FamilySearch help needed - looking for Machell/Mashell, 1590-1620 England/Sussex

+5 votes

I've searched all through FamilySearch records - assuming that's what "IGI" means - and can't find anything to support any facts in the following paragraph from the profile for Mary Machell (who her parents were is disputed - some say John & some say John's brother Mathew):

Mary's uncle Mathew Machell died in 1593. His wife Mary returned to a Lewknor estate far from London -- Kingston Bowsey ("by-the-sea"), Sussex, where she eas buried in 1604 and where "Marie Mashall" married the Rev. James Harington in 1617 (per IGI).


WikiTree profile: Mary Stoughton
in Genealogy Help by Liz Shifflett G2G6 Pilot (529k points)
The IGI is the International Genealogical Index, which is available on FamilySearch. (Years ago it was a separate search; nowadays it's all part of the same massive database, although you can specify which collection to look in.) Note that while it's genealogically sometimes useful, and even has the word in its common name, the index was not compiled for genealogical purposes. It was primarily a Mormon religious database, which explains the emphasis on births and (to a lesser extent) marriages.

It is sometimes possible to track down the original source image to go with an IGI entry, although it may involve a trip to your nearest Mormons or library with "back door" access. Search the catalog for the numbers found under Document Information. You're in luck: the bishop's transcripts in question have a camera icon, meaning that they're browsable online:

thanks y'all! The link RJ found is for the 3 Feb 1617 marriage of Marie Mascall & James Harison:

Name: James Harison
Spouse's Name: Marie Mascall
Event Date: 03 Feb 1617
Event Place: Kingston-By-Sea, Sussex, England
Actually, that spelling is from the bishop's transcript.  A transcription of the actual record from Kingston by Sea spells her name "Marie Mashall." The transcription is at free-reg;  maybe this link will work:

The particular spelling of the surname (with an "s" instead of a "c") corresponds to the spelling of the surname in the Hackney baptism record of Mathew Machell's son John.

1 Answer

+3 votes
Best answer

English secretary hands are not my strong suit, but I _think_ the marriage is the last item on this page:

Film 004428685 (Bishop's transcripts for Kingston-by-Sea), image 469 of 1002.

by J Palotay G2G6 Mach 7 (70.3k points)
selected by Liz Shifflett
J - Thank you SO MUCH!! Waiting for it to load on my computer now, magnifying glass in hand (and the other hand with fingers crossed that my computer doesn't crash - it really doesn't like FamilySearch!).

Cheers, Liz

and several crashes later... Thanks again - and especially for noting which entry you thought it was - I would have not recognized it otherwise. Interesting handwriting for sure! If the habit of s's that look like f's was in vogue at the time, I think Harison is probably not an incorrect transcription. The page at the bottom is signed by Samuel Harrington, and while it looks like the same handwriting, it doesn't look the same as the groom. Wish I could find something I knew was a capital "F" to confirm the first letter of the three that was transcribed as February. It looks like it could be Aug, or maybe Nov, which wouldn't be in chronological order (following December burials), but it looks like these records were made after the fact & burials & marriages are grouped together.

For now, I'm just supper happy to have been pointed toward both entries - the transcription & the image!

Thanks y'all!

edit - naw. Looking at it cold again after the last crash, it's gotta be Feb, even if the F looks closer to his "A"s than anything else I can find.

I find FamilySearch hardly works at all in IE11 now, but it works in Edge.  Unlike many sites, where Edge keeps failing to load pages and trying to blame the server.  Firefox just crashes all on its own when it's not supposed to be doing anything.

A capital F used to be written like ff.  This is the origin of silly surnames like ffrench and ffoulkes.

I think the churchwarden was a Newington.  The rector was a Postlethwait.  A lot of the entries seem to be Newingtons and Postlethwaits.  It was a very small parish.  A year to a page, no weddings at all in some years.
This is the bishop's transcript of the original parish register for the year 1617 ie from March 25 1617 to March 24 1617/18 . (So August would be in the next year; but its  no doubt in my opinion that it is Feb.)

  BTs were supposed to be compiled on Lady Day each year . ( didn't always happen depends on how efficient the vicar was, sometimes several years are on one list) It would have been written on a single sheet and sent to the diocesan office. Because they are copies BTs can sometimes have errors and omissions but this is very less likely to be the case here with so few events.
I knew the year started in March (if not the day), but it looked like the record grouped events, so the marriage listed after the burials would not need to be chronological to the burials.
Newington! Never would have guessed. Thanks RJ!

Re: Browser. I never liked IE, so I've used Firefox for years. An update about a year and a half ago had the pages constantly refreshing, well, not refreshing, but reloading, about every 2 or 3 minutes. Since I'm really bad about having multiple windows with multiple tabs open at the same time, when they reload, everything comes to a halt. If there's an option to turn off whatever it is they're doing, I haven't found it.

Oh - and any idea why James's name is preceeded by "M" (it's gotta be an M, since it matched Married & Marie - although it doesn't match the first letter of Marie's last name, so maybe it's not Mashell?)

so... FS transcript says "James Harison and Marie Mascall, 3 Feb 1617" & trying to do a transcript myself, I'm now at

Married [Nob: Aog: Feb:] 3 . M James Harison & Marie [W?]alhall

I'm beginning to appreciate the handwriting. It would make a pretty cool font :D

I'm pretty sure it says:

Married ffeb 3 Mr James Harison and Marie Mascall

There is a superscript 'r' on the Mr - and Mr in this case means James is of superior social status. In Mascall, the s is a long s and I'm pretty sure it's a 'c' - old c's often look more like an 'r'. See how they're written in 'dec' above.
I think that's the way he writes an M, not an M with a superscript r, since it's the same for Married & Marie.
And... John just posted the link to the transcription of the parish register, so "James Harison married Marie Mashall 3 Feb 1617/18" it is.

Related questions

+1 vote
3 answers
+1 vote
2 answers
57 views asked Aug 2, 2021 in Genealogy Help by Frances Piercy-Reins G2G6 Mach 6 (60.5k points)
+17 votes
8 answers
+2 votes
1 answer
+6 votes
1 answer
94 views asked Apr 1, 2016 in Policy and Style by Renee Malloy G2G5 (5.1k points)
+1 vote
2 answers
+5 votes
2 answers
+1 vote
1 answer

WikiTree  ~  About  ~  Help Help  ~  Search Person Search  ~  Surname:

disclaimer - terms - copyright