* Decipher a name on old document

[davidm_uk]

I wonder if anyone can decipher the forename of the first witness on this 1804 marriage record. I've found potential baptisms for Mary Perrott with parents James & Rebecca, Thomas & Joan, John & Mary, but of course the witness may not be a parent, and I don't yet have any siblings for her. The witness could be John Perrott, but that maybe my wishful interpretation!

Marriage Certificate for William Miller and Mary Perrott (m1804).JPG (240.11 KiB) Viewed 5589 times

[RSellens]

My first reaction was John.


Richard

[tatewise]

I am not so sure, because the first letter has no descender tail and looks more like T or I than J.
Perhaps it is an abbreviation for Thomas (Thm) which explains the rising flourish at the end.

[arthurk]

The first letter doesn't appear to have the horizontal line at the top which would make it a T, so I'd go for J (or possibly I). I agree with Richard that it's probably John, but I think it's been written Jhon. I'm sure I've seen that misspelling before, and probably more than once, but don't ask me where!

Arthur

[mjashby]

From reading a very large quantity of older hand written documents, I would say the witness signature is, most probably Jhon Perrett. The Bride's name has clearly been entered twice as Perrott, but whether either is the 'correct' spelling of the family name is probably debateable without further research.

Jhon for John is relatively common in older documents and quite easy to understand if you think carefully about the pronunciation (J-HON) rather than the more familiar spelling. Jhon is still in use as a correct alternative spelling today, though mostly South American countries and only very occasionally in the UK, but you can find instances of that spelling.

The lack of obvious 'descenders' on the letter J and also other letters is also relatively common in old documents and the difference between letters I and J is often indecipherable unless you interpret it in context. I was certainly taught that the two capital letters had to be formed identically in "joined-up writing", the only difference being the positioning of the letter on the line.

[davidm_uk]

Thanks all for your replies, and the background about the spelling of John vs Jhon. I've since found baptism entries for Mary, with parents John and Mary, in the Dorset OPC web site, although there are two entries in the same village about a year apart.

I think John or Jhon can be forgiven for his writing, given that apart from the rector it seems that he was the only person who could write.