Handwriting decipher thread must post link to full page

Hermy · 08-02-2019 11:25pm

SophieLockhart wrote: »

It's not a 'decipher' question so linking to the full page won't make any difference? (I presume the images are visible).

It's very much a decipher question when you don't provide a link to the source, or where that isn't available, at least details like where, when and who.

spurious · 09-02-2019 12:45am

In other instances where I have seen something circled, it has meant there was a correction of the circled item later, but if that is the case in this instance, it would have a note written in the margin, which we would see if there was a full image.

SophieLockhart · 09-02-2019 1:29pm

Okay okay

Entry no 454

https://civilrecords.irishgenealogy.ie/churchrecords/images/deaths_returns/deaths_1898/05839/4653863.pdf

spurious · 09-02-2019 4:41pm

I would say that is a copy. If you look at it, the entries are in lovely legible writing, while a scrawl is in the bottom part.

It's possible the original had 'father' or something else instead of husband. I don't think the registrar would be interested in making judgments, if the person reporting said they were the husband, so be it. The circle around husband could be to show it had been changed. I don't know if the GRO would be worth asking.

What I found interesting was that the medical attendant was deceased. I haven't seen that before. There was also a bit of a delay in the registration of the death, but that can result from many things.

Deja Boo · 09-02-2019 7:31pm

Entry 459 also shows husband circled and deceased medical attendant, with a time gap in registering.
(Note, just as a reference - there may be a marriage registration in Tipp for a same name couple of 459 - altho the ages differ greatly between the marriage and death registration).

Entry 474 has 'relative' circled (the deceased and relative have different surnames).

.

spurious · 09-02-2019 7:40pm

They are also in the different 'better' handwriting. A spy of the originals would be interesting.

Deja Boo · 09-02-2019 7:50pm

SophieLockhart wrote: »

I have two questions if you don't mind -

On this entry the 'husband' is circled. Does this mean the registrar doubts if he actually was the husband? And in fact I can't find a marriage record for the two names in question.

Long shot, but .....might this possibly be them?

tabbey · 09-02-2019 10:16pm

SophieLockhart wrote: »

I have two questions if you don't mind -

On this entry the 'husband' is circled. Does this mean the registrar doubts if he actually was the husband? And in fact I can't find a marriage record for the two names in question.

And here we have 'medical attendant' deceased. Does this refer to the actual medical attendant and is it unusual to include that piece of info?

Thanks.

The circle should be around the mispelled Medical Attendant, rather than the Husband which is correctly spelled.

Medical attendant merely means that the cause of death was certified by a medical doctor who attended the patient, as distinct from No medical Attendant where the patient was not seen by a doctor.

New Home · 09-02-2019 10:24pm

tabbey wrote: »

The circle should be around the mispelled Medical Attendant, rather than the Husband which is correctly spelled.

Medical attendant merely means that the cause of death was certified by a medical doctor who attended the patient, as distinct from No medical Attendant where the patient was not seen by a doctor.

I disagree, every other record on the page reads either "certified" or "no med. attend.", so I would say spurious is right (the medical attendant may have died after the death of this lady, but before her death was reported, and maybe that's why "Husband" is circled, perhaps to indicate that the doctor had been present too but could not certify the death having died himself).
Pure speculation on my part, of course.

SophieLockhart · 09-02-2019 11:26pm

Thanks indeed for all the help.

@Deja Boo I did see that entry but I don't believe either John or his father would have their occupation listed as 'gentlemen'. They were reasonably prosperous farmers but not of that rank afaik. Thanks indeed for finding a similar entry which might imply there was nothing significant about my entries being circled.

The family were quite a colourful bunch with various court cases and infighting going on, so it wouldn't have surprised me if the registers didn't paint a fully truthful picture either!

Thanks again.

spurious · 15-02-2019 1:08am

https://civilrecords.irishgenealogy.ie/churchrecords/images/deaths_returns/deaths_1898/05811/4644993.pdf

Last two entries on that page.
Both have what looks like 'mother' listed as the informant for deaths of an 80 and 90 year old. That can't be right, can it? Am I misreading it?

srmf5 · 15-02-2019 1:17am

spurious wrote: »

https://civilrecords.irishgenealogy.ie/churchrecords/images/deaths_returns/deaths_1898/05811/4644993.pdf

Last two entries on that page.
Both have what looks like 'mother' listed as the informant for deaths of an 80 and 90 year old. That can't be right, can it? Am I misreading it?

It looks like mother to me too. It looks like it was a mistake that went unnoticed. The second last entry looks like it could possibly be 30 instead of 90 but the last one is definitely 80.

Edit: Roots Ireland record the second last entry as 30.
I notice that the last entry was for a Catholic priest. The informant was hardly a nun with a title like mother superior possibly? It seems like a bit of a stretch but it's all that I can think of if it's not a mistake.

Jellybaby1 · 15-02-2019 1:20am

srmf5 wrote: »

It looks like mother to me too. It looks like it was a mistake that went unnoticed. The second last entry looks like it could possibly be 30 instead of 90 but the last one is definitely 80.

I'd go with 30 for the second last one too. I notice that the last entry the deceased was a priest, any chance the informant might have been a Reverend Mother? Just a wild guess.

spurious · 15-02-2019 1:28am

Jellybaby1 wrote: »

I'd go with 30 for the second last one too. I notice that the last entry the deceased was a priest, any chance the informant might have been a Reverend Mother? Just a wild guess.

Oh that's a possibility, though I would have thought a nun would be able to sign her name. I notice the other person is listed as an imbecile, god help her, who may have been in the care of nuns too.

It's a strange page. The first death has almost the same name as the informant of the last. Spooky.

**edit. Checking the 1901 census, there are a number of likely 'M.A.' and 'B.C.' candidates in the convents in Waterford. It may have been a term for a nun.

Jellybaby1 · 15-02-2019 1:39am

The 'mother' who made her mark is on the second last entry, not the priest's entry. But they are indeed very strange entries.

BowWow · 15-02-2019 9:44am

Second last one I'd say mother and age is 30 - especially when you look at the 3 in 30 in entry 274 and the 3 in 31 in entry 277.

Last entry - could it possibly be "teacher"?

SophieLockhart · 15-02-2019 1:30pm

BowWow wrote: »

Last entry - could it possibly be "teacher"?

No it's definitely 'mother' - the m is the same as the m in male, and the cross of the t is obvious. Also interesting that in the end section, the registrar leaves out the name in the final entry 280, as if he also has doubts.

But I suppose it's possible that the real age of the priest might be say 72 or 3 and the mother might be 90 or so.

srmf5 · 15-02-2019 1:35pm

SophieLockhart wrote: »

No it's definitely 'mother' - the m is the same as the m in male, and the cross of the t is obvious. Also interesting that in the end section, the registrar leaves out the name in the final entry 280, as if he also has doubts.

But I suppose it's possible that the real age of the priest might be say 72 or 3 and the mother might be 90 or so.

What do you mean by a name being left out in the end section of the final entry 280? I don't see any blanks where there should have been a name.

spurious · 15-02-2019 4:17pm

Down at the very bottom of the page, where they usually give the names of the first and last person on the page, the last person's name is missing.

yaledo · 24-02-2019 10:09pm

http://registers.nli.ie/registers/vtls000634194#page/13

Hello, i'm stuck with the 9th entry on the left hand page at the link above.

This is from Moycullen Parish Baptism Registers from 1844.

Note that the format is
[Date] [Townland] [Child's forename] ["of"] [Father's full name] [mother's full name] ["sp"] [sponsor name 1] [sponsor name 2]

Here's my best effort:
August 8 Krick [?] of Tom Hare [or Bane?] and Biddy Do. Sp [?] Faherty and Mary Dryden

I'm particularly interested to know
a) the surname (do you think it's Hare or Bane? - Both common names in the area at the time)
b) the child's forename (which is identical to the name of the first sponsor. This same name happens to appear 3 lines earlier as a sponsor's name. I think it might be an abbreviation, but I can't make head nor tail of it.

pinkypinky · 24-02-2019 10:36pm

I think it's Hare.

I read all the mothers listed with Do - meaning ditto, so not their own birth surnames.

Could the first name be Susanna - SS then NA in superscript?

Vetch · 24-02-2019 10:41pm

yaledo wrote: »

http://registers.nli.ie/registers/vtls000634194#page/13

Hello, i'm stuck with the 9th entry on the left hand page at the link above.

This is from Moycullen Parish Baptism Registers from 1844.

Note that the format is
[Date] [Townland] [Child's forename] ["of"] [Father's full name] [mother's full name] ["sp"] [sponsor name 1] [sponsor name 2]

Here's my best effort:
August 8 Krick [?] of Tom Hare [or Bane?] and Biddy Do. Sp [?] Faherty and Mary Dryden

I'm particularly interested to know
a) the surname (do you think it's Hare or Bane? - Both common names in the area at the time)
b) the child's forename (which is identical to the name of the first sponsor. This same name happens to appear 3 lines earlier as a sponsor's name. I think it might be an abbreviation, but I can't make head nor tail of it.

I think name of both baby and godfather is Wm. It's written in a very stylised way.

yaledo · 24-02-2019 10:48pm

pinkypinky, I think you're right that it's Hare, rather than 'Bane' (the name I'm researching), so the rest of it is no longer very important for me, apart from general curiosity.

For the record, I think it looks like SS and then something in superscript, but as Vetch points out, the other 2 examples on the page seem to be the names of [Sponsor name 1] - and this is usually a man.

One could go looking for other samples of William on the page, but like I said, this one is less interesting for me now.

Many thanks for your quick responses. Ye are legends as always.

pinkypinky · 28-02-2019 4:39pm

Ok, this one is part handwriting part detective.

Baptism recorded in St Lawrence O'Toole's in 1880 as follows on Irishgenealogy:
Name MARIA ANNA MELLIN
Date of Birth 11 February 1880
Address 8 GRAVES COTTAGES NEWFOUNDLAND ST
Father JOANNES MELLIN
Mother MARIA CULLEN

https://churchrecords.irishgenealogy.ie/churchrecords/display-pdf.jsp?pdfName=st_lawrence_mf_1853-1880_ba_0400

As you will see the image is very fuzzy on the lefthand page (as is the version the NLI has). I think Mellin is a mistranscription because there's no Mellin births ever for Dublin North.
I've tried Mullin and also looked at marriages for Mary Cullen in the previous decade but nothing jumped out at me.

Thoughts?

ThunderCat · 28-02-2019 4:43pm

pinkypinky wrote: »

Ok, this one is part handwriting part detective.

Baptism recorded in St Lawrence O'Toole's in 1880 as follows on Irishgenealogy:
Name MARIA ANNA MELLIN
Date of Birth 11 February 1880
Address 8 GRAVES COTTAGES NEWFOUNDLAND ST
Father JOANNES MELLIN
Mother MARIA CULLEN

https://churchrecords.irishgenealogy.ie/churchrecords/display-pdf.jsp?pdfName=st_lawrence_mf_1853-1880_ba_0400

As you will see the image is very fuzzy on the lefthand page (as is the version the NLI has). I think Mellin is a mistranscription because there's no Mellin births ever for Dublin North.
I've tried Mullin and also looked at marriages for Mary Cullen in the previous decade but nothing jumped out at me.

Thoughts?

What about Mullins as opposed to Mullin? Think that might be an 's' at the end.

JDERIC2017 · 28-02-2019 4:52pm

ThunderCat wrote: »

What about Mullins as opposed to Mullin? Think that might be an 's' at the end.

this any help

pinkypinky · 28-02-2019 5:33pm

Mullins comes up as a name variant for Mullin so you get the same results.

The Ancestry transcription is the same as the irishgenealogy unfortunately.

New Home · 28-02-2019 7:01pm

I think that's Melia.

spurious · 28-02-2019 7:54pm

Mellon is also a name featured in those parts.

Hermy · 28-02-2019 8:57pm

I'm with New Home - that's Melia.

Handwriting decipher thread *must post link to full page*

Comments

Handwriting decipher thread must post link to full page