Cheadle was a spurious place in 1772

[Sandra Parker]

Checking the recently released Cheshire pages, I was drawn to the number of births, no father shown, but the single comment 'spurious'. Maybe the registrar/vicar was being considerate, or maybe the nastier terms came in a later period.

Of the 34 Christening entries from May 17th 1772 to April 21st 1773, there were 7 shown as spurious and another shown as Charles (with Bancroft added above the entry) born to an Elizabeth Jefferson, widow. (there is no other comment, so maybe hubby died in the previous nine months, though don't understand the addition of the Bancroft name later.)

That works about 1 in 5 by my reckoning

Sandra, whose spectacled aura initially feigned shock but then faced the reality of the times.

It's worth looking at for the clearly legible, easy to read handwriting. Wish all registrars/clerks could have learned from this chap.

[Kerrywood]

another shown as Charles (with Bancroft added above the entry) born to an Elizabeth Jefferson, widow. (there is no other comment, so maybe hubby died in the previous nine months, though don't understand the addition of the Bancroft name later.)

The baptism was on 23 Sep 1772. The same record set has the marriage of Elizabeth JEFFERSON (widow) to John BANCROFT on 22 Aug 1772, which might be relevant.

It's worth looking at for the clearly legible, easy to read handwriting. Wish all registrars/clerks could have learned from this chap.

[Sandra Parker]

Ah, so it was nearly spurious, but widow Jefferson married John Bancroft, who was already on the scene, so to speak, and that made it ok!

Or am I taking one of my quantum leaps again?

Sandra - no comment from the spectacled aura.

[Kerrywood]

Ah, so it was nearly spurious, but widow Jefferson married John Bancroft, who was already on the scene, so to speak, and that made it ok!

That's more or less how I read it. Perhaps the child was actually John BANCROFT's, born before the marriage and baptised after it?