaret Leister of the same place, aged 30. Ralph's name is transcribed instead of Isaac.

Fourth entry, names are misread David Longward should be David Congnard, Jane Althans should be Jane Altham.

Fifth entry, James Hickes of St. Swithin, London, citizen and barber chirurgeon, presents the intended marriage of Robert Huckle of St. Peter Poer London, aged about 30, and Anne Hickes of St. Swithin, aged about 19. James is transcribed instead of Robert as the groom.

Sixth entry, Nicholas White, parish clerk of St. Nicholas Cole Abbey, London presents the intended marriage of Robert Buttler of Epping, Essex, aged about 26, and Elizabeth Viner of Whitechapel, Middlesex, aged about 21. Nicolas is transcribed instead of Robert, and Elizabeth's name is mistranscribed as Piner.

So it seems it is best to search by bride's name only for these records. Unfortunately, this may not be possible, if you only have a surname from baptisms of a couple's childen :(. In which case, it might be worth searching out older indexes or transcripts, some of which may possibly have been published in historical or genealogical journals.

Offline melba_schmelba

  • RootsChat Aristocrat
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,658
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: Ancestry London & Surrey Marriage Licenses Bonds Allegations many mistranscribed
« Reply #1 on: Saturday 03 February 24 14:02 GMT (UK) »
I should add, that at that time, the Diocese of London included the whole of Essex, Middlesex, and much of Hertfordshire, as you can see on this old map

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diocese_of_London#/media/File:Diocese_of_London_Survey_by_John_Harris_1714.jpg

many marriages from those counties can be found in the indexes, assuming they have been transcribed correctly.

Unfortunately the problem with the older allegations is compounded by the fact transcribers seem to have regularly skipped entire pages, so searching for the bride won't help in these cases, in the few quarters I have looked at, found the following:

no transcriptions on these pages (Jan-Mar 1683)

https://www.ancestry.co.uk/imageviewer/collections/2056/images/32515_1831101881_0029-00107_3

https://www.ancestry.co.uk/imageviewer/collections/2056/images/32515_1831101881_0029-00108_2

https://www.ancestry.co.uk/imageviewer/collections/2056/images/32515_1831101883_0035-00018_2

https://www.ancestry.co.uk/imageviewer/collections/2056/images/32515_1831101883_0035-00043_2

https://www.ancestry.co.uk/imageviewer/collections/2056/images/32515_1831101883_0035-00046_2

Jan-Mar 1691

https://www.ancestry.co.uk/imageviewer/collections/2056/images/32515_1831101881_0029-00152_2

Apr-Jun 1685

https://www.ancestry.co.uk/imageviewer/collections/2056/images/32515_1831101881_0029-00110_3

Offline Watson

  • RootsChat Veteran
  • *****
  • Posts: 573
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: Ancestry London & Surrey (+ Essex + Herts) Marriage Licenses many mistranscribed
« Reply #2 on: Saturday 03 February 24 18:12 GMT (UK) »
melba_schmelba: Would it be possible to give a range of dates between which this problem might potentially occur and, for convenience of use, perhaps summarise, in general terms, under what circumstances our research might be vulnerable to it?

Offline Wexflyer

  • RootsChat Aristocrat
  • ******
  • Posts: 2,226
  • Not Crown Copyright
    • View Profile
Re: Ancestry London & Surrey (+ Essex + Herts) Marriage Licenses many mistranscribed
« Reply #3 on: Saturday 03 February 24 22:18 GMT (UK) »
I am shocked, shocked....
BRENNANx2 Davidstown/Taghmon,Ballybrennan; COOPER St.Helens;CREAN Raheennaskeagh/Ballywalter;COSGRAVE Castlebridge?;CULLEN Lady's Island;CULLETON Forth Commons;CURRAN Hillbrook, Wic;DOYLE Clonee/Tombrack;FOX Knockbrandon; FURLONG Moortown;HAYESx2 Walsheslough/Wex;McGILL Litter;MORRIS Forth Commons;PIERCE Ladys Island;POTTS Bennettstown;REDMOND Gerry; ROCHEx2 Wex; ROCHFORD Ballysampson/Ballyhit;SHERIDAN Moneydurtlow; SINNOTT Wex;SMYTH Gerry/Oulart;WALSH Kilrane/Wex; WHITE Tagoat area


Offline melba_schmelba

  • RootsChat Aristocrat
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,658
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: Ancestry London & Surrey (+ Essex + Herts) Marriage Licenses many mistranscribed
« Reply #4 on: Saturday 03 February 24 23:24 GMT (UK) »
I am shocked, shocked....
Well, yes I don't hold out much expectation when it comes to Ancestry transcription quality, but when you start getting to latin and the more old fashioned handwriting, all bets are off :-X :o. Admittedly the page I gave was one of the worst examples, but I would say the clear majority, where the 'presenter' (not sure what the correct legal term would be) is not the groom, the wrong name is transcribed :(. Also the fact I found so many pages, just on the few older pages I checked that no transcriptions were even attempted is annoying as you can't even submit corrections.

Offline melba_schmelba

  • RootsChat Aristocrat
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,658
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: Ancestry London & Surrey (+ Essex + Herts) Marriage Licenses many mistranscribed
« Reply #5 on: Saturday 03 February 24 23:54 GMT (UK) »
melba_schmelba: Would it be possible to give a range of dates between which this problem might potentially occur and, for convenience of use, perhaps summarise, in general terms, under what circumstances our research might be vulnerable to it?
The allegations continue to be completely handwritten I think up to the 1800s (in comparison to the forms used for bonds), however, for some reason, I have only noticed this practice of someone else 'presenting' the groom in these older allegations i.e. up to the 1690s perhaps. Could it perhaps be to do with increasing literacy? So, perhaps if a groom was completely illiterate, he had to nominate someone who was to act for him in applying for the licence?
  But the mistranscriptions due to unfamiliarity with old handwriting go up to the 1800s. So the classic things to look out for, lower case 'c's being mistaken for 't's, 'r's, 'n's being mixed up, 'o's and 'e's being mixed up, 's's and 'f's etc. For bonds, male names will be latinised (which can of course also be mistranscribed), so Thomas will be Thomam, William - Gulielmum, John - Johannum, Edward - Edvardum, Joseph - Josephum, George - Georgium, Henry - Henricum, Giles - Egidium etc. But I would start by just searching by groom's surname and bride's first name to avoid the latin problems. Use wildcards for letters you think may be problematic i.e. ? for one letter or * for many.
  It looks like so many of these really older records may be missing either due to the wrong groom being listed (this has the additional effect, if the bride is said to be of the same parish, but the groom is of a different parish to the presenter of having the incorrect parish also being listed) or the fact so many pages are just left untranscribed, if you know or suspect a couple may have married by licence in London, Middlesex, Essex, parts of Herts, Surrey, and you have checked the Vicar General and Faculty Office licences on findmypast, you could simply try and browse by date by putting any old name in and the 'Event Date' year at the bottom of the search of when you think your couple may have married (note a licence could be issued several months prior), then browse by clicking the quarters and years at the top.

Offline Pheno

  • RootsChat Aristocrat
  • ******
  • Posts: 2,002
    • View Profile
Re: Ancestry London & Surrey (+ Essex + Herts) Marriage Licenses many mistranscribed
« Reply #6 on: Sunday 04 February 24 09:20 GMT (UK) »
It would be a good project for the local county family history societies to take on and produce a complete index - maybe some of them have.

Pheno
Austin/Austen - Sussex & London
Bond - Berkshire & London
Bishop - Sussex & Kent
Holland - Essex
Nevitt - Cheshire & Staffordshire
Wray - Yorkshire

Offline melba_schmelba

  • RootsChat Aristocrat
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,658
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: Ancestry London & Surrey (+ Essex + Herts) Marriage Licenses many mistranscribed
« Reply #7 on: Sunday 04 February 24 13:03 GMT (UK) »
It would be a good project for the local county family history societies to take on and produce a complete index - maybe some of them have.

Pheno
Could well be that they have Pheno. I had a quick look, as I suspected, the Harleian Society published some transcripts of Bishop of London (Diocese of London) marriages which covers London, Middlesex, Essex, parts of Herts in Victorian times. Up to some point, they are complete, but unfortunately it is not clear when to :(. After that I suspect it is a select few with the pleb marriages left out ::) There is an interesting note on the first volume that the transcriptions which came from an old book originally from the Bishop's Registry, pre date the first parish registers by 18 years, going back to 1520 :o, and all those up to 1597 are unique, presumably because the original licences, allegations bonds etc. do not survive.

Allegations for Marriage Licences issued by the Bishop of London 1520 to 1610 - Volume I - extracted by Col. Joseph Lemuel Chester, L.L.D. D.C.L. and edited by George A. Armitage F.S.A. (1887)
https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/Allegations_for_Marriage_Licences_Issued/i6wKAAAAYAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=licences%20bishop%20london&pg=PP7&printsec=frontcover

Allegations for Marriage Licences issued by the Bishop of London 1611 to 1828 - Volume II - extracted by Col. Joseph Lemuel Chester, L.L.D. D.C.L. and edited by George A. Armitage F.S.A. (1887)
https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/Allegations_for_Marriage_Licences_Issued/jKwKAAAAYAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=licences%20bishop%20london&pg=PP7&printsec=frontcover

Interestingly, the London Metropolitan Archives help guide seems to claim that these Harleian Society publications have 'abstracted fully' allegations from 1520-1828, but from the Harleian Society's own description, and from checking allegations I have already found, and simply browsing the transcripts I can see they are in no way complete  i.e. just looking at 1693, there are only 24 listed when there should be 100s at least. But I am not sure what 'abstracted fully' means ???
https://search.lma.gov.uk/rg_pdf_creator/index.php?research_guide=35

Just checking at random some 'pleb' marriages from this page
https://www.ancestry.co.uk/imageviewer/collections/2056/images/32515_1831101881_0029-00161?ssrc=&backlabel=Return

13 March, 1692/3 Ralph Eaglesfield of Poplar, mariner to Prudence Longden of the same
14 March, 1692/3 John Lowder of All Hallows Barking, London to Isabel Clarah de Wolfe of the same
20 March, 1692/3 Henry Head of Limehouse Middlesex, widower, smith to Elizabeth Needham, spinster of the same
7 April 1693 Thomas Taylor of Ratcliffe, Middlesex, mariner, to Elizabeth Greaves of Limehouse, 22, with consent of her mother

None of these are indexed in the Harleian Society publications :(

There are also some extracts of Faculty Office marriages 1543-1869 by the Harleian Society, but again I think selected 'important' ones with ordinary folk left out

https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/Allegations_for_Marriage_Licences_Issued/DyoEAAAAIAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=licences%20bishop%20london&pg=PP7&printsec=frontcover

It looks like transcriptions of Vicar General licences might have been more systematic

1660-1668
https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/Allegations_for_Marriage_Licences_Issued/G78EAAAAIAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=licences%20vicar%20general%20harleian&pg=PP9&printsec=frontcover

1669-1679
https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/Allegations_for_Marriage_Licences_Issued/w2xKAAAAYAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=licences%20vicar%20general%20harleian%201669&pg=PP7&printsec=frontcover

1679-1687
https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/Allegations_for_Marriage_Licences_Issued/PzPfIuEk4LoC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=licences+vicar+general+harleian+1680&printsec=frontcover

1687-1694
https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/Allegations_for_Marriage_Licences_Issued/TGxKAAAAYAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=licences+vicar+general+harleian+1687&printsec=frontcover

Familysearch has a good guide and more links and online transcripts
https://www.familysearch.org/en/wiki/Marriage_Allegations,_Bonds_and_Licences_in_England_and_Wales

Dean & Chapter of Westminster 1558-1699
https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/Allegations_for_Marriage_Licences_Issued/Sa5XrQ81x6cC?hl=en&gbpv=1&pg=PA4-IA7&printsec=frontcover

(a note says a few years prior to publication the original allegations were sold to a paper maker and converted to pulp ::))

Offline melba_schmelba

  • RootsChat Aristocrat
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,658
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: Ancestry London & Surrey (+ Essex + Herts) Marriage Licenses many mistranscribed
« Reply #8 on: Monday 05 February 24 12:14 GMT (UK) »
This is another example of the format used, it seems to be transcribed summaries of the original allegations and/or bonds, on a printed form with 20 entries per page, but it is interesting to see a quick snapshot of the sort of people who might get licences and where they were from (note- Hidem is colloquially spelt latin eadem - 'the same' (parish)). Most of these people are ordinary folk with occupations like mariner, shoemaker, weaver, cooper, gardener, servant. I don't think any of these are in the Harleian Society transcripts linked above. In many cases, these records may be the only way of establishing what profession an ancestor had.

I note several people are from Kent, although it was not in the Diocese of London, sometimes just one spouse from Kent and the other from somewhere in the London Diocese, but I have also seen two people from Kent marrying in a London or Middlesex church.

https://www.ancestry.co.uk/imageviewer/collections/2056/images/32515_1831101454_0091-00029

I had forgotten that to browse by date i.e., if you already have a marriage you think might have been by licence (but have already checked Vicar General or Faculty Office indexes on findmypast), you simply use the drop down box on the right of the search page. Note though, that the quarters can be somewhat misleading, as Jan-Mar, 1695, will be actually be mostly (to us) 1696 entries because of the fact we used the Julian Calendar until 1752, before which the year started on 25th March. So most of what we would consider Jan-Mar 1695, will actually be listed under Jan- Mar 1694.

https://www.ancestry.co.uk/search/collections/2056/