Unconfigured Ad Widget

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Latin in PR's ?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Latin in PR's ?

    Help!!

    I have found a possible marriage for George Puttenham, I noticed some strange writing after the entry so checked the Bishop's transcripts, it looks like Latin possibly?

    I think it reads Die Domio with a line over the top. The lady at the records office said the line is for an abbreviation but had no idea what it meant!

    Can anyone help please?



    Thanks

    Joanie

  • #2
    It sounds like die Domino - the Lord's day - Sunday. I'm sure there are some online calendars that could prove/disprove this.
    Phoenix - with charred feathers
    Researching Skillings from Norfolk, Sworn from Salisbury and Adams in Malborough, Devon.

    Comment


    • #3
      What year was it Joan? I can look it up in Cheney's handbook of dates and check if it was a Sunday,

      Roger

      EDIT: Have just been summoned for supper. Will get online again later

      Was it on 19th May? not very clear on image.
      Last edited by Roger in Sussex; 13-07-08, 20:49.

      Comment


      • #4
        Hi Joan

        I have just tried to find somewhere online to find out which day it was, it seems 30th January 1731 was a Tuesday?

        I wondered if it could have meant she was only domiciled or something in the Parish?


        Joanie

        Comment


        • #5
          Thanks Roger, no rush you enjoy your supper first, lol!

          ;)

          Joanie

          Comment


          • #6
            As the marriage was by licence, it wouldn't really matter whether she lived in the parish or not.

            OC

            Comment


            • #7
              Hi OC

              Does married by licence means that they didn't need to get the banns read?

              Would it be because they weren't from the Parish originally?


              Joanie

              Comment


              • #8
                Yes, it meant no Banns need be read, but it doesn't have any bearing on whether they were of the parish or not.

                Some people didn't want to have Banns read - perhaps they were already pretending to be married, or the bride was pregnant.

                If you can track down the licence there may be more information.

                OC

                Comment


                • #9
                  Ok OC you know what my next questions is going to be lol!!

                  How/where do I find the licences?


                  Joanie

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    You'll need to ask the Records Office.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Joan,

                      Back from supper

                      OK, I can see now that we are talking about 30 January 1731/2, so it will be Old Style dating.

                      Cheney works by converting Old Style years to historical years, i.e. starting 1 January.

                      So we are looking for 30 January 1732. Now that was a leap year, and using the leap year bit of the relevant table, 30 January was indeed a Sunday.

                      Incidentally, I seem to remember reading somewhere that at one time a licence was needed to marry on Sunday. Does that ring any bells with anyone?

                      Roger

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Roger

                        I don't know, and I wouldn't think it likely as lots of marriages happen on Sundays. Licences were just a way of marrying if you were in a hurry or wanted to keep your wedding quiet, whereas by banns involves at least 3 weeks and everyone in one or two parishes knowing about it.
                        ~ with love from Little Nell~
                        Chowns, Dunt, Emms, Mealing, Purvey & Smoothy

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Roger

                          Did they have leap years pre 1752? I thought it was because they didn't, that the calendar had got so out of sync with the rest of the world.

                          OC

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Thanks Roger !! :D

                            OC what sort of info would the licence details hold? Are they kept separate to the PR's ?


                            Joanie

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Hi Joan,

                              Licences or "marriage bonds" don't always survive so you would need to ask at the RO. They usually say the condition of the people getting married and their age as well. Although this is sometimes rounded to 21+ etc.

                              They will also have someone who pays some money towards it but I am not sure what this is all about to be honest. lol. Hopefully someone else will know.

                              Tom

                              Remembering: Cuthbert Gregory 1889 - 1916, George Arnold Connelly 1886 - 1917, Thomas Lowe Davenport 1890 - 1917, Roland Davenport Farmer 1885 - 1916, William Davenport Sheffield 1879 - 1915, Cuthbert Gregory 1918 - 1944

                              Comment


                              • #16
                                Licences and Bonds are two separate things.

                                Bonds required a guarantor, usually where the couple were unknown in the area. If the information given later turned out to be false OR the marriage did not take place, the money was forfeited.

                                Licenses don't always survive, as Tom said, but the RO would be the first place to look.

                                OC

                                Comment


                                • #17
                                  Ok, thanks for that everyone, I will check with the RO next time I'm there.


                                  Joanie

                                  Comment


                                  • #18
                                    Originally posted by Phoenix View Post
                                    It sounds like die Domino - the Lord's day - Sunday. I'm sure there are some online calendars that could prove/disprove this.
                                    Yes correct, The Day of the Lord i.e. Sunday 31st January 1731/2
                                    Cheers
                                    Guy
                                    Guy passed away October 2022

                                    Comment


                                    • #19
                                      OC,

                                      Yes, they did have leap years pre-1752. The Julian and Gregorian calendars had got out of synch because a year, defined as the time it takes the Earth to make a complete turn on its axis, is not exactly 365ΒΌ days, and over centuries the error had built up to 11 days.

                                      Having put it right in 1752, the calendar is now kept straight by not counting century years as leap years, with an additional adjustment that if the year is divisible by 400, in which case it is a leap year. There is a further correction due in the distant future - AD 5600 if I remember correctly - and that will not be a leap year. I don't think I'll hang around to see if they remember :D:D

                                      The first section of the attached, published in 1704 while they had still not agreed on doing anything about it (well, politicians are never in a hurry except to put up taxes, it took a Revolution to get this particular problem sorted in Russia!), explains it rather better.


                                      English computation.pdf

                                      Roger

                                      Comment


                                      • #20
                                        Roger

                                        Having read that link, I am utterly speechless!

                                        I need to lie down....

                                        OC

                                        Comment

                                        Working...
                                        X