Genealogy Chat
Welcome to the Genes Reunited community boards!
- The Genes Reunited community is made up of millions of people with similar interests. Discover your family history and make life long friends along the way.
- You will find a close knit but welcoming group of keen genealogists all prepared to offer advice and help to new members.
- And it's not all serious business. The boards are often a place to relax and be entertained by all kinds of subjects.
- The Genes community will go out of their way to help you, so don’t be shy about asking for help.
Quick Search
Single word search
Icons
- New posts
- No new posts
- Thread closed
- Stickied, new posts
- Stickied, no new posts
Parish Records - 'Born' after entry - The Commonwe
| Profile | Posted by | Options | Post Date |
|---|---|---|---|
|
An Olde Crone | Report | 8 Feb 2005 00:18 |
|
Kate I have a vague feeling it was something to do with a tax on births which was levied during the Commonwealth years, I have a book somewhere and will look it up. You are indeed lucky to have seen this Register, most of the Commonwealth records were destroyed by the Established Church, although it quickly realised that it had wiped out seven years of records and hastily tried to reconstruct them, but those are done from memory so not particularly accurate! However, with the perversity which makes the British people unique, Parish Priests who had previously been very lax in their Register keeping, as soon as they were forbidden to keep such registers, went to enormous lengths to ensure that they kept detailed registers and that these registers were passed on to the Church Authorities! Long live the AWKWARD Squad! Marjorie |
|||
|
Padkat | Report | 8 Feb 2005 00:15 |
|
Hi Nell Yes, I've seen that sometimes too but with these entries there aren't any dates alongside. Unless as Brenda says the dates under baptism are actually birth dates. As an example I have 6 baptisms listed for 1660, 5 of which say 'born' after them but one does not. I'll probably never be sure of the reason but curiousity makes me want to dig further. I get frustrated when I don't know the answer to something :) Kate x |
|||
|
Padkat | Report | 8 Feb 2005 00:10 |
|
Thank you Brenda Will do a bit of research into that time period now. I hadn't realised that was the case. Kate |
|||
|
Unknown | Report | 8 Feb 2005 00:09 |
|
Kate I have sometimes seen baptisms that have a birth date next to them, in cases where the person being baptised was not a baby - ie a child or adult. nell |
|||
|
Phoenix | Report | 8 Feb 2005 00:07 |
|
During the commonwealth period, it was births, rather than baptisms that should have been recorded. It's too complex a subject to summarise briefly, suffice it to say that you are extremely lucky to find records surviving from this period. |
|||
|
Padkat | Report | 7 Feb 2005 23:57 |
|
Hi everyone This may be a silly question but does anyone know why the word 'born' would be written after a baptism entry? I'm referring to entries between 1653 and 1660. Entries were not made in this way either before or after this period on the parish records I am looking at. I'm wondering if maybe those entries without the word 'born' were actually older children or adults rather than babies. Has anyone else come across this? Any advice appreciated. Thanks Kate |
|||