Deciphering needed please.

[Findem]

It's a note at the bottom of of the first column on the second page.

The part that I an stumped by is the part that follows "May 1660".

I have the gist of the first part in which the Rector explains that the register was taken from him from 23rd Oct 1653 and not returned till May 1660.

I am wondering if the remainder of the note explains why it was taken or by whom.

If I knew what it stated I could probably have worked it out myself

 

[janetbooth]

My best guess "....bridge being the late Register & keeping this book ....... in (or at) the said Time"

Janet

 

[Archie's Mum]

Is that 'marriage' before the word 'being'?
Could the marriage register have been used for baptisms in the missing 7 years?

 

[Archie's Mum]

I'll have another go.......' marriage being chosen Register and keeping this book ? at the said time?

 

[arthurk]

Building on previous suggestions:

[....] Bridge being chosen Register & Keeping this booke
[?in] his hands all the said Time.

The Register was the local official who kept the parish registers during the Commonwealth period, more or less equivalent to a parish clerk.

 

[AnnB]

Building on previous suggestions:

[....] Bridge being chosen Register & Keeping this booke
[?in] his hands all the said Time.

I agree with Arthur and looking at the original on Seax, I reckon the Registrar's name was John Bridge.

 

[Findem]

I agree with Arthur and looking at the original on Seax, I reckon the Registrar's name was John Bridge.

I thought I could make out the name John, well, John Bridge is another one I'd like to see being flogged. I have the suspicion that there is a marriage of an ancestor Weston Eve to an Ann in those missing years on top of that I believe their son, also an ancestor, Weston Eve's baptism occurred in those missing years.

I won't go into details but the Weston Eve husband of Ann when buried was stated to be Old Weston Eve, he wasn't that old so I suspect old = elder. Hence I think there was definitely a son named Weston around.

Jan, I have told myself that I don't mind me going off slightly piste on my topic, hope that's OK.

 

[Findem]

Many thanks to you all for your help, much appreciated.

Now that I'm attempting to tidy up loose ends over these last few weeks, many of which are in the 1600s, I keep coming up against missing parish records, curse the Commonwealth admin period.

 

[Findem]

Btw what were those Registers/Registrars supposed to do with the PRs? Was it their duty to record B,M and Bs?

 

[mugwortismy cat]

They were supposed to record Births, Marriages and Deaths

Whether they did or not is not always clear as most often the Registers never made it back to the Church after the Commonwealth ended. A few did, and sometimes the vicar kept his own notes as well

 

[Findem]

Not sure if I'm losing the plot but I took the note that the rector at Roxwell wrote stating that the Parish registers were out of his and 23 Oct 1653 until May 1660 and in the hands of John Bridge the Register (Registrar?) as why I can't find the marriage of Weston Eve to Ann and the birth/baptism of their son Weston.

Checking a Battle family group sheet I put together recently one entry stood out, from Ancestry and FreeReg I had found Thomas Battle baptised 23 Nov 1658 at Roxwell.

Did a check on Free Reg Roxwell 1653 to 1660 and found the following.
7 baptisms, including 3 Battles.
Marriages, none.
3 Burials.

Regarding marriages, can't of course be sure of course whether their absence in that period was due to the Registers being removed or just because no-one married at Roxwell in that period, although that's unlikely I would have thought.

 

[burt]

Births and burials were easy enough IF the elected Register, as he was called, was reasonably careful in his job. Unfortunately many were not.
Marriages on the other hand were conducted before a Magistrate, this of course made for a number of reasons as to why they did not get written up in the book. For a start, if this was a village, the Magistrate was most probably based either where he lived or in a larger town and never mind the travel there, the Register may have thought that the marriage should be entered in that Book and therefore it was entered in neither!

 

[arthurk]

Births and burials were easy enough IF the elected Register, as he was called, was reasonably careful in his job. Unfortunately many were not.

And sometimes you find that a load of Commonwealth-era baptisms were entered all together after 1660. Some of the ones I've seen were done rather haphazardly, so you might get them squeezed into an empty space roughly on the right page; or all the ones from one family, then all the ones from another. Either way, the dates are often mixed up and all over the place.

 

[Findem]

Thanks for that info Burt, it's very useful to know how things worked in that period.

And sometimes you find that a load of Commonwealth-era baptisms were entered all together after 1660.

I have noticed that effect before Arthur and wondered why, in some cases I put it down to a Rector chasing up parishioners who were being lax with baptising their children. I know in Coggeshall that very thing happened but that of course was in a later period.