These details have been compiled from transcripts of Purse Caundle's and other Parish Registers; plus memorial inscriptions inside the church, and in the churchyard and cemetery.
Friday, August 13, 2010
PURSE CAUNDLE HISTORY - APPENDIX C5: PARISH REGISTERS - BURIALS
Updated 14th August 2010, 3.40 p.m.
These details have been compiled from transcripts of Purse Caundle's and other Parish Registers; plus memorial inscriptions inside the church, and in the churchyard and cemetery.
These details have been compiled from transcripts of Purse Caundle's and other Parish Registers; plus memorial inscriptions inside the church, and in the churchyard and cemetery.
PURSE CAUNDLE HISTORY - APPENDIX C5: PARISH REGISTERS - MARRIAGES
Updated: 13th August 2010, 4.30 p.m.
Not only has a researcher to deal with the often poor or unclear writing of an incumbent when they wrote in parish registers, but in the case of marriages there is also a similar problem with the lay participants.In the case of those who could only make their 'X' mark, one has to rely on the priests as to the accurate spelling of their names - especially when given them in a broad "Darset" dialect. All these 'X's, and in latter years their diminishing frequency, can give some guide as to local literacy. Improved literacy can also bring its own problems, as one can then come across the double situation of poor writing by the priest, and an illegible scribbled signature by a spouse and/or witness. Occupations and addresses are also sometimes not written clearly.
Occasionally one notices some difference in the spelling of a name as written by the priest, and that as signed by the spouse or witness.
As seen with baptisms, microfilming of regiesters does not always produce the clearest images. Thus sometimes the only way to try and elucidate a name in a microfilm image is to go back to the original register.
There is here first a surmised partial reconstruction of the missing early marriage register:
[26] Dec 1269 Roger de Wyveleshulle & Margery --- (Inquisitions
16 Jan 1605/6 Joseph Hussey gent & [Mris] Ann Clyfford (Milborne
Not only has a researcher to deal with the often poor or unclear writing of an incumbent when they wrote in parish registers, but in the case of marriages there is also a similar problem with the lay participants.In the case of those who could only make their 'X' mark, one has to rely on the priests as to the accurate spelling of their names - especially when given them in a broad "Darset" dialect. All these 'X's, and in latter years their diminishing frequency, can give some guide as to local literacy. Improved literacy can also bring its own problems, as one can then come across the double situation of poor writing by the priest, and an illegible scribbled signature by a spouse and/or witness. Occupations and addresses are also sometimes not written clearly.
Occasionally one notices some difference in the spelling of a name as written by the priest, and that as signed by the spouse or witness.
As seen with baptisms, microfilming of regiesters does not always produce the clearest images. Thus sometimes the only way to try and elucidate a name in a microfilm image is to go back to the original register.
There is here first a surmised partial reconstruction of the missing early marriage register:
[26] Dec 1269 Roger de Wyveleshulle & Margery --- (Inquisitions
Post Mortem 1291)
1528/9 William Hannam & Margaret Long of Purse Caundle (20 Henry 8)
12 Sep 1559 William Plucknet & Johan Kelway (Milborne Port Register)
27 Sep 1568 James Hannam & Mary Watkins16 Jan 1605/6 Joseph Hussey gent & [Mris] Ann Clyfford (Milborne
Port Register)
11 Jun 1610 [1640?] Roger Bartlett & Elizabeth Mews (SDNQ XVII, 1923)
c.1625 Edward Thornhull Esq. of Thornhull and Wolland [died 1676] & Margaret Highmore of Purse Caundle [died 1667]
16 May 1663 William Ellis of Purse Caundle & Joane Hallett of Henstridge [at Henstridge, in Henstridge Register]
2 Mar 1728 Samuel Game of Milborne Port & Judith West of Purse Caundle [in Goathill Register]
Friday, June 11, 2010
Monday, May 3, 2010
PURSE CAUNDLE HISTORY - APPENDIX C5: PARISH REGISTERS - BAPTISMS
Updated: 12th August 2010, 7.50 p.m.
The recording of items of importance into liturgical books was made a rule by the Salisbury Diocesan statutes of c.1217, when parish priests were enjoined to "write in missals and other books the properties and rents of the church and lists of the books, vestments and furnishing". This was the first step in the long process of making parish priests the registrars of their parishes.
In 1538 Thomas Cromwell ordered that each parish should keep a register of baptisms, marriages and burials. The entries were to be made after each Sunday service. Then in 1598 the Provincial Constitution of Canterbury required that the registers should be of parchment. All previous entries, which had usually been written on paper, had first to be copied up, particularly those since the accession of Queen Elizabeth (1558). This is the reason so many rgisters commence in 1558, the previous registers having become unreadable through damp and decay. Up to about 1732 it was common to record the entries with the Latin forms of Christian names. It is possible that there may have been errors in the above copying up, as can be found with any transcription, both by the author and others. When copying Register entries it is occasionally noticed that some entries are out of sequence, where presumably the incumbent (or Parish Clerk) had omitted to make an entry at the time of the event, and rectified matters later. And in APPENDIX C3 it will be seen that the Rev. Thomas Medens in the Milborne Port Register was accused of it being the "worst kept" during his 1560s incumbency.
Hutchins in the 2nd edition of 1796-1814 mentions that "The Register begins 1731." But according to a talk given by Lady Victoria Herbert in 1927, reported in APPENDIX A3, the Parish Registers for the period prior to 1730/1731 were taken away by a churchwarden in 1883. DHC ref: PE/PCD: INV 6/1 says that the registers were extant in 1880.
However, the latest discovered evidence in this saga was in 2010, for at the Bristol Record Office there was found to be a letter dated 29th May 1813 from John Peddle, curate of 'Purse Candle'. He stated that there were "Three Registers . . . to wit - One of Burials begun in the year 1731 - another of Baptisms begun 1731 - and another of Marriages 1754 - all of them kept correctly . . ." Had those missing Registers come back only to be 'borrowed' again?
It has not helped matters that Purse Caundle has not always been in the same diocese. Up until 1542 the parish was in the Diocese of Salisbury. It was then transferred for some reason to the Diocese of Bristol. Then in 1836 it was transferred back to Salisbury. Unfortunately the Bishop's Transcripts were destroyed by fire at Blandford (Archdeanery of Dorset, Diocese of Bristol) in 1731.
Efforts have been made by the author to ascertain the whereabouts of the missing Registers at both Dioceses, but so far without success. However, in SDNQ XVII, 1923, page 2, Canon C. H. Mayo noted that pre-1731 Registers seemed to have still been at Purse Caundle during the Rectorship of the Rev. R. Messiter 1829-1885, i.e. subsequent to the Rev. Peddle's information of 1813. (It was from Canon Mayo's notes that Lady Victoria Herbert derived her talk of 1927.) At one stage early baptism and marriage information had been able to be provided by the late Dalton Hascoll Serrell of Haddon Lodge, Stourton Caundle (which he built in 1861), and who died in 1901, which is another line of enquiry followed. It is noticed that the earliest Stalbridge Register is also missing. Dorset History Centre (formerly Dorset County Record Office) thus only holds the Purse Caundle Parish Registers for 1730-1837. These have been microfilmed, as well as being transcribed, from which the following have been copied. Possible partial reconstructions of missing earlier Registers have been derived from other sources, e.g. headstones, wills, Hutchins, and other publications as noted.
To set the above deficiences into context, one cannot do better than reproduce a letter sent to the weekly Dorset newspaper Southern Times, 6th April 1872, reproduced in the Genealogist's Magazine, Vol. 28, No. 1, March 2004:
"Dear Sir,
The last issue of the Southern Times reports that the ratepayers of Wimborne Minster propose to send a protest to Parliament against the 81st section of Lord Shaftesbury's Ecclesiastical Courts and Registries Bill, by which it is proposed to remove all the old registers of each parish from the care of the churchwardens and clergymen and place them in some public building in London. Perhaps it may be worth while for those who are asked to sign such a protest to consider the following fact:- Since Hutchins wrote his invaluable history of this county at least six old register books of parishes within a few miles of this place have disappeared, whilst another was found a few years ago concealed in the thatch of a cottage! I once had occasion to consult a parish register in Wiltshire, when I was told it no longer existed; but I afterwards accidentally met with it at the bottom of the muniment chest of a gentleman who owned the whole of the land in the parish, and there, for aught I know to the contrary, it still remains. On asking to see the register in Deptford, in Kent, a few loose leaves were brought to me, which might have been bound, and so preserved, at the cost of half-a-crown. I have recently wished to obtain an extract from a register in Somersetshire, and have been told the leaf which ought to contain it has been cut out; and a similar answer has been given to me respecting another register in Wiltshire. On an application being made by a member of the College of Arms to the clergyman of a parish for an extract from his register, the worthy custode cut out the bit of parchment on which the entry was made and obligingly forwarded it to the applicant, saying he was unable to read it correctly. Several old registers were found by the late Sir Charles Young, Garter King-at-Arms, in the library of the Herald's College, no doubt sent there by persons of less destructive proclivities than the cutting gentleman above alluded to. They have since been restored. If these instances have occurred within a very limited range of experience, it can scarcely be doubted that throughout the country generally a vast number of these most valuable and interesting documents have, through neglect or carelessness, been irrecoverably lost or destroyed. Contrast this wholesale destruction with the careful preservation of our national records - some of them more than 700 years old - in a public repository in London, where they are accessible to all the world.
The recording of items of importance into liturgical books was made a rule by the Salisbury Diocesan statutes of c.1217, when parish priests were enjoined to "write in missals and other books the properties and rents of the church and lists of the books, vestments and furnishing". This was the first step in the long process of making parish priests the registrars of their parishes.
In 1538 Thomas Cromwell ordered that each parish should keep a register of baptisms, marriages and burials. The entries were to be made after each Sunday service. Then in 1598 the Provincial Constitution of Canterbury required that the registers should be of parchment. All previous entries, which had usually been written on paper, had first to be copied up, particularly those since the accession of Queen Elizabeth (1558). This is the reason so many rgisters commence in 1558, the previous registers having become unreadable through damp and decay. Up to about 1732 it was common to record the entries with the Latin forms of Christian names. It is possible that there may have been errors in the above copying up, as can be found with any transcription, both by the author and others. When copying Register entries it is occasionally noticed that some entries are out of sequence, where presumably the incumbent (or Parish Clerk) had omitted to make an entry at the time of the event, and rectified matters later. And in APPENDIX C3 it will be seen that the Rev. Thomas Medens in the Milborne Port Register was accused of it being the "worst kept" during his 1560s incumbency.
Hutchins in the 2nd edition of 1796-1814 mentions that "The Register begins 1731." But according to a talk given by Lady Victoria Herbert in 1927, reported in APPENDIX A3, the Parish Registers for the period prior to 1730/1731 were taken away by a churchwarden in 1883. DHC ref: PE/PCD: INV 6/1 says that the registers were extant in 1880.
However, the latest discovered evidence in this saga was in 2010, for at the Bristol Record Office there was found to be a letter dated 29th May 1813 from John Peddle, curate of 'Purse Candle'. He stated that there were "Three Registers . . . to wit - One of Burials begun in the year 1731 - another of Baptisms begun 1731 - and another of Marriages 1754 - all of them kept correctly . . ." Had those missing Registers come back only to be 'borrowed' again?
It has not helped matters that Purse Caundle has not always been in the same diocese. Up until 1542 the parish was in the Diocese of Salisbury. It was then transferred for some reason to the Diocese of Bristol. Then in 1836 it was transferred back to Salisbury. Unfortunately the Bishop's Transcripts were destroyed by fire at Blandford (Archdeanery of Dorset, Diocese of Bristol) in 1731.
Efforts have been made by the author to ascertain the whereabouts of the missing Registers at both Dioceses, but so far without success. However, in SDNQ XVII, 1923, page 2, Canon C. H. Mayo noted that pre-1731 Registers seemed to have still been at Purse Caundle during the Rectorship of the Rev. R. Messiter 1829-1885, i.e. subsequent to the Rev. Peddle's information of 1813. (It was from Canon Mayo's notes that Lady Victoria Herbert derived her talk of 1927.) At one stage early baptism and marriage information had been able to be provided by the late Dalton Hascoll Serrell of Haddon Lodge, Stourton Caundle (which he built in 1861), and who died in 1901, which is another line of enquiry followed. It is noticed that the earliest Stalbridge Register is also missing. Dorset History Centre (formerly Dorset County Record Office) thus only holds the Purse Caundle Parish Registers for 1730-1837. These have been microfilmed, as well as being transcribed, from which the following have been copied. Possible partial reconstructions of missing earlier Registers have been derived from other sources, e.g. headstones, wills, Hutchins, and other publications as noted.
To set the above deficiences into context, one cannot do better than reproduce a letter sent to the weekly Dorset newspaper Southern Times, 6th April 1872, reproduced in the Genealogist's Magazine, Vol. 28, No. 1, March 2004:
"Dear Sir,
The last issue of the Southern Times reports that the ratepayers of Wimborne Minster propose to send a protest to Parliament against the 81st section of Lord Shaftesbury's Ecclesiastical Courts and Registries Bill, by which it is proposed to remove all the old registers of each parish from the care of the churchwardens and clergymen and place them in some public building in London. Perhaps it may be worth while for those who are asked to sign such a protest to consider the following fact:- Since Hutchins wrote his invaluable history of this county at least six old register books of parishes within a few miles of this place have disappeared, whilst another was found a few years ago concealed in the thatch of a cottage! I once had occasion to consult a parish register in Wiltshire, when I was told it no longer existed; but I afterwards accidentally met with it at the bottom of the muniment chest of a gentleman who owned the whole of the land in the parish, and there, for aught I know to the contrary, it still remains. On asking to see the register in Deptford, in Kent, a few loose leaves were brought to me, which might have been bound, and so preserved, at the cost of half-a-crown. I have recently wished to obtain an extract from a register in Somersetshire, and have been told the leaf which ought to contain it has been cut out; and a similar answer has been given to me respecting another register in Wiltshire. On an application being made by a member of the College of Arms to the clergyman of a parish for an extract from his register, the worthy custode cut out the bit of parchment on which the entry was made and obligingly forwarded it to the applicant, saying he was unable to read it correctly. Several old registers were found by the late Sir Charles Young, Garter King-at-Arms, in the library of the Herald's College, no doubt sent there by persons of less destructive proclivities than the cutting gentleman above alluded to. They have since been restored. If these instances have occurred within a very limited range of experience, it can scarcely be doubted that throughout the country generally a vast number of these most valuable and interesting documents have, through neglect or carelessness, been irrecoverably lost or destroyed. Contrast this wholesale destruction with the careful preservation of our national records - some of them more than 700 years old - in a public repository in London, where they are accessible to all the world.
Yours faithfully,
Tyneham, 28th March, Thomas BOND'
The following comment wass appended in the magazine: 'The author was obviously unaware of the appalling conditions in which some public records were kept in the Tower of London.'
It is well known to genealogists that many wilful and deliberate calamities could have befallen parish registers which had managed to survive being damaged by vermin and damp, e.g. used as wrapping material or to light domestic fires.
Because of all the above difficulties, the reading and transcribing of handwritten documents is thus an art, not an exact science. In this instance, during copying from microfilm copies of registers, written in different and indifferent hands, it is inevitable that there could well be errors and with subsequent transferring to wordprocessor or PC - especially if the microfilm copy itself is not of the highest standard.
The following transcripts of Baptisms, Marriages, and Burials are a combination of those derived from DHC microfilm images by both the author, and Karen Francis on www.dorset-opc.com/PurseCaundle - to whom grateful acknowledgements are made. The author would thus be appreciative of any errors being brought to his attention so that he may amend this History record; and similarly of any incomplete transcription.
BAPTISMS
[8] Dec 1269 Roger Aleyn, son of John Aleyn (both date of birth
and baptism as recorded in Inquisitions Post Mortem 1291)
[1270] Robert, son of Robert & Margery de Wyveleshulle
(Inquisitions Post Mortem 1291)
14 Mar 1618 Peter Mew, son of Ellis Mews (SDNQ IV, 1895) Date of
birth.
19 Mar 1618 Peter, son of Ellis Mews (SDNQ XVII, 1923) - presumably
born 14th. and baptised on the 19th.
7 Dec 1619 Elizabeth Mew, daughter of Ellis Mew (SDNQ IV, 1895)
7 Dec 1619 Elizabeth, daughter of James Mews (SDNQ XVII, 1923)
12 Mar 1620 John Mew, son of Ellis Mew [John later to be a Colonel]
(SDNQ IV, 1895)
12 Mar 1620 John, son of Ellis Mews (SDNQ XVII, 1923)
29 Dec 1730 Jonathan, son of Jonathan Snook.
10 Mar 1731 Robert, son of Robert Barber.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
