Help needed with strange anomaly

[Joe Duffy]

Hello everybody,
I need some help with a strange situation I've found in my research. Look at the entries for "Clark" in the attached image.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v181/JoeDuffy/famhist/anomaly.jpg

Both parts of the above image are taken from old parish records from the same place (Lochwinnoch, Renfrewshire, Scotland) four years apart. In the bottom part (Feb 1839) we have son John born 26 Feb to James Clark and Ann Campbell and baptised 10 March.

In the top part (Feb 1843) we have another son John born on the same date as the 1839 son, to the same parents, and baptised on the same date as the 1839 son.

My first thought was that the first John died in infancy and they gave the second one the same name four years later as was commonly done. But surely it's too much of a coincidence that they were born and baptised on exactly the same dates four years apart? Not impossible of course.

To make it even stranger, on the 1851 census only one John (aged 12) is listed i.e. the first born one. If the first John was still alive why would they name another son John just four years later and where did he vanish to?

I can't find any John Clark deaths around that time and location which might help explain the apparent disappearance of one of the Johns.

What is going on here?

[Thomasin]

I would guess that this is a copy of the original baptism records. Both entries are in the same hand, as far as I can tell, and I can imagine a weary parish clerk copying the same entry twice. Perhaps he turned over two pages, or dropped his pen ... If this entry had included unusual names he would probably have realized his mistake.

Thomasin

[Pam Downes]

Hello everybody,
My first thought was that the first John died in infancy and they gave the second one the same name four years later as was commonly done. But surely it's too much of a coincidence that they were born and baptised on exactly the same dates four years apart? Not impossible of course.

My gran had a boy, then a girl, born on the same day but five years apart.
Uncle was baptised on 22 October - and auntie was baptised on the 22nd October five years later, so definitely not impossible.
Two earlier children were born on the same date, but 13 years apart. I've only found the baptism for one of them.

And when I first began my research I was looking at a film which I thought was a film of a parish register. I suddenly realised that the handwriting was all the same - and very neat. Too neat if you know what I mean, so I'm pretty sure that what I was actually looking at was a copy of the original register. I would therefore agree with Thomasin that this a copy of the original register.
Pam

[busyglen]

It definately looks like the same hand, and the entries are identical, with the exception that the word `Middleton' is shown as place of birth on one. I think Thomasin could be right in that one of these entries has been copied twice. Although having said that, the word Middleton is only shown on one entry. Certainly an odd one this! I think the chances of this happening on the same day, a few years later, and being baptized as well, are probably quite rare.

I hope someone comes up with an explanation.

Glenys

[Jane Gee]

I am not familiar with scottish records but do you have Bishop Transcripts where a copy of each parish register was filed with the Bishop. It is said that you should check both the parish register and Bishops Transripts in case there are anomolies.
Jane

[Joe Duffy]

Thanks for all the help so far. I assumed that the book would be filled in at the time of the baptism or very soon afterwards? Then the register would be stored away safely somewhere at the end of the year when a new register was started? If so, what exactly could the person filling in the register be copying from? How could he be copying the details from a register of four years back?

The second John certainly doesn't seem to have ever existed. :confused: If no such child was born, why on Earth would he get the register and fill it out with those details?

I've checked Scotland's People for deaths of a John Clark born within +/-10 years of both supposed birth dates and there are none, not even for the one that definitely existed but I suppose he could have died outside Scotland.

I'm new to this fascinating hobby so I have no idea how to go about checking these Bishop's Transcripts which were mentioned.

[daggers]

Looking at the copy registers first shown above, I think they are from the Church of Scotland, i.e. Presbyterian - no bishops, therefore no Bishops' Transcripts!
For Episcopalians, there is more likelihood of there being BPs, copies of the registers sent to the diocesan bishop from time to time, as done in the Church of England until they lapsed some time around 1837.

[Ladkyis]

The old registers just went on and on until they were filled or until the church brought out a new style of register.
The early ones were just a book with blank pages and if there were only a few baptisms in a year then there could be several years on the same page.

As for the entries being in the same hand well that's not unusual. In some places the incumbent was there for more than twenty years so apart from changes due to age the writing would be the same for all that time.

It is not unknown for there to be more than one child in a family with the same name. If you could learn who they were named for it might make sense. The first one could have been baptised John for his grandfather or a rich relative and then always known as Ian. The second could be named for his maternal grandfather and always called Willie

just my four pennorth

[Jan65]

The word Middleton in the later baptism looks as though it's been squashed into a space left for it. And in all the baptisms shown, the earlier one for John is the only one where the birthplace is not mentioned. Does this have any significance?

Does anyone know what that short word is at the end of the entry on the later baptism? Is it "Do" (ditto) and what does it refer to? It looks more than just a squiggle or a random blotch. Could the same boy have been baptised twice for some reason? My mother was baptised twice, once as a baby and again when she was 11, so I know this could happen. Could the "Do" have some relevance to that?

Or perhaps the first boy was born and baptised, then the second just happened to be born on the same day as his brother and the parents thought "what fun - let's baptise him on the same day too!" Stranger things have happened! (Although this doesn't explain the name.)

Good luck - I love a good mystery and hope you solve it!

[Thomasin]

It does look like a ditto, and it appears after the entry for the Connel child too.

I notice that in 1839 the Glen child was baptized on 5th March, before the Clark boy on 10th March. Also in 1843 the Connel child's entry ends with '5th March' just before John Clark on 10th March, which looks as if the clerk may have taken this date as a point at which to add the Clark entry.

In 1839 John Clark was born six days after the Brodie boy below. When was the Brodie child baptized - after John Clark? (If it was before, it would definitely seem as if the Clark entry is in the wrong place.)

Have you noticed that it does not mention when the Gilmour daughter was baptized?

Thomasin

[Jan65]

According to the IGI John Brodie was baptised on 10 March 1839, the same date as John Clark.

The IGI gives six baptisms of the children of James Clark and Ann Campbell - John in March 1839, Mary in June 1841, the "other" John in March 1843, Hugh in April 1844, Janet in December 1846 and Ann in May 1850. There is also a marriage for James Clark and Ann Campbell on 16 November 1837, which ties in nicely with the birth of the "first" John in February 1839.

I don't know if this information is of any use - I was hoping to get some clues from other entries - I'd wondered whether the parents weren't married at the time of the first christening and had had their son re-baptised once they had married, but this doesn't seem to be the case. Also the word lawful indicates that they were married, I suppose, but I took a look anyway just in case!

I just have a feeling, if you can't find a record of any death of the first John, and seeing as he does seem to appear in the censuses, that he was baptised twice for some reason.

[JenniLl]

Could it be that John was received into the congregation on the second occasion. Perhaps he had been a sickly child and had been originally Baptized at home?

Jenni

[Thomasin]

Now that is a good idea ... but why, in that case, didn't they note down the year of his birth as they usually do?

Thomasin