RootsChat.Com

Old Photographs, Recognition, Handwriting Deciphering => Handwriting Deciphering & Recognition => Topic started by: gules on Wednesday 28 August 13 13:02 BST (UK)

Title: OPR baptism Con?
Post by: gules on Wednesday 28 August 13 13:02 BST (UK)
Looking at baptism register for 1791 after each entry is CON. - except that for my ancestor -as I've a suspicion the marriage may have been Episcopalian - can any enlighten me. Thanks
www.Dun.org.uk for all Dun/Dunn from Scotland
Title: Re: OPR baptism Con?
Post by: Gadget on Thursday 29 August 13 13:18 BST (UK)
Hello

My best guess would be that it refers to witnesses/sponsors  and Con would be short for Congregation.  What does the column header say?


Gadget
Title: Re: OPR baptism Con?
Post by: Gadget on Thursday 29 August 13 13:45 BST (UK)
I've delved around and think it's Old Monkland parish and the column headings read Ch/ P /W - abbreviations for Child/Parents/Witnesses

so Congregation would be most likely.


Gadget
Title: Re: OPR baptism Con?
Post by: gules on Thursday 29 August 13 13:47 BST (UK)
Ah! that makes perfect sense - Thank you.
Title: Re: OPR baptism Con?
Post by: gules on Thursday 29 August 13 13:51 BST (UK)
Yes than you - it is Old Monkland  - curious that there are no witnesses as there was plenty of family in the area and I cant find the marriage which again is odd making me think there was something unusual about it.
Title: Re: OPR baptism Con?
Post by: Gadget on Thursday 29 August 13 13:53 BST (UK)
Think we cross posted  ;D

I'm not sure why Elisabeth didn't get an entry for her witnesses but I'd think that maybe she was the last entry on the page and they got missed off - or she was baptised eleswhere. One of my ancestors' entry reads 'baptised at the Manse' and no witnesses are recorded. It was very hit and miss in those days - often the infants were baptised at a Kirk Session meeting or just by the minister at the parents' home. etc. A note was taken and could be entered in the records at a later date.


Gadget
Title: Re: OPR baptism Con?
Post by: gules on Thursday 29 August 13 14:13 BST (UK)
That sounds likely - this one marriage has always intrigued me as the family is otherwise well recorded - Elizabeth had a brother so I'll check and see if that entry sheds more light.
Thank you.