GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2008-03 > 1204497782


From: "Belinda Dettmann" <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] Genetic disconnect? (Bapt. notational issue)
Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2008 09:43:02 +1100
References: <BLU126-W10B05FA7FB05FDFAE2DA15CB160@phx.gbl>


Hi John
Baptismal notation in early English and Scottish parish registers was
not standardized and entirely at the discretion of the minister or his
parish clerk. It was common practice for the minister or clerk to
scribble notes of names for later inscription in the register. Such
notes were sometimes mislaid and entries done from memory (or
omitted). Blanks were common (with the intention of being filled in
later after checking with the principals) and you can see evidence
where some blanks were actually filled in. All too often they are
simply left blank. In my experience such entries have nothing to do
with illegitimacy, as that was a fact that ministers tended to
remember, and comment on, unfavourably!

The mother or the father would be unlikely to succeed in suppressing
evidence of illegitimacy, as it was particularly important that the
parish should know who the parents were as they would be expected to
support the child. Children of unknown parentage would have to be
supported by the parish, from parish funds, so parish officers made
strenuous efforts to identify fathers in particular. They were less
interested in mothers, whose relation to the child was far more
obvious, but as mothers rarely had any money it would be the father
who would be chased for maintenance if there was a problem in this
regard.

In Scotland if the father could not be discovered it was common for
the mother's father to have to stand sponsor for the child (ie
guarantee maintenence) before it could be baptised, but I'm less
familiar with English practices at this early date.

Belinda


From: "John Ozment" <>
>
> Please help.
>
> What is your experience with (or knowledge of)
> the following baptismal "notational issue"?
>
> In English baptismal records from the 1600s,
> did the use of an N (namen), instead of the
> father's name, necessarily indicate a
> "genetic disconnect" for a baseborn child?
>
> Could it ever just mean that the clergy had
> simply forgotten the name since the ceremony?
> Or, had the mother perhaps paid to keep it confidential
> for baseborn reasons? (Parish chest records might speak to this.)
>
> The name of the mother was not given in this
> particular register, which was typical
> of some other parishes of that time period.
>
> I have ordered the microfilm of the early
> "parish chest" records, which in this instance
> included both apprenticeships and bastardy bonds
> along with the usual miscellany.
>
> -----
> -----
>
> My research problem involves --
> James Osman sonn of n < =
> bap. 6 Jan. 1617/8
> Kingsclere, Hampshire
>
> I DON'T KNOW that this James is necessarily my
> own James Sr., inasmuch as there were
> two James juniors. Thus, HE MAY NOT BE.
> Still, I need to sort through the matter.
>
> By the way, the IGI does not include the early
> entries for this parish, only the later ones.
> Now, I understand the probable reason why:
> the handwriting is atrocious.
> (I ordered fiche directly from Hampshire.)


This thread: