Author Topic: 1673 Burial Query  (Read 347 times)

Offline Janet Waterhouse

  • RootsChat Senior
  • ****
  • Posts: 282
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
1673 Burial Query
« on: Saturday 14 September 24 08:34 BST (UK) »
Hello,

I am having trouble making sense of the following entry:

January 14 1673/4 John son of uxor [wife of] Asquith buried January 14.

Does uxor on this occasion mean something else?

Regards,

Janet

Offline arthurk

  • Deceased † Rest In Peace
  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • ********
  • Posts: 5,376
    • View Profile
Re: 1673 Burial Query
« Reply #1 on: Saturday 14 September 24 11:04 BST (UK) »
It's hard to think of any other meaning. One possible explanation could be that Mrs Asquith had been married before, and that John was her son but not her present husband's. Other entries in the register might shed light on this, but it might be a lengthy search that still ends up with possibilities rather than certainties.

Offline Watson

  • RootsChat Veteran
  • *****
  • Posts: 703
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: 1673 Burial Query
« Reply #2 on: Saturday 14 September 24 11:19 BST (UK) »
Wouldn't it be a little unusual to use the word Uxor when the rest of the entry is in English?  I am wondering if instead it could be a male forename, but am struggling so far ...

Offline arthurk

  • Deceased † Rest In Peace
  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • ********
  • Posts: 5,376
    • View Profile
Re: 1673 Burial Query
« Reply #3 on: Saturday 14 September 24 11:44 BST (UK) »
The BT is in Latin, and has Jo: f. uxoris Asquith (I think - it's faint in places). I wonder if the BT might have been the original here, and the PR was written up neatly later, translated into English; and whoever did it also wondered about the lack of a forename but thought they'd better leave the original 'uxor(is)' just in case that was it.

Alternatively there might have been a rough copy in Latin that no longer exists, which is the source for both the BT and the PR.

In the BT the entry immediately below the last one in our PR clip is Jennet uxor Sam: Birkbie (and there are several similar entries on the page). Are they shown as 'xxx wife of yyy', or something else?


Offline Watson

  • RootsChat Veteran
  • *****
  • Posts: 703
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: 1673 Burial Query
« Reply #4 on: Saturday 14 September 24 12:33 BST (UK) »
Batley Hearth Tax, 1666 refers to the following:

Widow Asquith, Edward Asquith, Edward Asquith, Richard Asquith, William Asquith, John Asquith.

(Source: M. Sheard, Records of the parish of Batley, Worksop, 1894)

I wonder if the first of the above, Widow Asquith, is being referred to when "Uxor Asquith" appears in the register.

Offline Janet Waterhouse

  • RootsChat Senior
  • ****
  • Posts: 282
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: 1673 Burial Query
« Reply #5 on: Sunday 15 September 24 15:42 BST (UK) »
Thank you to all who replied.

I am drawn to believe that John was the son of the now Mrs. Asquith, and probably Mr. Asquith's step-son.

I suppose we will never know with certainty.

Until we meet again.

Regards,

Janet