What Is Written in the Column?

dizzyme

dizzyme

Goes out of her way to help
Hi,

I am having trouble making out what is written in the column beside this marriage entry for Henry Lupton & Mary Houlden on 23rd Jan 1837 at Leeds Parish Church.

It starts 'see' but what is the rest? :confused:

Thanks
Karen
 

Attachments

  • Henry Lupton & Mary Houlden Marriage 23 Jan 1837.jpg
    Henry Lupton & Mary Houlden Marriage 23 Jan 1837.jpg
    87.3 KB · Views: 50
I was recently told that a dash- or wavy line ~ signified a missing letter but that doesn't seem to fit here.( See-n Con-n 'Group'?)[See note 2 confirmation 3rd June/July?]
too much guessing, sorry, no help there. :rolleyes:

Can you see images to check other pages for a clue?
 
Ma-dotcom said:
I was recently told that a dash- or wavy line ~ signified a missing letter but that doesn't seem to fit here.( See-n Con-n 'Group'?)[See note 2 confirmation 3rd June/July?]
too much guessing, sorry, no help there. :rolleyes:

Can you see images to check other pages for a clue?
Click to expand...

Thanks Wendy. Will have a look at other pages...
 
If that doesn't help, & these are the Registers, maybe you can find out where the Bishop's Transcripts are & check there too.
 
Well I cannot make it out either. I have magnified it as much as I can. All I can make out is
See (a lower case) n with what looks like a number 2 (or a z shaped squiggle) underneath Con-_ with another (lower case) n over the -
The next word could start with g or possibly q and could end with fs (ss)
I think the last is a captial E possibly followed by st or sl.

See note 2 continuation ? established (makes no sense to me though)

I wonder if it was just a note by the curate Robert Taylor as he seemed to perform the next couple of pages of marriages before an officiating minister does a marriage followed by Edward Brown clerk doing some more, then he carries out some too.

Sorry not much of a help
 
I wonder if it could have anything to do with the fact that the Vicar of Leeds, Rev. Richard Fawcett, had died the previous day . . . might it signify some sort of permission saying that things can go on as usual? I don't know what the proper terminology would be.
 
The second line almost looks like a signature - with the surname first, then the initial's.

Thank you all for your replies. I did wonder if it was something to do with the amount of time (not overly long) between the Banns and the actual marriage.

Karen
 
Could it be an 'auditors' mark?

It's prior to the 1837 compulsory registration but could it have been at the point of some sort of audit by Church officials, in preparation for the forthcoming requirements?

With my OH being involved in transcribing Registers, we often see margin entries that have no value to the entry transcribed but merely notate other events such as 'inspections' or the submission of B.T.'s.

I can't interpret the entry as being of any genealogical value.
 
Huncamunca said:
I wonder if it could have anything to do with the fact that the Vicar of Leeds, Rev. Richard Fawcett, had died the previous day . . . might it signify some sort of permission saying that things can go on as usual? I don't know what the proper terminology would be.
Click to expand...
You've set me thinking there, Huncamunca. Fees for marriages etc would normally have been paid to the vicar as part of his income, but when a vicar died, or the parish otherwise became vacant, I think they would have been held in a sequestration account for the benefit of his successor. So, if this is the first marriage recorded after Fawcett's death, could this be a note to the effect that fees from then on, until the appointment of a successor, would be accounted for in this way?

I can't make out what the note actually says, but could the first part be something like a misspelt "Sec[questratio]n Con[ventio]n"? Also, the parish of Leeds was big and very busy, so I would imagine they would have had fairly sophisticated accounting systems in place; might the note refer to this as well in some way?
 
That sounds very plausible, Arthur. :) What might clinch it is if there is a similar annotation later in the register, coinciding with the time when the new vicar took up his position. My Ancestry viewer is not playing ball today, so I haven't been able to check this out.

From newspapers I have learned that the Vicar of Leeds was elected by a body of trustees, and that Rev. Fawcett's successor, elected in 1837, was Rev. Walter Farquhar Hook.
 
There is a copy of a letter written to the churchwardens in the
margin of the marriages dated 11th February 1837, to certify that the Right Rev Richard Fawcett had died on the 22nd January 1837. The churchwardens all signed their names.
 

Attachments

  • Capture.JPG
    Capture.JPG
    33.6 KB · Views: 7
Last edited:
That sounds interesting - but I'm having trouble seeing it. I can't enlarge your image enough to read it, and I can't find the right page at Ancestry. Please could you check the date/page number in the register, or give Ancestry's file/page number (as in the navigation at the bottom of the screen)? Thanks.
 
In the register it is page 143. Date range of marriages 16 - 18th February 1837. Ancestry, it is page 52 of 495.

Page 203 of 495, states 'Received of The Revd Rchd Taylor, Curate of Leeds Parish Church - One Duplicate Marriage Register Book, commencing with entry No. 1 July 1837 ends with No. 500, 23rd December 1837.
 
Last edited:
Thank you, I can see it now! Interesting - but I don't think it says anything that we hadn't already worked out. Except... does the margin note finish with the initials "E.J." - and could they be Edward Johnson, one of the churchwardens? The E is very similar, but the J is less so.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top