Ancestry challenge

[peter]

As Ancestry is free this weekend perhaps someone can work out what all the letters (initials?) mean on images 5 to 14 of this register of clandestine marriages?

 

[At home in NZ]

perhaps someone can work out what all the letters (initials?) mean on images 5 to 14

They do appear to be initials and at first glance sort of correspond to the letter of the Index, for instance image 4 is letter A and the sets of initials do seem to have an A in each of them.
However, I can also see folio and page numbers in some of these images, therefore conclude the initials are an index to what is in the book.

 

[peter]

They do appear to be initials and at first glance sort of correspond to the letter of the Index, for instance image 4 is letter A and the sets of initials do seem to have an A in each of them.
However, I can also see folio and page numbers in some of these images, therefore conclude the initials are an index to what is in the book.

That's a good start - perhaps someone else can figure out how the index works?

 

[Pauline]

The National Archives description says: "Fleet register: Officiating Ministers: Evans. Indexed in volume (alphabetically arranged under the man's forename)..."

I'm not sure I'm much the wiser yet in working it out but I can see that on the first page of marriages all the men have a forename beginning with A, moving on to the B forenames a few pages later.

 

[Pauline]

OK, I think this might work. In the index pages the first letter is the man's surname initial, which is followed by his forename initial, and the next two initials relate to his bride.

The folio numbers are obscured, but the first of the 'C' marriages is Cadogan Simons and Mary Bower (I think) and the first initials in the 'C' index page are S.C.M.B.

Then we have Cornelius Lloyd & Esther Evans - L.C.E.E. and so on.

EDIT: The above works for the 'D' and 'E' forename marriages too, so I guess this may be the explanation.

 

[peter]

I can't see how if would work as an index since if you knew the name of the groom you could go straight to the pages for that forename, and if you didn't these initials don't really help, since they're sorted in the same way. I wonder whether it could be a safeguard, a sort of crosscheck?

There aren't initials for every entry, so maybe the system was abandoned, nor could I find entries for every set of initials (no forenames beginning with 'O'), which suggests there are some folios missing.

 

[Pauline]

I can't see how if would work as an index since if you knew the name of the groom you could go straight to the pages for that forename, and if you didn't these initials don't really help, since they're sorted in the same way.

I struck me as an odd way to order the marriages, and even odder way of creating an index to them. However, your challenge was only to work out what all the initials meant not to fathom out how the indexer's mind worked.

There do seem to be some pages missing from the book. Looking at image 63 and the start of the 'P' forenames, the handwritten page number is 119 (RH page) and from the bleed-through on the LH page I can see the previous RH page is 117. However, going back one to image 62, the RH page number is 109. From what I can see of the folio numbers, these also skip the missing pages - I can see page 121 is folio 58 and 109 is 56. So either the pages were missing before TNA added the folio numbers, or their numbering skipped the empty pages.

Perhaps there weren't any Owen or Oswald marriages and, looking further on, no Xerxes either.

 

[peter]

your challenge was only to work out what all the initials meant not to fathom out how the indexer's mind worked

You're assuming it's an index - but I don't think it can be, since it doesn't seem to fulfil that function.

Perhaps there weren't any Owen or Oswald marriages

Assuming your interpretation of the initials is correct, there were at least two grooms whose forenames began with an 'O'.

From what I can see of the folio numbers, these also skip the missing pages

When I referred to missing folios I was using the term literally, ie referring to the sheets of paper, not the TNA's subsequent numbering. That's why the missing 'O' entries are significant.

 

[Pauline]

You're assuming it's an index - but I don't think it can be, since it doesn't seem to fulfil that function.

I used the word index because you’d already used it, and because the TNA description refers to the book being indexed, although they may have been referring to the way the book was set out. However, whether these front pages are an index to the book itself or a summary of it or refer to something else, the letters themselves are initials of the brides and grooms from marriages in the book.

Assuming your interpretation of the initials is correct, there were at least two grooms whose forenames began with an 'O'.

Yes - see my comment below.

When I referred to missing folios I was using the term literally, ie referring to the sheets of paper, not the TNA's subsequent numbering. That's why the missing 'O' entries are significant.

Yes, I understood that and was agreeing that there were pages (or folios) missing, and my reference to the TNA folio numbers was indicating that the pages could have been missing when they added their numbers.

However, when I added the bit about the TNA numbering possibly skipping empty pages and my facetious comment about the names Owen, Oswald and Xerxes, I'd temporarily forgotten about the two 'O' entries in the "index" (or whatever it is).

 

[peter]

So the purpose of the initials is still a mystery - maybe someone can come up with a suggestion?

 

[At home in NZ]

However, whether these front pages are an index to the book itself or a summary of it or refer to something else, the letters themselves are initials of the brides and grooms from marriages in the book.

I agree with Pauline.
I still think the initials are some form of indexing, it would take me a lot of time and patience to work it all out, I haven't got much of either

There is a table of contents in this book from the online library where I found my 2nd great grandmother's baptism. It might seem superfluous but it's obviously the way they did things.

As a matter of interest Peter, why did you 'throw this challenge' ?

Happy Easter, all.

 

[Heather]

So the purpose of the initials is still a mystery - maybe someone can come up with a suggestion?

Maybe it was a quick way for the minister to check if he had the record of a marriage for LC & EE before reading through the actual page to find it?

 

[Pauline]

I've been doing some more browsing through this register, and while I haven't checked all of the letters, it does seem that the folio numbers given with the initials on the index pages correspond with the handwritten page numbers at the top of each page.

There are a couple of occasions where the entries for a particular forename initial start on the page before the number given, but those entries seem not to appear at the top of list of initials.

Using this logic, then the 'O' forenames should be on page 115, which is missing from these images. From the bleed-through I can see that pages 110 and 117 exist although they appear to be blank other than the page number. If pages 111-116 are missing (3 folios) then pages 110 and 117 will be there as facing pages, but for some reason TNA seem not to have added a stamped number on page 117 as we might expect - we can see their stamped 56 on page 109 and 58 on page 121, and possibly a 57 on page 119.

Anyway, missing pages and images aside, I think the pages of initials at the front are some kind of index or reference to marriages entered in the register.

 

[peter]

There is a table of contents in this book from the online library where I found my 2nd great grandmother's baptism. It might seem superfluous but it's obviously the way they did things.

I don't think the table of contents is superfluous - and the indexes at the back certainly aren't, because they provide a quick and easy way to find entries. In this case the indexes were probably added when the book was compiled (see the notes on p.101), though some parish registers do have alphabetic name indexes.

As a matter of interest Peter, why did you 'throw this challenge' ?

Because I know that LostCousins members like challenges.

I think the pages of initials at the front are some kind of index or reference to marriages entered in the register

They clearly relate to the marriages in the register, but the outstanding question is "What is their purpose?".

Clearly they're not much use as an index - so if that was the intended function it would certainly explain why their use was discontinued. There are ways in which the entries could have been indexed which would actually have been useful!

If I was embarking on this challenge I'd look at other clandestine registers from the period to see if they provided any clues.

 

[Pauline]

If I was embarking on this challenge I'd look at other clandestine registers from the period to see if they provided any clues.

There are other registers which are indexed but those I've seen previously are indexed more conventionally. Some registers are indexed in separate volumes while others are not indexed at all. The descriptions of these registers at TNA indicate which registers are 'indexed in volume' or if there is an index elsewhere.

The register in question here is described by TNA as 'indexed in volume' as I quoted in #4 so if you feel it is not an index then maybe you should ask them about it. It might not seem to us to be much use as an index, but then it wasn't created for our benefit.

 

[peter]

it wasn't created for our benefit

Exactly - and that's true of almost all the records that we use in family history. To get the most out of records we often have to understand how the creators of those records functioned.

 

[Heather]

Maybe it was a quick way for the minister to check if he had the record of a marriage for LC & EE before reading through the actual page to find it?

Just adding an afterthought to my previous post. maybe the person/people who created this "index" didn't understand the instructions given to them!!

 

[peter]

maybe the person/people who created this "index" didn't understand the instructions given to them!!

I haven't compared the handwriting, but I suspect the 'index' entries were written by the clergyman who carried out the marriages. Since he was operating on the fringes of the law there would have been no official instructions to follow (indeed there weren't any even for marriages carried out under the jurisdiction of the Church of England). So he would most likely have devised his own method to suit his own purposes.

Something to bear in mind is that prior to 1754 parish registers were not usually updated in real time - events were recorded on scraps of paper, or in notebooks, then added to the register once a week (at least in theory). It's possible that clergymen carrying out clandestine marriages used a similar system out of habit, laziness, or necessity.