Anyone here good at deciphering old hand writing? Very old parish register.

[Another2Cats]

It's from a parish register of births, marriages and deaths and I'm trying to work out the date.

As far as I can make out, it says:

The christeninge of Elinor daughter of Thomas Witrom & Elizabeth his wife [something] in Febaruari the [something] daye

I am trying to work out what day this was. It looks vaguely like "eighth" but I also just wondered if it was perhaps in Roman numerals and was "xxvii th" so it was the 27th.

Does anyone have any ideas? Would a parish register have used Roman numerals?

I think it is the 27th, yes. As for the other word, I have no idea. Perhaps someone at your local reference library or county archive could point you in the direction of a local historian.

I think it says the marriage of, not the christening of....

”was” in Februari “the” xxvii

Yes Roman numerals were used as was latin (especially in Catholic Churches) I've got copies of Quaker records that look very similar as well. A full image would make it easier to decipher.

I agree it’s the 27th of February,
I think the word is “reforming”.

So for example a person who converted to Quaker but now reforming (backsliding) back to their parents church that is Anglican or Puritan…

christeninge
was
27th

As pp said, parish registers frequently use Roman numerals. And Latinised versions of Christian names - Joanna, Maria, Susanna etc.

And it's baptisms, marriages and burials, not births, marriages and deaths. Babies were normally baptised soon after birth, but not invariably. Siblings baptised together doesn't necessarily mean twins.

I think it’s christening too.

This website has a useful crib sheet for old handwriting.

www.marriagerecords.me.uk/reading-old-handwriting/

I'd say it's christening. Something I've always done is look at the rest of the pages and compare words so it's easier to decipher what they are. It can be tricky when the records are done by different vicars / curates but you can usually find enough done by the same hand.

Agree with what a lot of people have said - Roman numerals. 27th Feb. Brilliant though that the priest/minister has recorded the name of the mother as far too often you just see "Elizabeth Smith daughter of John" and the mother doesn't even get a mention.

One of the main mistakes people make is assuming baptism/christening = birth. Many babies were baptised/christened within a few days of their birth but many were not, mostly because of the cost. I have seen lots of examples of parents baptising three or four kids all at the same time, presumably because they had scraped together enough cash to get it done. Judging by the handwriting (Secretary hand) you are back in the 1600s so you have done remarkably well finding even this record. Births were not recorded until 1837 in England and Wales and 1855 in Scotland so baptisms are all we have.

It might be worth looking for the marriage of Elinor's parents in the same register if it's one of those registers which records baptisms/marriage/funerals allin teh same book.

I have seen lots of examples of parents baptising three or four kids all at the same time, presumably because they had scraped together enough cash to get it done.

there were charges brought in for baptisms in the 1780s and this did mean may families didn't get the babies baptised and they were done as groups together after the 1790s when the charge/tax seem to finish

Roman numerals were common as were latin names for daughter or son in the earlier baptism records

Yes, christening, yes the 27th, but I read the surname as Witcom not Witrom (descendants might spell it Whitcombe). You can see the r is very different in Elinor, christening and. February, and there’s a c in christening to compare to as well.

"...but I read the surname as Witcom not Witrom"

Thank you, yes, now that I have more experience of reading this particular handwriting I have since realised that I was wrong in my original post. It has been quite tricky getting to read some of the letters correctly