Word for deciphering - Linlithgow OPRs, 1668.....

jennyblain · Post by **jennyblain** » Fri Feb 16, 2007 10:50 pm

I've just uploaded to the gallery a clip from an OPR from Linlithgow from 1668. It includes the birth of a child William Gilles to Margaret Jarden and William Gilles younger. Witnesses were George Jarden and William Gilles.

What I can't make out is the word after 'George Jarden' and before 'and Wm Gilles' in the witnesses.
I've included a bit of the text from the entries below and above in order to assist with letter recognition!

Don't yet have the url for the clip I uploaded - hope the mods will supply it

http://talkingscot.com/gallery/displayi ... ?pos=-1049

Jenny

Gallery URL added - AndrewP

jennyblain · Post by **jennyblain** » Fri Feb 16, 2007 10:52 pm

Btw, it wouldn't let me post a title or description!
Jenny

Post by **AndrewP** » Fri Feb 16, 2007 11:21 pm

jennyblain wrote:Btw, it wouldn't let me post a title or description!
Jenny

It should have let you put some text in. Now it is approved, URL as above, go back to it and see if you see an edit button that will let you add some text.

All the best,

AndrewP

Rockford · Post by **Rockford** » Fri Feb 16, 2007 11:25 pm

That's awful! Looks like "pyper", but most of the writing's got me stumped, so I could be way out!

Brian

jennyblain · Post by **jennyblain** » Fri Feb 16, 2007 11:34 pm

No edit button that I could find... and when I uploaded it, there were lines for 'title' and 'description' but no way to add anything to them! Do we have OS or browser incompatibilities here?

Jenny
PS Thanks Andrew!

jennyblain · Post by **jennyblain** » Fri Feb 16, 2007 11:44 pm

I'd wondered, Brian, if it could be 'pyper' - as an occupation for George. But there's no occupation for the other witness (Wm Gilles, presumably senior).
The writing is not as bad as it looks! Most of the rest is fairly easily transcribable, you need to think of secretary hand rather than our current letters - though the first word is still puzzling me - but that 'pyper'-looking thing defeats me currently!

Jenny

LesleyB · Post by **LesleyB** » Sat Feb 17, 2007 12:46 am

Hi Jenny
I wonder: could the first word be date related? - it is in the following record and the word seems to end in _ber. Extract on the IGI suggests the 18th??

Not sure on that "pyper" looking word.

My thought for the rest is... (not much help with the words you are stuck with

)

Wm Gilles Margt Jarden
? William Gilles yor [younger?] and Margaret Jarden had a child named William baptized Witnesses ye to [thereto] were George Jarden ? and William Gilles

- is that similar to what you have worked out so far?

Best wishes
Lesley

jennyblain · Post by **jennyblain** » Sat Feb 17, 2007 1:06 am

Hi Lesley,
Yes - Andrew has added my description which I couldn't upload initially! Your transcription is spot on with what I have so far - the problematic words are the first and the one after 'George Jarden'.
As to the first - my original thought was that it should be date-related, but several posts are under the same heading which is 1668, 18th October (a big heading at the top of the page). On the next line after this entry it changes to October the twenty fifth.

I was pleased to find, in this entry the 'William Gilles younger' (yo superscript-r) and the witness Wiliam Gilles, presumably senior. Before this the records run thin..

Jenny

jennyblain · Post by **jennyblain** » Sat Feb 17, 2007 2:58 am

Somebody has emailed me privately to suggest that the first word may be 'Siclik' i.e. sic-like - (such-like or likewise) which it may be, if that first letter could be an 'S', as in 'also on 18th October'. Good thought. She didn't post it here, so I'm doing so to let people know.

I'm still thinking that the mystery word describing George Jarden may indeed by 'pyper'; if so, maybe another musician in the family

But wish I had something indicating the relationship of that George to Margaret.

Jenny

LesleyB · Post by **LesleyB** » Sat Feb 17, 2007 3:35 pm

Hi Jenny
Siclike (I could swear there is a sec. hand "e" on the end) would seem like a real possibility (well done, whoever suggested it!) - does the date in the previous entry agree with the date you know for him, possibly the 18th, as mentioned on IGI?

I guess that just illutrates the problem when only seeing a small part of the page - it is more difficult to understand not only the forms and patterns which make up the style of the hand, but the typical forms and patterns of the wording.

My thoughts on that other word is that it may be some kind of abbreviated word, perhaps, though no superscript in evidence to confirm that - use of thorns, (Shaped like a y) can muddy the issue, and I'm not convinced those are "p"s, but they may be.... but I think it does look like "er" at the end.

Best wishes
Lesley

p.s. at http://www.scottishhandwriting.com/cont ... ge=s4_3_14 the "p" looks very similar....