St Nicholas Great Yarmouth Bishop's Transcripts - SALTER

[katerimmer]

22 Jan 1722/3 Farrow Salter of Lowestoft SM (=single man) & Rebekah ?? Yar (= of Yarmouth) SW (=single woman).  The images on ancestry and FamilySearch are not clear enough to make out Rebekah's surname.  And the PR entry, although very clear, omits her name altogether.  So I am wondering whether anyone is visiting Norfolk Record Office and would be able to have a look at the original copy of the BT's to see what Rebekah's surname was, please?

This is a link to the BT image on FamilySearch so you can see whereabouts it is - top half of column 2.
https://www.familysearch.org/search/ark:/61903/3:1:939F-RFHP-H?i=244&wc=MXDB-SW5%3A982211901%2C982211902%2C982275401%2C982275601&cc=1823613

[jonwarrn]

Can't make out any of it clearly, even Farrow.
Having to go by that date (22) on the right to locate possible entry
Could it be Coe?
(A Rebecca Coe was baptized in Lowestoft, 2 September 1697, so not impossible!)

[jonwarrn]

(edited)
Burial in Lowestoft, 2 January 1757
Rebecca wife of Farrow Salter /from Yarmo'/ (aged 59?)
https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:S3HY-D1G9-J79?i=1773&cc=1416598&cat=640106

[philipsearching]

The gap between Rebekah and of Yarmouth is very small, so it has to be a short name.  I had a look on FreeREG for baptisms in and around Great Yarmouth and I think the only possibles (and I am not convinced! would be:DYE, BELL, GRAY.

jonw65's COE looks far more convincing - and I would not be surprised to see families moving between fishing ports.

Philip

[smudwhisk]

Nice to see Chatters agreeing with my suggestion of Coe which I made on a thread on another forum.  

On the other forum the OP suggested Carter but I don't think that is what is written. 

There is (from the OP on another forum) a Rebecca Coe marrying a Thomas Trip in Lowestoft in 1718 so may not be that baptism but it does look more like Coe than anything else.

[jonwarrn]

There may be hope for that baptism - if Rebecca Salter's age on burial was 59 it would fit perfectly.

The 1718 marriage at Lowestoft was on 30 Nov
Thomas Trip Widower + Rebecca Coe Singlewoman
both of the parish, married by licence
(good register isn't it!)
https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:S3HY-D1G9-CFD?i=1343&cc=1416598&cat=640106

Then in 1719 there is a burial at Lowestoft
2 September
Rebecca the wife of Tho: Trip Snr
looks like age 40 years
https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:S3HY-D1G9-HMW?i=1323&cc=1416598&cat=640106

[katerimmer]

The gap between Rebekah and of Yarmouth is very small, so it has to be a short name.  I had a look on FreeREG for baptisms in and around Great Yarmouth and I think the only possibles (and I am not convinced! would be:DYE, BELL, GRAY.

jonw65's COE looks far more convincing - and I would not be surprised to see families moving between fishing ports.

Philip

I don't think there is an "of" before "Yar" as many of the brides listed on the page don't seem to have one.  But what I am hoping is that some kind soul can look at the original at the record office and see if it is clearer on there. 

Thanks to everyone who has made suggestions.

[jonwarrn]

But would it be made available? My guess is probably not, but you can check NROCAT

[smudwhisk]

From past experience, we've not found the NRO that forthcoming at providing access to originals when the film hasn't been very clear.  They did after some fashion get out an original Will book to look at an unclear section but it took some arm twisting for them to do it.

There are quite large gaps between the words on those BT entries so its quite possible that it is only a short surname and too much is being made of what could quite likely be possible bleed through from the next page and also the fact I think the tail of the "f" in of from above is down that far.

Then in 1719 there is a burial at Lowestoft
2 September
Rebecca the wife of Tho: Trip Snr
looks like age 40 years
https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:S3HY-D1G9-HMW?i=1323&cc=1416598&cat=640106

I agree it looks like 40 years which would obviously eliminate the 1697 baptism.