OPR Births & Baptisms - tidy but incorrect?

[marypryde]

I'm looking in Scotland's People at OPR Births & Baptisms, Parish of Largo in Fife. They seem to have my entire family of children, spanning 16 years, listed sequentially on the same 2 pages. Leaving no blank space, the next entry goes right to another family with a different name. The handwriting is extremely neat. These two facts lead me to suspect that these records were copied over at some later point.

The following second entry must be an error unless I'm missing something:

April 29, 1826 was born Elizabeth Daughter to William Pride, Feuer, Woodside and Isabella Scott his spouse and baptized by the Rev. Mr. Trail Ceres.

(impossibly short gap and months are out of sequence)

February 27, 1826 was born Isabella Daughter to William Pride, Feuer, Woodside and Isabella Scott his Spouse and baptized by the Rev. Mr. Trail Ceres.

June 20, 1828 was born Janet Daughter to William Pride, etc.

My guess is that Isabella was actually born on February 27, 1827, and that there was an error in transcription. Is it typical that some neatnik would have copied earlier records in a tidier hand? Anyone have another idea?

[Robert1893]

I have a similar problem with two entries in the OPRs for Thurso as seen on microfilm. OPR 041/2 shows the following near the end of the book:

13 April 1782 Donald Waiter in Weidale by Helen Swanson had a daughter baptized Isobel. Witnesses Alexr Waiter and Alexr Wilson

On page 2 of the next book 041/3 there is the entry:

15 April 1782 Donald Watter in Weidale by Hellen Swanson had a Daur bap Margaret Witts Alexr Watter and Alexr Wilson

This is in a different and much neater handwriting. Apart from the variations in spelling the entries are essentially the same except that the daughters' names differ. Are there twins or has a mistake been made in recording the name of the daughter. Or did the parents have a change of mind over the name? Another difference is that the 041/2 entry for the 13th April is written below an entry of the 15th April for another birth of a different family. In 041/3 the entry of the 15th April is in the right chronological place.

So far I have been unable to find any subsequent marriages for Isobel in the OPRs but there are possible reasons for that, such as death in childhood or non-marriage. For Margaret Waters there are at least three possible marriages, one in Olrig and two in Thurso. Is this a clue? There is no certainty that it is.

Any suggestioons would be welcome.

[Currie]

Hello Mary and Robert,

I’d say all this could easily be to do with the imperfect condition of the Scottish Parochial Registers. There were even books written on the subject. In particular “Sketch of the History and Imperfect Condition of the Parochial Records of Births, Deaths and Marriages in Scotland: In Illustration of the Important Advantages which would be Derived from the Introduction of a System of Compulsory Registration”, by George Seton, 1854. http://www.google.com.au/books?id=BZsHA ... =titlepage

Neither Thurso nor Largo appears to get a specific mention in this volume but that doesn’t mean they didn’t suffer from the same sorts of problems.

This book amply demonstrates the ways in which Parish Registers were eaten, rotted, lost, mislaid, stolen, washed away, burnt to a crisp, muddled, jumbled, mistranscribed, neglected, kidnapped, you name it it’s all there. And that’s not to mention promiscuous entries and inattention to dates. See from about book page 24. These Google books are much easier to read if downloaded.

A run down per parish is contained in what might be described as a companion volume “Scottish Parochial Registers: Memoranda of the State of the Parochial Registers of Scotland, Whereby is Clearly Shown the Imperative Necessity for a National System of Regular Registration”, by William Barclay Turnbull, 1849. http://www.google.com.au/books?id=aCELA ... =titlepage

Not much is said there about Thurso or Largo but they appear to have been regularly kept.

But as to what happened in these cases, your guess is as good as mine. Imagine a big heavy dusty register sitting in the cupboard. Some people might drag it out every time an entry was needed, set themselves up with pen and ink and blotter of whatever description, and carefully write in the details.

It would be very tempting just to scribble down the details on a scrap of paper and toss it in the cupboard where the register is kept. If that went on long enough eventually some conscientious soul may come along and copy all the scraps into the register in the right order or reverse order or whatever. Besides, it would save a lot of wear and tear on the register.

That’s probably not much help but at least you’ll know that if there’s an imperfection in the Scottish or any other Parochial Register then everything’s normal.

That’s what I think,
Alan