need help reading 1766 birth record

ksyoung · Post by **ksyoung** » Sun Jul 06, 2008 1:15 am

I have just posted a birth/baptism record to the gallery -
Hugh Parker birth 1766

http://talkingscot.com/gallery/displayi ... ?pos=-1580

What does it say between "Baillie John Parker" and "and Mary Mchould"? I can't get anything sensible out of it.

Thanks, Katherine

Gallery url added by Marilyn

winslowsmom · Post by **winslowsmom** » Sun Jul 06, 2008 3:12 am

Hi Katherine

I'll give it a go.

Baillie (a title) John Parker Merchant in His Lordship's 2nd marriage and Mary
Somebody? had their 2nd child born October 14th and baptised Hugh
etc.

By the way, I googled Baillie John Parker, and it turns out that Hugh was a Baillie too, but I'm not sure if it was this Hugh.

I'm not very familiar with the old style of putting things, but maybe it makes sense to somebody, or one word changed will make it work better ...

Cathy H
also in California

Chris Paton · Post by **Chris Paton** » Sun Jul 06, 2008 10:40 am

...baptised Hugh Octr 19th 1766 by Mr Oliphant

ScotlandsPeople has Mary indexed as a McHOULD. The closest name to this in Black's is MacHOUL, a variant of MacDOWALL. The IGI lists a Mary MAHOWL marrying a John PARKER in Kilmarnock on 1 SEP 1761, which is corroborated at the ScotlandsPeople index, which seems to support this.

Chris

jennyblain · Post by **jennyblain** » Mon Jul 07, 2008 11:34 am

Having a try at it here..
Baillie John Parker Merchant in Kilmarnock his 2 marriage and Mary Mchould (?McLould) had their 2 child born Oct 14th 1766 and Baptised Hugh...

Jenny

(who hasn't been on this forum for far too long... will try to catch up!)

Chris Paton · Post by **Chris Paton** » Mon Jul 07, 2008 11:57 am

Yes, though Kilmarnock seems to be abbreviated as "Kilmk" in the record. Both the second marriage and second child are denoted as 2d, not just 2.

Chris

jennyblain · Post by **jennyblain** » Mon Jul 07, 2008 12:41 pm

Yup - it's the standard abbrev. for Kilmarnock. Sorry I should have said that.
(I have quite a lot of these, quite often with the 'k' superscripted.)

Jenny

Chris Paton wrote:Yes, though Kilmarnock seems to be abbreviated as "Kilmk" in the record. Both the second marriage and second child are denoted as 2d, not just 2.

Chris

ksyoung · Post by **ksyoung** » Mon Jul 07, 2008 3:13 pm

Thanks to all who helped with this. After more squinting at it, and comparing it to John Parker's marriage record, I think it says "Mercht in Kilmk his 2d Marriage". The "d" after the 2 is superscripted and easy to miss. The marriage record has the same phrase "Mercht in Kilmk" but much clearer writing. I find it interesting that the birth record points out that this is a second marriage for the father.

Katherine

Post by **joette** » Mon Jul 07, 2008 4:39 pm

Yes very useful info I have never came across the mention of a previous marriage in a Birth Record.
Those McDowalls again although my brick walls are Girvan McDowalls/McQath.

ksyoung · Post by **ksyoung** » Mon Jul 07, 2008 6:07 pm

Maybe all the attention to the 2nd marriage business has to do with family wealth and inheritance. I believe that John Parker's first marriage was to Margaret Glen of Assloss, and John's son William from his first marriage eventually inherited Assloss. Perhaps everyone was keeping close tabs on the pecking order for inheritance, since Margaret Glen son would be in line to inherit Assloss (Margaret's brothers did not have children).

The marriage record for John Parker and Mary McHoul gives her father's name and residence - more attention to the who's who in all this.

Katherine

jennyblain · Post by **jennyblain** » Tue Jul 08, 2008 6:15 pm

The attention to 2nd marriage etc. is more a Kilmarnock speciality than anything else, I think! The records there very often specify not only the marriage, but more than that the position of the child in the family. Fascinating stuff.

My people in Kilmarnock were a family with 'Nailor' as the chief occupation, therefore very unlikely to have any property - but there is this attention to detail of numbering births and marriages which I haven't found elsewhere. It's really useful for helping to work out who is who (and who's missing).

All best with your Kilmarnock findings. I'll take a look over mine to see if there are any Parkers etc. lurking on the same pages. My people there in the 18th century were Mushet, Adam, Hamilton, Deniveen (later Donovan?) ... from near the other end of the social spectrum I expect, but still there on the same registers!

Best regards,
Jenny