Results 1 to 8 of 8
  1. #1
    Brick wall demolition expert!
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Lancashire
    Posts
    3,642

    Default Why the difference?

    The document below is a page from a parish register of baptisms 1814/1815. Of the 8 baptisms, 4 were of illegitimate children. 3 of those baptisms include the word 'bastard', the fourth is silent on the subject. It appears to be the same priest in every case. Do people think that there is anything to be inferred from this about the baptism of fourth illegitimate child?

    For ease of the reference the baptism in question is the 2nd on the page, namely "James son of Ann Lewis".



  2. #2
    Super Moderator - Completely bonkers and will never change.
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    England
    Posts
    9,620

    Default

    Is it possible that Ann was married? Her hubby could be deceased or in prison and therefore not the father of the child but because she wasn't a single woman the priest felt that he couldn't write bastard.
    Alternatively did he just start thinking 'there's getting to be a few too many of these illegitimate lot being born for my liking so I'm going to name-and-shame 'em'?
    Possibly instructed to write bastard by the overseers of the poor, or whatever they were called in those days?
    Are there similar entries on the earlier/later pages of the register either with or without illegitimate/bastard/baseborn written?

    Or the priest could just have had a senior moment and forgotten to write the missing word.

    Pam

  3. #3
    Brick wall demolition expert!
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Lancashire
    Posts
    3,642

    Default

    Interesting thoughts Pam.

    I checked the pages either side of this one and on the previous page there was one illegitimate birth. That had the phrase ‘bastard’. On the subsequent page there are 2 such baptisms, and neither of those have the phrase attached.

    I am pretty certain that she was not married, but unfortunately I can't prove it either way as the records just don't exist.

    Its one of those little inconsistencies that niggle away at the back of our minds when we find them!

  4. #4

    Default

    Maybe Dad was among the better off in the parish, and the Minister didn't want to offend...

  5. #5
    Famous for offering help & advice
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    West Yorkshire
    Posts
    1,729

    Default

    Is the abode for this James and Anne Lewis entry Bath? And if so, is it Bath in Somerset, or some other locality in or around Pembrokeshire?

    I'm wondering if Anne was living and working away and had the baptism in Rudbaxton because of a family connection. Meanwhile hubby stayed in Bath, but the minister forgot to ask his name so didn't put him in the register. (Or was she a widow??)

    Arthur

  6. #6
    Brick wall demolition expert!
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Lancashire
    Posts
    3,642

    Default

    I don't believe that the name of the abode is Bath, or that it refers to the town of Bath. I think that its the name of a cottage or smallholding, or some such.

    The one below is Rams Wood, and whilst that is the name of local wood, it was the name of a farm.

    The entry clearly says that she was a servant and I don't think that there would have been an occupation listed if she was married. What I haven't said because I did not want to influence people's responses is that there is a marriage for her, or at least for a girl of the same name, in that parish church, the following year.

    Thanks for your thoughts.

  7. #7
    Famous for offering help & advice
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    West Yorkshire
    Posts
    1,729

    Default

    I'm not familiar with that part of the country, so I'll defer to you on place names etc. However, your comment on a possible marriage the next year made me wonder - did any of the mothers of the other illegitimate children marry soon afterwards?

    Might it be that Anne was known to be living in a stable relationship that was expected to lead to marriage, and the others weren't? On the other hand, that may well be me reading it with 21st century eyes, and it's not a distinction that I have knowingly come across in records from 200 years ago.

    Arthur

  8. #8
    Valued member of Brit-Gen emmteeyess's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Sunderland
    Posts
    276

    Default

    This is similar to a question I raised here - https://www.british-genealogy.com/th...r-observations....

    One of the replies was -
    It's not necessarily a matter of being 'judgemental'. There's an important legal and practical issue involved.

    Illegitimate children acquired settlement in the parish in which they were born. This meant that the cost of supporting these children, if needed, fell on this parish and couldn't be unloaded onto another. The register was an important legal document in determining whether someone was eligible for support.


    Perhaps the 4th child was 'not of that parish' or didn't need support to the same extent.

    Cheers, MTS

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: