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
Results 21 to 30 of 32
Thread: Base child/illegitimate?
-
04-05-2008, 1:05 PM #21coseleyGuest
base child of or illegitimate
-
04-05-2008, 1:49 PM #22Guy EtchellsGuest
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
-
04-05-2008, 8:14 PM #23GeoffersGuestOriginally Posted by coseley
Presumably P could mean pauper or perhaps prostitute
As it is a transcription on Ancestry I had expected them to be experts.
Originally Posted by Guy Etchellls
Originally Posted by Guy Etchells
-
07-05-2008, 11:33 AM #24coseleyGuest
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
-
07-05-2008, 12:03 PM #25GeoffersGuestOriginally Posted by coseley
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.
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.
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".
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.
'Research' without the inclusion of a source is worthless.
-
07-05-2008, 2:35 PM #26
- Join Date
- Oct 2004
- Location
- Kent
- Posts
- 16,792
-
09-05-2008, 2:13 PM #27coseleyGuest
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
-
10-05-2008, 8:21 PM #28GeoffersGuestOriginally Posted by coseley
and Probate Records
At Coseley Archives I looked through microfilms of the original registers and their staff have also made searches on behalf of other family members.
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[/quote]
These forums are to ask questions and discuss various topics on historical research - please ask if you need help.
-
23-08-2009, 12:27 PM #29James CorpsGuest
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
-
23-08-2009, 6:10 PM #30
- Join Date
- Apr 2008
- Location
- Norfolk
- Posts
- 1,359
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
Helping you trace your British Family History & British Genealogy.
All times are GMT. The time now is 5:29 PM.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5
Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.
Bookmarks