Beginning March 2nd, 2020 the Mailing Lists functionality on RootsWeb will be discontinued. Users will no longer be able to send outgoing emails or accept incoming emails. Additionally, administration tools will no longer be available to list administrators and mailing lists will be put into an archival state.
Administrators may save the emails in their list prior to March 2nd. After that, mailing list archives will remain available and searchable on RootsWeb
I'm a descendant of James Churchill of Churchill's restaurant that
was popular in the teens and 20's in Times Square. I know there were
a number of articles and interviews in NY papers. I am interested
in hearing from anyone who might have access to them or know where I
might find them. I have already exhausted the files at the NY
Public Library, and the library of the NY Historical society.
tia,
Vivian Funsten Donahue
I'm a descendant of James Churchill of Churchill's restaurant that
was popular in the teens and 20's in Times Square. I know there were
a number of articles and interviews in NY papers. I am interested
in hearing from anyone who might have access to them or know where I
might find them. I have already exhausted the files at the NY
Public Library, and the library of the NY Historical society.
tia,
Vivian Funsten Donahue
I thought the information below on the early usage of Mr. & Mrs. might be of
interest.
Last week I noted the following entries in the "History and Antiquities of the
County of Dorset." The three entries are found together in Vol. II, on p. 805
and are placed in an isolated listing with the title "The Register of Marriages
begins 1539." These are transcripts from the Piddlehinton, Dorset marriage
register. The entries are:
Mr. Robert Swain and Mrs. Eleanor Churchill . . . 1656
Mr. Henry Churchill and Mrs. Hannah Galler . . . 1661
Mr. Henry Churchill and Mrs. Elizabeth Cheek . . . 1682
I have seen the Henry and Galler/Cheek marriages from other sources but without
the use of Mr. for Henry. I had always assumed that the use of Mrs. simply
indicated that Henry had married widows. However, I knew that this Eleanor
Churchill was unmarried, so the use of Mistress for Eleanor could not be an
indicator of her marital status.
After a bit of research and confirming queries from individuals knowledgeable
on the subject, I discovered the true meaning of the above entries. So others
don't jump to the same conclusions I initially made, here is the meaning of the
entries.
In the 17th and 18th century Mrs. (a contraction of Mistress) was a prefix used
ONLY for unmarried ladies or girls. It was equivalent to the modern use of
MISS but was applied only to gentlewomen, that is to say women of gentry class.
The Oxford dictionary says about the use of Mrs:
" . . . Originally distinctive of a gentlewomen, the use of the prefix has
gradually extended downwards; at the present time, every married woman who has
no superior title is styled 'Mrs.' even though her husband is of so humble a
position as not ordinarily to be referred to as 'Mr.'. . . "
The use of Mr. indicates gentry status for the men. Mr places them at the
social level immediately below a titled individual and generally tells you they
were not titled -- but I understand that Mr could be applied to a knight.
The consensus from my queries is that John Hutchins, the author of the "History
and Antiquities of the County of Dorset" extracted the above three marriage
entries and placed them in an isolated grouping simply to emphasize that the
families were prominent. A distinction that escapes us today.
The actual individual parish marriage entries would have been written over time
by (probably) the rector(s). In their use of Mr. and Mrs. the rectors were
saying about each couple that they were of gentry class and that the women were
never previously married. This intended information about the martial status
of the women is in stark contrast to our modern interpretation which is that
all three women were previously married.
Good hunting,
Bill Churchill
Greenville, Texas, USA