Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 16 of 16
  1. #11
    Coromandel
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Chris Doran View Post
    This sounds like the same thing that we're currently keying under Ancestry's "WAP" project. Despite being headed "England" there are lots of Scottish entries. If you work on this project you get free access to the images when they go online. The handwriting isn't too hard to decipher. I think you can be a keyer without having a sub.
    That is interesting to hear. I see from the listing of the active World Archives Projects at https://
    community.ancestry.co.uk/wap/download.aspx that the one on apprenticeships is 41% complete. It is described there as "England, Register of Duties Paid for Apprentices' Indentures, 1710-1811".

  2. #12
    Name well known on Brit-Gen
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    North London
    Posts
    5,148

    Default

    Yes, it is IR 1 that is being keyed.

  3. #13
    Loves to help with queries.
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Bristol
    Posts
    114

    Default Bristol Apprentice Records

    I have a Nicholas Trezise apprenticed to George Williams Watchmaker in 1804 and became Burgess of Bristol in 1812.
    I have downloaded the PDF for 1804 - 1808 from IR 1/72.

    Not finding any Bristol entries at present although only covered 50 of 250 pages.
    Was Bristol an exception had its own records like London ?

    Wanted to see if George Williams had any other apprenticeships or if he was an apprentice at an earlier date himself.

    Not sure if my man would have escaped the tax as he did not complete his apprenticeship until 1811/12 ?

    Any help / advice on researching Nicholas and or George further most wlecome.

  4. #14
    Newcomer to Brit-Gen
    Join Date
    Apr 2017
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    2

    Default

    Does an Apprenticeship Indenture which makes mention of '2L by the mother and 5L by the father' necessarily mean that the child being apprenticed was an illegitimate child? Age of child was 9 and term was for 5 years.
    Thanks.

  5. #15
    Famous for offering help & advice peter nicholl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Somerset
    Posts
    1,000

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by chellam View Post
    Does an Apprenticeship Indenture which makes mention of '2L by the mother and 5L by the father' necessarily mean that the child being apprenticed was an illegitimate child? Age of child was 9 and term was for 5 years.
    Thanks.
    Hi, Welcome to the Forum.
    I would suggest that in modern terms 2L and 5L would be written 2 and 5 as it was normal to pay the Master to take on an apprentice. Perhaps the mother had her own means. I can't see that it points to the child being illegitimate. Or, I may have missed your point.
    Peter Nicholl
    Researching:Nicholl,Boater, Haselgrove & Vaughan

  6. #16
    Newcomer to Brit-Gen
    Join Date
    Apr 2017
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    2

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by peter nicholl View Post
    Hi, Welcome to the Forum.
    I would suggest that in modern terms 2L and 5L would be written 2 and 5 as it was normal to pay the Master to take on an apprentice. Perhaps the mother had her own means. I can't see that it points to the child being illegitimate. Or, I may have missed your point.
    Thanks so much for your reply Peter. The whole story on my apprenticed ancestor (possibly) is that a James Morris was baptized in Christchurch Hampshire on Nov 11, 1747 to a Mary Morris. There was a Mary Morris baptized there 11 years previous to this in 1736 to a John Morris. John's wife was also named Mary. Young James was apprenticed at 9 years old to Benjamin Ayles, chairmaker of Christchurch, who also was associated with William Holloway in business. James was apprenticed for a term of 5 years duration with 2L by the mother and 5L by the father which you correctly state is the fee paid to the Master. It has been suggested to me that James might have been the illegitimate son of Mary born 1736 because only the mother's name Mary is given at his baptism in 1747 and both father and mother are mentioned in the apprenticeship indenture. Given this set of facts what would be prudent to assume about young James' legitimacy, if anything?

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Select a file: