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]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
