Archiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 2002-12 > 1040354389

From: Renia <>
Subject: Re: Question on validity
Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2002 05:19:49 +0200
References: <019701c2a7a5$d845f120$9673f9c1@m>

AGeorgeSand wrote:
> Renia wrote:
> "Rubbish... Total crap."
> Calling me a liar are you?

No. I'm calling you ill-informed.

> Them's fightin words...
> Go to the Cheshire archives & look up the 1667 tax rolls, which
> I believe have been in part, previously posted on this list...
> they give the members of the household, including servants.

I don't remember seeing this on the list. I would be interested to see
it, or part of it, if it is available online (which I can't find, having
surfed for it). Here is part of the Hearth Tax from a Yorkshire Parish
in 1674 which I transcribed at the PRO:

1 hearth ThomasAinborough
1 hearth untaxed Margaret Almon
1 hearth untaxed Richard Almon
1 hearth Dorothy Andrew
1 hearth untaxed William Andrew
1 hearth Dorothy Andrew
1 hearth untaxed Elizabeth Andrew
1 hearth untaxed Wid Andrew
1 hearth Roger Andrews

No way of telling what relationship Margaret and Richard Almon were.
Brother and sister? Mother and son? Mother-in-law and son-in-law? Ditto
with the Andrews.

> as to the 1379 tax rolls, yes, I guess I was lucky.

Here are some 1379 Subsidy Rolls for Yorkshire online:

See how much true genealogical info you can get from that.

And some 16th century York Subsidy Rolls from

> "It's no more than a guess. You still don't know what, if any, the
> relationships were between these people."
> Humour me; let's call it a theory...

Call what a theory?

> "I have more than once come across two John Does, both with wives, Jane, in
> the same parish at the same time"
> & I have come across 6 John Does in the same parish at the same time,

Bully for you. What, if any, conclusions did you come to?

> all having kids who're hard to sort out as wives are seldom mentioned...
> wrecks havoc, but fortunately, doesnt happen all the time...

No, but it happens a lot.

> "The only way to diffrentiate between them, or, indeed, to realise they were
> totally different families, was to consult a family bible, in one case,
> and a bunch of 17th century wills in another. "
> God Bless family Bibles... may they stay in the family long enough for the
> genealogist to find them. Should all be called in, collected together somewhere in a central registry so the generations can consult them...

I agree.

> I'm still tracking one that's on a distant cousin (Godwin) line for
some reason, & nobody's heard of it since...
> "Total crap. You really don't have a clue, do you? "
> You've been studying diplomacy under hines, havent you?...

No. Under a lady from France who also posts here.

> its just hypothetical supposition... personally, I do fine dearie; I use books more
> than rolls, but I use rolls too & I'll bet you have more errors than I do;

I bet I don't.

> it's a characteristic of bombast, to be covering for a number of lacunes...
> "Parish registers in England began in 1538 (16th
> century) "
> are you sure that 1538 was in the 16th century? I mean, you found
> it necessary to note it...

As opposed to the 14th century which you declared. So yes, I found it
necessary to note it.

> "but most do not survive from that far back"
> Rubbish...
> otherwise, what were all those nasty microfilms I was poring over that
> said parish of this & parish of that, with records going back to 1480 or
> more IIRC...

Not parish registers. In fact, parish registers were always made (as you
say below) but only in 1538 was it made compulsory to keep and preserve
them. Very, very, very few survive from before this time. Victorian
vicars were notorious for trashing them or using them as furniture
props. Which parish registers did you find from 1480? This should be
made common knowledge.

> They werent nationally imposed before 1538,
> but they were fairly commonly kept in some areas...
> others... took their time to get around to it...
> "Early parish registers don't always give the name of the parent of the
> child, "
> Dont know what you're talking about; I have never seen a register
> that didnt give the father of the child, & Ive seen a LOT of registers...
> It's not the oldest ones that are the most scribbled, smudged, & illegible.

Well, I have transcribed parish registers. Here are the first 10
baptismal entries I transcribed from a parish register in Yorkshire:

1616/01/06 c Pawson, Thomas
1616/01/28 c Burnet, Thomas
1616/02/02 c Ingleton, Marie
1616/02/20 c Smith, John
1616/04/10 c Langdall, Dorythe
1616/04/10 c Waker, George
1616/04/17 c Burnet, Thoms [Willm crossed out]
1616/05/05 c Lyllforde, Thomas
1616/05/26 c Metcallf, John
1616/06/16 c Pybus, John

Only towards the end of 1616 do parents' names appear.

And here are the first 10 burials:

1616/01/-- Bur Webster, Margaret
1616/01/10 Bur Burnet, Leonard
1616/01/10 Bur Wetherel, Elizabeth
1616/01/12 Bur Shawe, Christer
1616/01/16 Bur Granger, Clare
1616/01/19 Bur Fysher, Clare, widow
1616/01/30 Bur Dun, James
1616/02/03 Bur Hill, Dorythye
1616/02/06 Bur Lowson, Thomas
1616/02/17 Bur Ingllton, Mary

> "The gentry would not discuss anything with their poorer cousins, I am
> afraid."
> Speak for yourself; I have the letters.
> Always charming to chat with you ... sort of...

And with you ... sort of ...

Now, who else does triple full-stops?


This thread: