RootsChat.Com
Old Photographs, Recognition, Handwriting Deciphering => Handwriting Deciphering & Recognition => Topic started by: BumbleB on Sunday 30 September 12 14:54 BST (UK)
-
I'm hoping that someone may be able to read the first word of this heading - it's from the baptism records for St John the Evangelist in Baildon in 1798 - one of four versions currently on Ancestry, two of them being typed transcriptions and the other doesn't include the headings or the first column entries.
I do have the transcription issued by Wharfedale Family History Group, and this indicates that the first column shows the place within the family of the person being baptised - i.e. William, son of Joseph Heaton is the 5th child in the family and Sarah is the 5th child of John Bradley. :-\ WFHG show the same sort of information right up until the end 1812.
My reason for asking this question is that I have Aaron Crabtree, baptised in 1798 and the figure in the first column is 10, but if that is so then there are a number of children not being baptised!!!!
Any help gratefully accepted.
-
:-[ :-[ :-[ :-[ It's "Seniority" isn't it?
-
:-[ :-[ :-[ :-[ It's "Seniority" isn't it?
Looks right, and sounds right in the context.
Aaron may have been the 10th child, but perhaps some of the others died soon after birth (unbaptised)?
-
Agree it looks like Seniority, or perhaps seniority with a long s as first letter not fully visible on the copy.
Could it be that Aaron Crabtree's first nine children were baptised in a different church?
Roger
-
Also, would that number mean, the fifth child, or the fifth son?
-
Many thanks. It might well be possible that other children either died or were baptised elsewhere, there are certainly a few gaps prior to Aaron's baptism - he being baptised in 1798 and the marriage taking place in 1776 and the first child the same year!!! And I'm obviously having a senior moment :-X
Ruskie: it's been interpreted by WFHG as "Child" and I'm hoping that it is so - if not then Aaron would be the 10th son (although saying that, I have only found male children for the parents :o )
-
'child' is likely to be correct then. I am thinking of some of my Durham records which give helpful details like 'second son of', or 'fourth daughter of'.