Can someone help with this PR entry please?

Discussion in 'Ask The Experts' started by Findem, Nov 7, 2020.

  1. Findem

    Findem The Fearless One

    Offline
    Messages:
    2,517
    Likes Received:
    11,501
    Location:
    NSW, Australia, ex Chelmsford Essex
    I would like to know whether Robert Goulston son of Edward Goulston was baptised 11 Aug 1643 or 11 Aug 1644.

    The entry is the very last one on the first page, I cant make out where 1643 ends and 1644 starts, unfortunately Ancestry's Essex Parish Register Index has two entries, one for Robert Golston 11 Jan 1643 Panfield and the other for Robert Goulston 11 Aug 1644 Panfield, both show the father as Edward.

    The name is Robert Goulston and the day and month looks like 11 August to me but the year escapes me.

    Thanks.
     

    Attached Files:

  2. Jellylegs

    Jellylegs Well-Known Member

    Offline
    Messages:
    1,391
    Likes Received:
    2,811
    Location:
    Maidstone, Kent
    I would say it's 1644. There is a line dividing each year. If you look at the last entry in 1642, covering two lines, I think the year 1643 is on the far left of the last line, though you can't see the 1, just 643.

    It looks as though whoever was writing the entries forgot to write the year, so squeezed it in above the line.
     
    Findem likes this.
  3. TonyV

    TonyV He who cleans up after his ancestors...

    Offline
    Messages:
    237
    Likes Received:
    1,723
    Location:
    Hampshire,
    Not sure I would agree. 11 August it is but I can't see any year after 1643 until the next page. 1644 does seem to be missing but if you look at the dates after 1643 they progress to August in normal fashion ... there is no break and insertion of January, February etc. as there ought to be if it had rolled over to 1644.
     
    Findem likes this.
  4. Findem

    Findem The Fearless One

    Offline
    Messages:
    2,517
    Likes Received:
    11,501
    Location:
    NSW, Australia, ex Chelmsford Essex
    I must admit that's how it looked to me but then I thought surely there must have been baptisms in 1644!

    It's a pity the ink wasn't darker in places or longer lasting, not sure whether that would help though. I've been over the blown up version of that entry several times and it still leaves me scratching my head.
     

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice