RootsChat.Com

Old Photographs, Recognition, Handwriting Deciphering => Handwriting Deciphering & Recognition => Topic started by: Ceryswyn on Thursday 28 November 19 20:23 GMT (UK)

Title: Marriage witnesses name opinions needed
Post by: Ceryswyn on Thursday 28 November 19 20:23 GMT (UK)
Hi all,

I've had this record in my possession for a number of years and I am still undecided about the names of the witnesses. I thought perhaps dropping it here for some opinions might be a good idea. Perhaps those with a better understanding of the handwriting of the era will be able to help? This is from a 1819 Marriage Banns in Gloucestershire, England.

Title: Re: Marriage witnesses name opinions needed
Post by: IgorStrav on Thursday 28 November 19 20:25 GMT (UK)
Thos [Thomas] Wills
Mary Dear

Is what I see?
Title: Re: Marriage witnesses name opinions needed
Post by: Karen McDonald on Thursday 28 November 19 20:30 GMT (UK)
Thos [Thomas] Wills
Mary Dear

That's what I see, too.  :)
Title: Re: Marriage witnesses name opinions needed
Post by: Ceryswyn on Thursday 28 November 19 20:49 GMT (UK)
Adding a bit more of the document here, because in 10 years it's never occured to me to compare the first letter in Wills/Hills/Mills to the lettering on the rest of the document  ::)

I'm looking at the W of William and the H of Hannah, and the way the loop at the beginning of each of those letters are done, the Thomas name now looks like Hills to me.

William and Hannah are both written by someone else and marked their X, so I assume that the handwriting is the same person for all these names....

What do you think?

Title: Re: Marriage witnesses name opinions needed
Post by: IgorStrav on Thursday 28 November 19 20:55 GMT (UK)
Although the Witnesses' signatures are actually their own handwriting and therefore may well differ from the signatures of William and Hannah in the way the letters are formed.

What were the full names of William and Hannah?


Added:
Sorry, I can see them in the name you've given the picture.

It could be either Wills or Hills, in my opinion. 
Title: Re: Marriage witnesses name opinions needed
Post by: Karen McDonald on Thursday 28 November 19 20:56 GMT (UK)
Adding a bit more of the document here, because in 10 years it's never occured to me to compare the first letter in Wills/Hills/Mills to the lettering on the rest of the document  ::)

I'm looking at the W of William and the H of Hannah, and the way the loop at the beginning of each of those letters are done, the Thomas name now looks like Hills to me.

William and Hannah are both written by someone else and marked their X, so I assume that the handwriting is the same person for all these names....

What do you think?


Good point.

There is only the one single diagonal stroke linking the vertical bits, once you take away the frilly bits.  ;D

So on reflection, I'd go for it being an "H" after all.

But let's see what some of the experts say.  :)

Edit: There is a little scroll upwards on the end, too. Is it a frilly bit or the end of a "W"?  ???
Title: Re: Marriage witnesses name opinions needed
Post by: Ceryswyn on Thursday 28 November 19 20:58 GMT (UK)

What were the full names of William and Hannah?
 

William Richards and Hannah Page, married 7th Nov 1819 in Cheltenham.
Title: Re: Marriage witnesses name opinions needed
Post by: Ceryswyn on Thursday 28 November 19 21:28 GMT (UK)
Just to make matters either easier or harder, there's a second record!

The witnesses names are much clearer. There is nothing written in the brides signature area. Both records say page #216 at the top so I don't know if one was copied to the other or vice versa. This record could be the original, or could be someone's transcription of the other record and therefore not necessarily be accurate.

Title: Re: Marriage witnesses name opinions needed
Post by: Treetotal on Thursday 28 November 19 22:48 GMT (UK)
I too see it as Thomas Wills and Mary Dear.
Carol
Title: Re: Marriage witnesses name opinions needed
Post by: sami on Friday 29 November 19 00:43 GMT (UK)
Thomas Wills and Mary Dear.

Although in the first record I thought it might be Thomas Hills.

sami
Title: Re: Marriage witnesses name opinions needed
Post by: Rosinish on Friday 29 November 19 02:20 GMT (UK)
It may be worth someone putting the 2 snips together (above & below) for comparison & to be sure although Wills does seem correct.

We can all do our signature slightly different from time to time in different fonts (I know I do).

Annie
Title: Re: Marriage witnesses name opinions needed
Post by: BumbleB on Friday 29 November 19 07:40 GMT (UK)
I may be wrong, but I believe that the reason that there are two images for this marriage is that one entry is the original parish register, where all those who could sign their own name did so, and the other version is the Bishop's Transcript where the church official completed the whole form for submission to the Diocese.

Having now looked at the two images on Ancestry, I am even more sure of my assumption.  The church official being John Barnard.
Title: Re: Marriage witnesses name opinions needed
Post by: Karen McDonald on Friday 29 November 19 08:15 GMT (UK)
I may be wrong, but I believe that the reason that there are two images for this marriage is that one entry is the original parish register, where all those who could sign their own name did so, and the other version is the Bishop's Transcript where the church official completed the whole form for submission to the Diocese.

Having now looked at the two images on Ancestry, I am even more sure of my assumption.  The church official being John Barnard.

Just for people like me, who have little idea about this...  ??? ::)

Does that mean that the church official was there when the parish register was completed, i.e. there were 2 versions drawn up at practically the same time, meaning that he knew exactly what the names were, or could it be that an official, who was not at the actual wedding, made a copy of the parish register at some later date? If the latter applies, he could have had the same problems as we are experiencing...

I'd be grateful for a little guidance on this.

Ta very much.  :)
Title: Re: Marriage witnesses name opinions needed
Post by: BumbleB on Friday 29 November 19 08:34 GMT (UK)
John Barnard would certainly have written up the original register (where No: 646 is printed) prior to the ceremony, so that the parties could sign or make their mark.  The BT (where No: 646 is hand-written) would have been completed after the ceremony, which is why all the names are in the same script. 

Title: Re: Marriage witnesses name opinions needed
Post by: JenB on Friday 29 November 19 09:23 GMT (UK)
I agree with BB that you are looking at two records of the same event.
One is the original, hence the differing handwritings, the other is the Bishops Transcript, copied after the event hence all in the same handwriting.


Does that mean that the church official was there when the parish register was completed, i.e. there were 2 versions drawn up at practically the same time,

No they weren't necessarily drawn up at the same time. Bishops Transcripts were required to be sent up to the relevant Diocese annually. There is a very good explanation of the system here https://www.kent.gov.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0017/16244/New-to-archdeacons-and-bishops-transcripts.pdf
Title: Re: Marriage witnesses name opinions needed
Post by: Karen McDonald on Friday 29 November 19 10:54 GMT (UK)

Does that mean that the church official was there when the parish register was completed, i.e. there were 2 versions drawn up at practically the same time,

No they weren't necessarily drawn up at the same time. Bishops Transcripts were required to be sent up to the relevant Diocese annually. There is a very good explanation of the system here https://www.kent.gov.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0017/16244/New-to-archdeacons-and-bishops-transcripts.pdf

Thanks for that!