Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 32
  1. #21
    coseley
    Guest

    Default base child of or illegitimate

    Quote Originally Posted by Geoffers View Post
    I think it is wrong for them to have given such advice. Descriptions used depend on local custom, period in time, preference of the cleric who maintained the register.



    It could mean 'pauper', but what date is the entry? How many entries have the letter 'P' so appended? Is the letter written in the same handwriting and probably contemporary to the original entry - or has it been added later?
    The entry I am quoting is a tanscribed entry on Ancestry.co.uk Parish Records for Shropshire and therefore not in original handwriting. If you type in Thomas Smout Diddlebury Shropshire the first entry on Ancestry list reads

    Thomas John Elizabeth Smout
    Vital P
    If you then click on this entry you get

    Shropshire: Diddlebury, Munslow Parish Registers Herefordshire Diocese
    Bap 9th July 1786 Thomas (John erased) a base s of Elizabeth Smout, P

    Presumably P could mean pauper or perhaps prostitute

    As it is a transcription on Ancestry I had expected them to be experts.
    Regards,
    Barbara

  2. #22
    Guy Etchells
    Guest

    Default

    One thing researchers must do if they really wish to understand old records is to forget about today’s standards and expectations.
    Try to view the record as it would be viewed when written, there used to be no disgrace in having a bastard child, the disgrace was in having a child and being unable to support it.
    It was also quite common in earlier times for the first or even second child to be born prior to the marriage of the parents.
    The reason a P appears in registers was due to the significance of being a pauper.
    During the period births, burials & marriages were taxed paupers were exempt from payment.
    During the period of burial in wool again paupers were exempt.

    If an unmarried woman had a baby that baby was the responsibility of the parish to feed, clothe and educate.

    It is not the stigma of illegitimacy being referred to but the economic status.

    As for experts it is surprising how many “experts” have come in to the subject by taking a course and suddenly emerge as experts in the field.
    Expertise comes with experience not by taking a course, many course and books on the subject of family history simply repeat fallacies that have been handed down in earlier books or courses.
    Cheers
    Guy

  3. #23
    Geoffers
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by coseley
    The entry I am quoting is a tanscribed entry on Ancestry.co.uk Parish Records for Shropshire and therefore not in original handwriting.
    In your shoes, I'd be wanting to look at the original entry to confirm its accuracy.

    Presumably P could mean pauper or perhaps prostitute
    No, as Guy has mentioned, it is for pauper. The tax which he mentioned being a result of the 1783 Stamp Act, which is why I asked the date.

    As it is a transcription on Ancestry I had expected them to be experts.
    Expectation and reality are often different..........The many people who provide vaulable and free advice on these forums would, in my opinion, seem to be more expert.

    Quote Originally Posted by Guy Etchellls
    One thing researchers must do if they really wish to understand old records is to forget about today’s standards and expectations.
    Without doubt, this is one of the most basic and important rules for anyone carrying out any historical research, and in the case of the entry you mention leads onto...............

    Quote Originally Posted by Guy Etchells
    It is not the stigma of illegitimacy being referred to but the economic status.

  4. #24
    coseley
    Guest

    Default Base child of or illegitimate

    Thanks Geoffers for all the info. I would very much like to see the original entry but it hasn't been possible so far for various reasons.

    I would also like to see it because I have come up against a "brick wall" with my gr gr gr grandfather John Smout b abt 1786. Familysearch.org shows this entry and that he was born in Cann Lane, Coseley. I have no proof of this although all his children were born there and his widow was living there in 1841. He seems to have disappeared between 1834 and 1841. I cannot find either a birth or death record for him after extensive searches carried out by myself and other relatives living both in this country and abroad but I do have a copy of his marriage entry for 1806. This doesn't give an address but just says "of this Parish". The "John erased" on Thomas's baptism entry intrigues me as the date coincides with John's birth and Thomas and his wife Mabell had a child buried in St. Leonard's cemetery in Bilston in 1811, close to where John was living.

    I have looked through all the microfilms at Coseley Archives and their staff have also done a search for a record of John's birth or death.

    I have visited my local LDS Centre who tell me that the film showing the entry "John Smout b abt 1786 Can Lane, Coseley, " will not give me any more information.Family history is so absorbing because of all the things you learn along the way and of course, the people you meet.
    Regards and thanks again, Barbara

  5. #25
    Geoffers
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by coseley
    John Smout b abt 1786. Familysearch.org shows this entry and that he was born in Cann Lane, Coseley.
    What is the source of this information?

    As a result of the 1783 Stamp Act, there was an increase in private and late baptisms; if you get to see the registers, you might search for several years from 1784-1800 to see if you can find a baptism or record of him being admitted into church.

    I have no proof of this although all his children were born there and his widow was living there in 1841. He seems to have disappeared between 1834 and 1841.
    Have you tried searching the 1841 census for the surname SMOUT in Staffs, Warks, Worcs?

    Is it a commonly occurring name, or are there few entries clustered in one area? This might narrow down the seach area to look for your chap.

    How complete is the FFHS burial index for the area, does he turn up there?

    Could he have been a bad lad and in prison/asylum/workhouse and only recorded by initials in the 1841 census?

    I do have a copy of his marriage entry for 1806.
    Is he or his wife shown as a 'minor'?

    Was the marriage with consent of the parents?

    Was the marriage by licence or banns?

    This doesn't give an address but just says "of this Parish".
    This is normal and 'of this parish' often isn't strictly accurate.

    I have looked through all the microfilms at Coseley Archives and their staff have also done a search for a record of John's birth or death.
    Are these microfilms of the original registers? If so they should be as good as checking the original registers. Have you tried non-conformist records?

    I have visited my local LDS Centre who tell me that the film showing the entry "John Smout b abt 1786 Can Lane, Coseley, " will not give me any more information.
    It ought to or it is meaningless - the very least that I would expect is a source which you and others interested in this chap could verify.

    'Research' without the inclusion of a source is worthless.

  6. #26
    Reputation beyond repute
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Kent
    Posts
    16,792

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by coseley View Post
    John Smout b abt 1786. Familysearch.org shows this entry and that he was born in Cann Lane, Coseley.


    The record you mentioned was "submitted by a member of the LDS Church". Please see extensive discussions elsewhere on this site and other places about just how valueless such records are.

    In the absence of any supporting evidence, I think you can safely ignore it.

  7. #27
    coseley
    Guest

    Default Base child/illegitimate

    Thanks Geoffers and Peter Goodey for assistance.

    I have sent away for searches of the National Burial Index and Probate Records but nothing found. At Coseley Archives I looked through microfilms of the original registers and their staff have also made searches on behalf of other family members. I have also looked through what local Non-Conformist registers they have. Three of John's children were baptised in a Wesleyan chapel and the others in two parish churches, St. Thomas's, Dudley and All Saints Parish Church, Sedgley where John married Mary Lankson in 1806. I have also checked cemetery records and for mining accidents as he was a miner. He doesn't show on any local workhouse records. They appear to have been a god-fearing family. I have also visited what graves I could find to look for clues.

    I have searched all the censuses from 1841 onwards for any other Smouts in the area. Thomas was the only one in 1811 who could have a possibile connection. A Smout family in Tipton and their children all went to America. There were families in Warley and Little Packington and many Shropshire villages. All can be traced back to Shropshire roots. I have several hundered Smouts and have followed them through all the censuses, connecting families where possible. I have visited churchyards and on a map have plotted their journeys from many Shropshire villages as they moved over the years and spread out until they reached the Black Country.

    Until you suggested it, it never registered that it was a banns marriage. From Mary's death certificate it seems she died in 1874 aged 85 years which means she must have been born in 1788 so she would have been 18 when she married. She and John made their mark and the names of the witnesses are not family names. Sorry to bother you with yet another question but would I be likely to find records of the Banns anywhere?

    Thanks again, I promise I'll go away and get out of your hair for a while.
    Regards, Barbara

  8. #28
    Geoffers
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by coseley
    I have sent away for searches of the National Burial Index
    You can now do this online at the pay-per-view site 'findmypast'

    and Probate Records
    What you find depends on which court may have dealt with probate prior to 1858 - you may have to check more than one court.

    At Coseley Archives I looked through microfilms of the original registers and their staff have also made searches on behalf of other family members.
    It seems as though the 'transcribed entry' on familysearch.org may be like many others there and not very accurate

    Sorry to bother you with yet another question but would I be likely to find records of the Banns anywhere?
    Registers of baptisms, marriages, burials and banns

    Thanks again, I promise I'll go away and get out of your hair for a while.
    Regards, Barbara[/quote]

    These forums are to ask questions and discuss various topics on historical research - please ask if you need help.

  9. #29
    James Corps
    Guest

    Default

    Re Illegitimacy status
    I was under the illusion that if a couple had children and then married that the child was then not deemed ti be illegitimate

    In my family there is a case of a Corps marrying a Raine after tey had had a daughter who had been registered as Raine, and then some later records show her as Corps.
    This was to placate the girl's father who requred looking after and therefore the marriage could not take place until he had died. By this time Jane, the "illegitimate" daughter was 6 years old. Anybody else aware of the child's status in such circumstances
    Jim Corps

  10. #30
    Famous for offering help & advice
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Norfolk
    Posts
    1,359

    Default

    Hi

    I think in the eyes of the law until 1926 even if the parents wed the child or children remained illegitimate. It was only after 1926 that a child could be legitimised by the subsequent marriage of his/her parents.

    Ben

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

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: