1700 -English/Yorkshire document
singhals
Would any/all of you familiar with the handwriting and boiler-plate
of English documents of the 1695-1710 period PLEASE have a look at
this one?
One Thomas Crissop died, and this document appears in the records of
the Ainsty of York. We thought he died 1701; this is in the 1700
records which began in January 1700. 4th entry down the image.
I need 2nd and 3rd opinions, as my consultants here disagree.
http://www.rootsweb.com/~cresap/1700/
Same document, two resolutions; 1700a is the larger but MAY not have
completely uploaded; 1700b I know finished uploading properly. I do
have the original tiff file, and a larger jpg but rootsweb keeps
dropping the connex at just over 50% complete.
Thanks!
Cheryl
(and feel free to pass this on to the Genbrit list)
singhals <sing...@erols.com>
Ian Goddard
singhals wrote:
> Would any/all of you familiar with the handwriting and boiler-plate
> of English documents of the 1695-1710 period PLEASE have a look at
> this one?
>
> One Thomas Crissop died, and this document appears in the records of
> the Ainsty of York. We thought he died 1701; this is in the 1700
> records which began in January 1700. 4th entry down the image.
>
> I need 2nd and 3rd opinions, as my consultants here disagree.
>
> http://www.rootsweb.com/~cresap/1700/
>
> Same document, two resolutions; 1700a is the larger but MAY not have
> completely uploaded; 1700b I know finished uploading properly. I do
> have the original tiff file, and a larger jpg but rootsweb keeps
> dropping the connex at just over 50% complete.
It might be worth putting on s.g.medieval. I know it's not medieval -
but neither is a lot of stuff on there!
--
Ian
Hotmail is for spammers. Real mail address is igoddard
at nildram co uk
Ian Goddard <godd...@hotmail.co.uk>
Renia
> Would any/all of you familiar with the handwriting and boiler-plate
> of English documents of the 1695-1710 period PLEASE have a look at
> this one?
>
> One Thomas Crissop died, and this document appears in the records of
> the Ainsty of York. We thought he died 1701; this is in the 1700
> records which began in January 1700. 4th entry down the image.
>
> I need 2nd and 3rd opinions, as my consultants here disagree.
>
> http://www.rootsweb.com/~cresap/1700/
>
> Same document, two resolutions; 1700a is the larger but MAY not have
> completely uploaded; 1700b I know finished uploading properly. I do
> have the original tiff file, and a larger jpg but rootsweb keeps
> dropping the connex at just over 50% complete.
>
January 1700 (old-style date) is January 1701 (new-style date).
Administration of the estate of Thomas Crisape of Leeds, Yorkshire,
was taken out by his widow, Eden Crisape.
Chris Watts
> Would any/all of you familiar with the handwriting and boiler-plate
> of English documents of the 1695-1710 period PLEASE have a look at
> this one?
>
> One Thomas Crissop died, and this document appears in the records of
> the Ainsty of York. We thought he died 1701; this is in the 1700
> records which began in January 1700. 4th entry down the image.
>
> I need 2nd and 3rd opinions, as my consultants here disagree.
>
> http://www.rootsweb.com/~cresap/1700/
>
> Same document, two resolutions; 1700a is the larger but MAY not have
> completely uploaded; 1700b I know finished uploading properly. I do
> have the original tiff file, and a larger jpg but rootsweb keeps
> dropping the connex at just over 50% complete.
>
Need the higher resolution one to read it without eye-strain - and
it doesn't download for me.
I presume that you realise that January 1700 in the Old Style
calendar would actually be January 1701 according to the New Style
Calendar?
Chris
"Chris Watts" <n...@ctwatts.plus.com>
Patrick Eagan
> Would any/all of you familiar with the handwriting and boiler-plate
> of English documents of the 1695-1710 period PLEASE have a look at
> this one?
>
> One Thomas Crissop died, and this document appears in the records of
> the Ainsty of York. We thought he died 1701; this is in the 1700
> records which began in January 1700. 4th entry down the image.
>
> I need 2nd and 3rd opinions, as my consultants here disagree.
>
> http://www.rootsweb.com/~cresap/1700/
>
> Same document, two resolutions; 1700a is the larger but MAY not have
> completely uploaded; 1700b I know finished uploading properly. I do
> have the original tiff file, and a larger jpg but rootsweb keeps
> dropping the connex at just over 50% complete.
>
Keep in mind that 1700 is in that period where double dating
occurred based on which calendar was used. Between January 1 and
March 'something' (I believe) may be given as January 1 1700,
January 1 1701 or January 1 1700/01. Eventually everyone using the
modern calendar gave January 1 as the beginning of the year.
Patrick
Patrick Eagan <Patric...@REMOVETHISbellsouth.net>
ml...@le.ac.uk
On 5 Apr, 16:16, singhals <singh...@erols.com> wrote:
> Would any/all of you familiar with the handwriting and boiler-plate
> of English documents of the 1695-1710 period PLEASE have a look at
> this one?
> One Thomas Crissop died, and this document appears in the records of
> the Ainsty of York. =A0We thought he died 1701; this is in the 1700
> records which began in January 1700. 4th entry down the image.
It says:
"Eod[e]m die* D[ic]tus Decanus** Cert. se Com[m]isisse Administrac[i]o
[n]em bonoru[m] Thome Crisape nup[er] de Leeds Diaec. Ebor.
abintestato (ut asseritur) morien[s] Eden Crisape Vid[ue] ejus Rel[ic]
te prius Jurat[a] (Salvo et[c.)] Ex[hi]bitu[m] fuit Jnv[entu]m infra
20 Li[bra] Et praestita est ?Canc'o"
I'm not sure what the last word is. 'Compotus' would fit the sense,
but it doesn't really look like that.
* refers back to the first entry, which is dated "Quarto die Mensis Jan
[uar]ij Anno D[omi]ni pred[icto]" - which the heading says is 1700
(Old Style, which is 1701 New Style).
** the first entry says this is "Laurentius Benson Cl[er]icus Decanus
Decanatus pred[icti] - ie of the Ainsty]
Matt Tompkins
ml...@le.ac.uk
> of English documents of the 1695-1710 period PLEASE have a look at
> this one?
> One Thomas Crissop died, and this document appears in the records of
> records which began in January 1700. 4th entry down the image.
I thought I posted a transcript of the Crisape entry an hour ago, but
it hasn't appeared, so here is another one:
[ It was cross-posted with soc.genealogy.methods, and Methods is a
moderated group and there are inevitable delays. I've posted both
your articles, because I think there is some difference in the
content. - the soc.genealogy.methods moderator ]
Eod[e]m die D[ic]tus Decanus* Cert' se Comisisse Adminitrac[i]o[n]em
bonoru[m] Thome Crisape nup[er] de Leeds Dioec[esis] Ebor[acensis]
abintestato (ut asseritur) morien[s] Eden' Crisape Vid[ue] ejus Rel
[ic]te prius Jurat[a] (Salvo et[c.)] Ex[hi]bitu[m] fuit Jnv[entoriu]m
ultra 20 Li[bra] Et praestita est Canc'o
* this refers back to the first entry on the page, which says:
Ainsty Anno D[omi]ni 1700
Quarto die Mensis Jan[uar]ij Anno D[omi]ni pred[icto] M[agiste[r]
Laurentius Benson Cl[er]icus Decanus Decanatus pred[icti] ...
As someone has already said, this is almost certainly 1700 Old Style,
ie 1701 New Style.
I'm not sure what that last word is - from the context you'd expect
'compotus', but I can't persuade myself that's what it says. Nor am I
sure of the correct extension of Cert' in the first line; it's an
unusual construction I haven't seen before, though the sense is clear
- that letters of administration were issued
Matt Tompkins
ml...@le.ac.uk
On Apr 8, 1:46=A0am, ml...@le.ac.uk wrote:
> I thought I posted a transcript of the Crisape entry an hour ago, but
> it hasn't appeared, so here is another one:
>
> [ It was cross-posted with soc.genealogy.methods, and Methods is a
> moderated group and there are inevitable delays. I've posted both
> your articles, because I think there is some difference in the
> content. - the soc.genealogy.methods moderator ]
Unfortunately the discussion on soc.genealogy.britain moved on
during the two days which it took for my two posts to get through
the soc.geneaglogy.methods system. Yesterday I posted a third (and
better) answer to soc.genealogy.britain alone (having finally
noticed and deleted the cross-posting to soc.genealogy.methods)
which superseded the first two (the main difference was a correction
of the date - it is 4 June 1700, not Jan 1700/1). That third post
appeared on soc.gen.britain immediately, and the two points I was
doubtful about were subsequently cleared up by another poster.
Matt Tompkins
Aug. de Man
http://www.rootsweb.com/~cresap/1700/
It seems you didn't see my contribution yesterday, so let me post it again:
See http://www.york.ac.uk/inst/bihr/guideleaflets/administrations.pdf
for an explanation of this kind of acts:
"If a person did not make a will ("ab intestato", AdM) their estate was
dealt with after their death by a process called administration.
A person willing to deal with the deceased's estate, often kin but also
sometimes a creditor, would visit a surrogate of the bishop and make
oaths to the effect that the deceased person had not made a will and
that they would administer the estate properly."
You'll find Latin acts here, where you can see "cert." is short for
"certificavit" (certified):
Eod[e]m die d[ic]tus decanus cert[ificavit] se Com[m]isisse
Administrac[i]o[n]em
bonoru[m] Thom=E6 Crisape nup[er] de Leeds dioc[esis] Ebor[acensis]
abintestato
(ut asseritur) morien[tis] Eden' Crisape vid[u=E6] ejus Rel[ic]t=E6 prius
Jurat[=E6] (salvo et[c.)] Ex[hi]bitu[m] fuit Jnv[entori]u[m] ultra 20 Li[=
bras]
Et praestita est canc[ellari]o.
The same day the said Dean certified that he had granted
administration of the goods of Thomas Crisape, late of Leeds in the
Diocese of York, who died intestate (as it is asserted), to Eden Crisape,
his widow and relict (=3D surviving partner), after she had first been sw=
orn,
saving the rights [of any other person with a claim, salvo iure cuiuscumq=
ue].
An inventory was exhibited above =A320 and she was presented to
the cancellarius (secretary, so that this administration could be registe=
red,
I think. In the shown documents it is "et ... obligatur", and she was bou=
nd).
August de Man
"Aug. de Man" <augdeman.a.g...@dr3.euro.net>
singhals
> Would any/all of you familiar with the handwriting and boiler-plate
> of English documents of the 1695-1710 period PLEASE have a look at
> this one?
>
> One Thomas Crissop died, and this document appears in the records of
> records which began in January 1700. 4th entry down the image.
>
>
> http://www.rootsweb.com/~cresap/1700/
>
> Same document, two resolutions; 1700a is the larger but MAY not have
> completely uploaded; 1700b I know finished uploading properly. I do
> have the original tiff file, and a larger jpg but rootsweb keeps
> dropping the connex at just over 50% complete.
>
> Cheryl Singhals <sing...@erols.com>
Thank you one and all. MUCH appreciated. I was expecting the
widow's name to be Sarah; when I saw Eden, I asked my consultants
here for help. When they declined to speculate on the Latin
abbreviations, I came here.
If there is someone reading who disagrees with the attempts of Renia
and Matt, please contact me.
Cheryl
singhals <sing...@erols.com>
singhals
Chris Watts wrote:
> > Would any/all of you familiar with the handwriting and boiler-plate
> > of English documents of the 1695-1710 period PLEASE have a look at
> > this one?
> >
> > One Thomas Crissop died, and this document appears in the records of
> > the Ainsty of York. We thought he died 1701; this is in the 1700
> > records which began in January 1700. 4th entry down the image.
> >
> > I need 2nd and 3rd opinions, as my consultants here disagree.
> >
> > http://www.rootsweb.com/~cresap/1700/
> >
> > Same document, two resolutions; 1700a is the larger but MAY not have
> > completely uploaded; 1700b I know finished uploading properly. I do
> > have the original tiff file, and a larger jpg but rootsweb keeps
> > dropping the connex at just over 50% complete.
> >
> > Cheryl Singhals <sing...@erols.com>
>
> Need the higher resolution one to read it without eye-strain - and
> it doesn't download for me.
I've spent 3 days trying to get the larger files to upload; as I
said, the other end drops my FTP connex about half-way through.
> I presume that you realise that January 1700 in the Old Style
> calendar would actually be January 1701 according to the New Style
> Calendar?
Yes, of course.
Thanks.
Cheryl
singhals <sing...@erols.com>