Help with deciphering 1730 baptism record.....

Post by **SarahND** » Mon Feb 19, 2007 6:33 pm

I have uploaded the birth record of William Giles, baptized in Drumblade, Aberdeenshire in 1730. The record is the last on the page and the last line is very difficult to read. I can read:

July 19 1730
Robert Giles in Sheilkhois (probably not right, I haven't yet studied a map to see the possibilities...) had a Son baptized calld William

After this should be the witnesses names, as in the other entries, but I can't read them. It also looks as if the word Congregation has been written over afterwards. At first I was hoping

it was "fornication" since that would explain things a bit...

This child was born when Robert was 20 years old. I can't find any marriage before this, but he was married in the neighboring village of Clatt in 1738 and had three more children. I think this is the same Robert because:
1) I don't find any others in the area at that time
2) His own birth was registered in both Clatt and Drumblade, so he had connections to both places

Could the reference to the congregation have anything to do with the child being illegitimate, e.g. that he appeared before the congregation and acknowledged paternity...? If anyone has any ideas about what it says on the bottom line, I'd love to hear them!

http://talkingscot.com/gallery/displayi ... ?pos=-1061

Thanks for looking,
Sarah

Gallery URL added - AndrewP

Post by **AndrewP** » Mon Feb 19, 2007 6:51 pm

Hi Sarah,

The final part of this record will be witnesses, the congregation. That is quite common in the baptismal OPRs where a pair of witnesses are not individually named.

All the best,

AndrewP

Post by **SarahND** » Mon Feb 19, 2007 6:59 pm

Thanks, Andrew.
So that means he is most likely legitimate (although it doesn't say one way or the other)?
Regards,
Sarah

Post by **AndrewP** » Mon Feb 19, 2007 7:09 pm

Hi Sarah,

None of the records on that page say anything about legitimate or not, so you have no clues to go on unless you can find a marriage record.

All the best,

AndrewP

LesleyB · Post by **LesleyB** » Mon Feb 19, 2007 7:10 pm

Hi Sarah
I think, had he been illegitimate, it is likely (though it will depend I'm sure on the parish involved) that something would have been mentioned - they don't usually evade the issue in the OPRs I've seen!

And I'd tend to be more suspicious if only the mother had been mentioned, but the fact that is is the father who is named, makes me think all was perfectly in order as far as the church was concerned.

Best wishes
Lesley
p.s. that ink sploge is real "Bash Street Kids" stuff....

Post by **SarahND** » Mon Feb 19, 2007 7:21 pm

oh

I thought I had checked, but I see that the marriage records for Drumblade only start at 1745, so if he was married there, I won't find it. Wonder if he was the same as the one who married later in Clatt? I wish these OPRs would give the father's profession or something helpful like that to help narrow things down

Regards,
Sarah

LesleyB · Post by **LesleyB** » Mon Feb 19, 2007 7:53 pm

Hi Sarah

I wish these OPRs would give the father's profession or something helpful like that to help narrow things down

Unfortunately, they didn't see us coming!! I'm sure if they had known that a couple of hundred years later, this info would become so vital to family historians, they might just have paid a little more attention to the detail!

(or maybe not....!

)
Best wishes
Lesley

Post by **SarahND** » Mon Feb 19, 2007 9:19 pm

Hi Lesley,

LesleyB wrote: I'm sure if they had known that a couple of hundred years later, this info would become so vital to family historians, they might just have paid a little more attention to the detail! (or maybe not....! )

Not sure... my lot seem to enjoy playing hard to get

Now the question is, how much of your life would you put on the record if you knew your descendants were going to look at it?

Regards,
Sarah

Russell · Post by **Russell** » Tue Feb 20, 2007 1:42 am

Hi Sarah and Lesley

If I had known what was coming I would have had them all christened John Smith, boys and girls

and used pet names for them at home.
Had them all baptised on the same day (business managers would call that economies of scale).

Ask them to sign their marriage certificates with an 'X'.

Then I would die quietly in a Poorhouse with only an attendant to give the Death Certificate details.

Would this muddy the trail sufficiently

Russell

Post by **SarahND** » Tue Feb 20, 2007 8:01 am

Russell wrote:Would this muddy the trail sufficiently

Not sure, Russell. I think you forgot to mention taking the boat to the U.S. late in every year that is a multiple of 10, then coming back to Scotland a year later, thereby missing the census in both countries

Regards,
Sarah