Unconfigured Ad Widget

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

What does this say?

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

  • What does this say?

    Can anyone decipher this from the LMA St Dunstan in the East burials:



    2 March Mary wife of John Holmot of Wapping debel??

    The men have occupations but several women and children have this word which looks like debet or debel
    Last edited by Lindsay; 09-12-10, 18:38. Reason: For clarity

  • #2
    thats a hard one sorry cant make it out

    Comment


    • #3
      Can you put up an image as I don't have access to the record you are linking to.
      Margaret

      Comment


      • #4
        It looks to me like 'debet' which is Latin for owe, as in debtor. Sometimes with capital letter, other times lower case; sometimes as part of the entry, sometimes it seems as a later addition. It appears in the Christenings as well. No idea about its context.
        A second opinion would be more than welcome as I could be completely wrong!
        Phil
        historyhouse.co.uk
        Essex - family and local history.

        Comment


        • #5
          untitled.jpgOk, here it is (I hope)


          Edit - Ooh, it worked!

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by keldon View Post
            It looks to me like 'debet' which is Latin for owe, as in debtor. Sometimes with capital letter, other times lower case; sometimes as part of the entry, sometimes it seems as a later addition. It appears in the Christenings as well. No idea about its context.
            A second opinion would be more than welcome as I could be completely wrong!
            I was just about to type the same sort of thing - I could only find reference to it meaning debt

            "The term debit comes from Middle French debet from Latin debitum "that which is owed""
            Vikki -
            Researching Titchmarsh and Tushingham

            Comment


            • #7
              I support debet (owes). It's third person singular present tense.
              Uncle John - Passed away March 2020

              Comment


              • #8
                I saw that when I googled but didnt think it related to this??? why would it say that next to them ??

                Comment


                • #9
                  I suppose it could mean that they owe the church money for the burial? (or other service provided by the church).Thats my guess
                  Vikki -
                  Researching Titchmarsh and Tushingham

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    It seems like if you dont have debet next to the name, you have affidavit with a number in the last column?


                    Val, done a bit of googling re affidavit and I think what we have is the Burial in Woollen act - fits in with the dates you give for the burial. In which case it looks like the debet burials were not in woollen and so subject to a fine???

                    The Burial in Woollen Acts 1666-80 were Acts of the Parliament of England (citation 18 & 19 Cha. II c. 4 (1666) [1], 30 Cha. II c. 3 (1678) [2] and 32 Cha. II c. 1 (1680) [3]) which required the dead, except plague victims, to be buried in pure English woollen shrouds to the exclusion of any foreign textiles[4]. It was a requirement that an affidavit be sworn in front of a Justice of the Peace (usually by a relative of the deceased or some other credible person) confirming burial in wool, with the punishment of a £5 fee for noncompliance. Parish registers were marked with the word affidavit or with a note A or Aff against the burial entries to confirm that affidavit had been sworn, or marked "naked" for those too poor to afford the woollen shroud. Some affidavits survive. This legislation was in force until 1814, but was generally ignored after 1770. These related records are generally regarded as a source of genealogical information, and can help provide evidence of economic status and relationships that may be unavailable elsewhere or ambiguous.
                    Last edited by Heather Positive Thinker; 09-12-10, 21:31.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Talks about Affidavits in terms of burial so I guess that Debet was for the poor who couldn't afford the woolllen shroud

                      Last edited by vikki brace; 09-12-10, 21:34. Reason: Snap heather...lol
                      Vikki -
                      Researching Titchmarsh and Tushingham

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        thanks Heather and Vikki that would explain it then £5 was a lot of money then?

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Yes, an awful lot. Whether it was actually enforced ..............

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            It seems strange that those who don't have 'debel' next to them have an occupation. Maybe those who have 'debel' are unemployed ie paupers. I think that paupers were excused the woollen shroud????

                            I know I have looked at some parishes (not London) with a suspiciously high number of paupers in them. I think the vicar was protecting them from payments of various sorts.

                            Then again I my be talking rubbish!!!

                            Anne

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Wow, Heather that's brilliant - how interesting and what a find!
                              Margaret

                              Comment


                              • #16
                                Thanks very much, everyone, sounds like a likely explanation.

                                Comment


                                • #17
                                  Originally posted by Val wish Id never started View Post
                                  thanks Heather and Vikki that would explain it then £5 was a lot of money then?
                                  Blimey ! the value of £5.0s.0d in 1692 is now (2008) £626.00

                                  Comment

                                  Working...
                                  X