RootsChat.Com
Old Photographs, Recognition, Handwriting Deciphering => Handwriting Deciphering & Recognition => Topic started by: SolomanR on Monday 11 June 12 16:48 BST (UK)
-
This terrible image show the baptism record for William Cooper May 22nd 1830. I have William in the 1841 and 1851 census alive and well. However relations of mine insist the note next to the entry is a notice of death/burial in April ? 1831. Can anyone please decipher what these few words say. I had to photgraph from screen as SEAX wont let me save. Thanks very much, Sol
-
Could it be 'privately baptised April 3 1831' - perhaps originally not expected to survive?
Tony
-
Have you asked your relations how, if it is his date of death, he shows up in 1841 and 1851? ::)
I think it says "Received Pub[licl]y April 3 1831" or similar - not sure on the first word. In any case it amounts to the same as what Tony suggested - he was privately baptised in May 1830 probably because he was not expected to survive.
Alexander
-
Tony and Alexander, thanks very much! I have a record for him at the charge of the light brigade but I just needed to put this to bed. Cheers, Sol
-
Can I just suggest that you should be able to save images from SEAX by right-clicking on the image and choosing 'save as'. If you save it as ***.jpg it will save it as a jpeg.
Or, if all else fails, press "print screen" (which is probably just to the right of F12) and then open up a Word document or a viewer like Irfanview, paste it in, crop it if necessary, and save it.
Scrabble
-
Thanks for the tip Scrabble!
-
Have you put the correct dates in your initial post?
A baptism in 1830 would not be followed by a private baptism almost a year later.
Colin
-
As I understand it, the 1830 baptism was the private one, and it was acknowledged publicly a year later (then being noted in the margin).
Alexander
-
Hello -
I wouldn't be sure about the first word, but I would read the second as an abbreviation of baptised.
craggagh.
-
As I understand it, the 1830 baptism was the private one, and it was acknowledged publicly a year later (then being noted in the margin).
Alexander
I can follow your reasoning, but it seems most unlikely to me. It would make more sense if both entries were in 1831 and the main entry referred to the child's Admission/Acceptance into the Church following a Private Baptism.
Colin
-
Hi
Two suggestions here:
If privately baptised in 1830 there should be an entry in the register on that date- even if this second entry is for the child being received publicly in Church.
However, surely if the child had died as your relative suggests in April 1831 there should also be an entry for the child's death within the Burial section of the register (or burial pages). Might be worth double checking.
To me the entry does look like "Privately bap'd April 3 1831" perhaps the 1831 was just a clerical error with the year?
-
Thanks for all your opinions. I have rechecked and the date in the register is May 22nd 1830. They were a poor family so I cant see why they would pay for a private baptism
-
Hi
Just a point here a private baptism (as previously mentioned) was usually performed when the baby was v. ill and not expected to live. Financial circumstances of the family did not come into it.
Kind regards
-
Certain people were authorised to perform a Private Baptism free of charge, such as Doctors and Midwives, and since it didn't involve the Church they would not be recorded in the Parish register. When the child first entered the local Church the Christening ceremony would not include the Baptism if evidence of a previous Christian Baptism was provided.
As already suggested, I suspect the date of the Private Baptism has been entered wrongly, or even very badly, and should be 1830.
Colin