RootsChat.Com
Old Photographs, Recognition, Handwriting Deciphering => Handwriting Deciphering & Recognition => Topic started by: brickman on Saturday 29 July 23 10:52 BST (UK)
-
Hi,
I am interested in the third record in this image (bottom of the left page) - the marriage between William Taylor and Ann Meek. I have understood as follows:
William Taylor of This Parish
and Ann Meek of This Parish
were married in this Church by Banns with Consent of
??? this Seventeenth Day of
May in the Year One thousand eight hundred and twenty three
By me John? Parker?, Min.
This marriage was solemnized between us
{ William Taylor
{ Ann Meek
In the Presence of
{ Henry Cockburn[?]
{ ???
No. 471
Any help understanding the ???s or validating the ?s would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks.
-
deleted
-
The "with consent of" has been left blank, presumably because the couple were both over 21 and did not need consent of parents or guardians to marry. The vicar is John Parker Minr. (Minister). The witnesses are Henry Cockburn and Wm P Dixon
-
Thank you emeltom.
-
emeltom beat me to it. Just what I had typed:
"With the consent of" is blank (both over 21), Other witness William DIXON.
-
I think the minister's surname is Parkin, not Parker. (Compare the last letter with those in Taylor and Cockburn/Dixon, and there appears to be a dot over the previous letter.)
-
Having looked again I agree with Arthurk. It does look more like Parkin and a John Parkin was a church minister at St John's Newcastle in the 1820s.
-
By way of conformation of all the answers given above here's the FreeReg transcription for the marriage (also taken from the BT):
County Northumberland
Place Newcastle upon Tyne
Church name St John the Baptist
Register type Bishop's Transcript
Marriage date 17 May 1823
Groom forename William
Groom surname TAYLOR
Bride forename Ann
Bride surname MEEK
Witness1 Henry COCKBURN
Witness2 Wm. DIXON
Transcribed by Barbara Grenville
-
It looks as though you'd be able to get a transcript of the parish register entry from Durham Records Online - pay per view, or cheaper with a batch of credits.
-
It looks as though you'd be able to get a transcript of the parish register entry from Durham Records Online - pay per view, or cheaper with a batch of credits.
Hi arthurk,
Thanks for the correction to Parkin.
Do you think the parish register entry would contain more information than the Bishop's Transcript? I was under the impression that the latter were copies of the former.
-
Sometimes the Parish Register and the Bishop's Transcript do contain slightly different information. This note from the familysearch entry on Bishop's Transcripts:
"Bishop's transcripts are often of value even when parish registers exist, as priests often recorded either additional or different information in their transcripts than they did in the original registers."
https://www.familysearch.org/en/wiki/England_Bishop%27s_Transcripts_-_FamilySearch_Historical_Records
I've never come across one with additonal notes in my own research, but it must happen. Though in your case you have the BT already, so I'm not sure if the Parish Register would necessarily be worth obtaining.
-
[EDIT: I'm too late to edit my previous post about Durham Records Online, and Gadget has already looked there now anyway (see next post), but there's something else you might want to consider, as follows:]
As you already have an image of the BT, the most useful extra thing the PR is likely to offer you would be the original signatures, which you wouldn't get in a transcript. From a quick look at Genuki, it looks as though the registers can be consulted at both Northumberland Archives and Tyne & Wear Archives - obviously one of these will have only a filmed copy, but even where an original register is held, you are usually expected to use a film.
According to their websites, both these archives have a copying service, but I don't know what it would cost. Others who use these archives regularly might be able to tell you more.
-
I've just looked at the entry in Durham Records Online but it gives no further information than that given in the BT.
Gadget
PS it doesn't say it is from the BTs whereas others do.
-
Deleted - misread!
-
Deleted
-
Deleted
-
Deleted