Genealogy Chat

Hi Brenda, Rupert and Marjorie Thank you very much for your comments. You have confirmed my thoughts, but was not sure this could happen, being this is my first time using the PRs. Rupert - whet to the chemist today!! Many thanks to you all Regards Mary

There is another possibility. If a child was base born and the parents subsequently married, sometimes the nice Vicar would amend the baptism, inserting the father's name and crossing out "bastard". This has happened several times in my own tree, and slogging through the PRs I can tell you it was a reasonably common occurence. It seems to depend entirely on the character of the Vicar concerned!

If the PRs were written thus,,Richard son of William and Isabella Simpson...date..then they either fibbed or your PR record re marriage date is incorrect.Either way I cannot see how you can prove which it was. ps If your going mad with this and you intend continuing with genealogy,you better get some prozac, as this wont be the last one that causes you problems.

hi Brenda and Rupert I have seen the PR entry and the info given in my question above about James was written on it. I do realise that Richard was base born ( not stated on the PR). William was the father as later records I have show. The PR is written to look as if William and Isabella were married, they were not, so why enter them as such or wouldnt it matter. Wm and Isabella married March 1825. Mary

If the baptismal record itself says that Isabella's first husband has left her, it sounds as if it is an indication in itself that the child is base born. Have you seen the entry, or just been given a transcription of it? There is not much space in a Rose's register to put all the information and it may be ambigously worded. Was the IGI entry a straight transcription, or was it submitted by an individual, who might have wanted to conceal the facts? B

What does the PR entry state,regarding the babtism.

Hi Rupert Thanks for that....confirmed what I thought. Would you have any advice on the second part of my posting. Thank you Mary

The IGI is just a transcription of the PRs and should always be confirmed. PRs are obviously the more accurate they being written at the time and should be taken as accurate. Any record you get of the internet, should always be confirmed as they are transcribed and subject to human error. Dont forget the babtism is only a rough guide to the date of birth, he could have been babtised within a week of birth or years after.The child could well have been base born.

Hi All The Parish Records show Richard child of William and Isabella Simpson was baptised 28 Aug 1824. It also states James Gibson left for America soon before April 1821 and died there, Isabella’s then husband. That would make her a widow at the time of the baptism. The IGI shows Richard baptised 28 Aug 1825 The Parish Records show William and Isabella married 03 March 1825 Should I treat the IGI as a mistranscription? Would the church accept William and Isabella as husband and wife, as the entry seems to indicate when in fact they were not. This family is turning out to be a real conundrum and here’s me thinking they lead such quiet lives in the hills of Cumberland. Please help I'm becoming obsessed!! Thank you - Mary