Nice People Thread No. 15, a Cyber Summer

chris_m

PasturesNew wrote: »

Trouble is, Ye Olde Spellings.... you can't just google some names as every transcription will have spelt it differently. Jone, Joan, Joane .... even an Edward can be an Edw.

The problem is that you're researching a period when literacy wasn't very common nor, indeed, spelling standardised.

I know the Great western Railway in the mid-1800s had some very strangely named locomotives - where the chaps who made the nameplates, although able to read and write, were given their instructions verbally instead of in writing. One example that springs to mind was intended to be "Laocoon", but came out as "Lagoon".

zagubov

chris_m wrote: »

The problem is that you're researching a period when literacy wasn't very common nor, indeed, spelling standardised.

I know the Great western Railway in the mid-1800s had some very strangely named locomotives - where the chaps who made the nameplates, although able to read and write, were given their instructions verbally instead of in writing. One example that springs to mind was intended to be "Laocoon", but came out as "Lagoon".

Even in this century I remember a train station west of London that had platforms painted with destinations including "Surbition" which sounds like some dreadful unusual sin from something by Dante and Bunyan.


And speaking of books, PN and pyxis have you read Bill Bryson's "At Home" which explores a big old house and uses it as an excuse for some really interesting rambles through history?.

PasturesNew

I've just had a small win.

From the will I spotted there's a child to my G6-grandparents that I hadn't been aware of. I've just gone back to the baptisms and can clearly see him. The surname's been mis-spelt and they've got the wife as Elizabeth when it's Edith.

That's another bit of the jigsaw nailed. Will gave me that boy's name/wife's name and names of their two sons, except he wasn't on my chart! So I pencilled him in last night and now I've checked I can see his baptism.



Luckily, at this point, I am dealing with strange/unique names, so I can be confident I'm not misleading myself on this point.

Except there's a fly in that ointment as he's significantly older .... so he's back to being pencilled in, unless David had two wives..... it's not easy ... and I don't want to "make it up". I'm just flushing out possibles

Ah, I might have too many Davids and got them all in the wrong order.

I'll get there...

I've found the brother of the will writer and his wife...

ivyleaf

It sounds fascinating, Pastures! It's a good thing you're so patient!

PasturesNew

ivyleaf wrote: »

It sounds fascinating, Pastures! It's a good thing you're so patient!

It's like a gambler's obsession.... I'm so close.

I've got her will listing her relations. That's as black/white as you can get.

But then the dates I can find for the right names just aren't adding up ... unless you can put Edith, daughter of Joan, born when Joan was 10

Brother Edward married in 1695, that'd match with having a sister Joan born 1655. But Joan born 1655 doesn't match with Edith (dau of Joan) being born in 1665. Also, I have to keep an eye on the Will year, ~1720 - so I have to think about when she could reasonably have been born, produced a child who then married and had their own children and there's even one great-grandson by the time she died.... all with room for the generations to fit and do their thing at legal ages. I have the great grandsons born ~1719 so they'd be about 2 when great-granny died.

I know there was inbreeding - and where there's inbreeding there's underage marriages ... but my lot were "better than that" and so I refuse to believe Joan was popping out babies when she was 10

Also, David, the missing son (who exists in the will as the grandson), appears to have been born when the mother was 9 (and granny'd be 18).

So .... somewhere .... I'm completely off track. But I'll nail it.

All you need is enough names and enough transcriptions

Once I've nailed it, I can then work out how to further prove it - but the skeleton needs to be hung together correctly before I can start dressing it. At the moment the ears are hung behind the kneecaps.

Pyxis

zagubov wrote: »

Even in the this century I remember a train station west of London that had platforms painted with destinations including "Surbition" which sounds like some dreadful unusual sin from something by Dante and Bunyan.

The Cardinal Sin of the suburban dweller!

zagubov wrote: »

And speaking of books, PN and pyxis have you read Bill Bryson's "At Home" which explores a big old house and uses it as an excuse for some really interesting rambles through history?.

No, I haven't read that. Sounds good!

PasturesNew

GDB2222 wrote: »

That sounds like a lot, but I totted up the calories at around 1700. Which is roughly breakeven for you, I guess.

It was an "endless scoffathon without care" day

I weigh about 54-55Kg, so I must be "on balance" being about right.

Pyxis

PasturesNew wrote: »

It was an "endless scoffathon without care" day

I weigh about 54-55Kg, so I must be "on balance" being about right.

I wish I could have an "endless scoffathon" totalling only 1700 calories.,:(


Re. your weight, I suppose it depends on what your height is.

Now I've got to convert 55kg to old money.............

Edit.........8 stone 9and 1/4 pounds.

If you are 5ft 8 ins, that's probably underweight, but if you are 5 ft 3ins, it's probably fine.

PasturesNew

zagubov wrote: »

And speaking of books, PN and pyxis have you read Bill Bryson's "At Home" which explores a big old house and uses it as an excuse for some really interesting rambles through history?.

I don't read books. I've not the attention span for them

I also forget who is who etc.

As a child I used to read books, but I had to read them in one sitting, then I'd forget what I'd read anyway. So I gave it up.

I have no "fiction retention" gene. I'm the same with films: watch it - couldn't tell you at a later date what happened. So, not overly bothered about watching films either.

PasturesNew

Pyxis wrote: »

I wish I could have an "endless scoffathon" totalling only 1700 calories.,:(


Re. your weight, I suppose it depends on what your height is.

Now I've got to convert 55kg to old money.............

If you read what I ate, it's actually:

A filling cooked breakfast.
Lots of snacks and nibbles.
No actual meals, just snacks and nibbles.

Others will have also fitted in a "proper lunch" and a "proper tea".

I keep my weight down by snacking and nibbling .... but avoiding actual meals most days