RootsChat.Com

Old Photographs, Recognition, Handwriting Deciphering => Handwriting Deciphering & Recognition => Topic started by: PeasePudding on Saturday 17 December 16 01:18 GMT (UK)

Title: Bishop transcipt about illegitimate child
Post by: PeasePudding on Saturday 17 December 16 01:18 GMT (UK)
"William Bairick the <something?> father of it"

Can anyone shed some light on that word?

Many thanks in advance!

Title: Re: Bishop transcipt about illegitimate child
Post by: chinakay on Saturday 17 December 16 03:12 GMT (UK)
Reputed, I think.

Cheers,
China
Title: Re: Bishop transcipt about illegitimate child
Post by: horselydown86 on Saturday 17 December 16 03:15 GMT (UK)
China posted while I was writing this.  I will continue, as I don't see Reputed (although that may be what was meant).

The first two letters appear to be:  Re

The last five letters are:  eated

I would like to see more of the handwriting before committing to a reading of the missing letter.  Your clip cuts off the bottom of the letter.  In particular, I would like to see more examples of the letter p.

Please post a good sized section of the page so we have six or seven entries to compare letter forms.
Title: Re: Bishop transcipt about illegitimate child
Post by: hurworth on Saturday 17 December 16 04:55 GMT (UK)
I'm not certain there is a p in the word as I think I can see "bap" and the start of November further along.
Title: Re: Bishop transcipt about illegitimate child
Post by: McGroger on Saturday 17 December 16 05:44 GMT (UK)
Could it be "regreated", that is, the bastard child of the "regretted" father?

Peter
Title: Re: Bishop transcipt about illegitimate child
Post by: PeasePudding on Saturday 17 December 16 05:51 GMT (UK)
Thanks for your replies so far, I've attached a larger image as requested!
Title: Re: Bishop transcipt about illegitimate child
Post by: PeasePudding on Saturday 17 December 16 05:53 GMT (UK)
The full thing
Title: Re: Bishop transcipt about illegitimate child
Post by: chinakay on Saturday 17 December 16 06:11 GMT (UK)
China posted while I was writing this.  I will continue, as I don't see Reputed (although that may be what was meant).


PeasePudding, whatever horselydown says. I was just puttering around  :D

Cheers,
China
Title: Re: Bishop transcipt about illegitimate child
Post by: Wiggy on Saturday 17 December 16 07:38 GMT (UK)
Could it be "regreated", that is, the bastard child of the "regretted" father?

Peter

That is my thought too . . .don't like the way they've said the 'regretted' father of it . . Seems a bit harsh doesn't it.    ;)

Wiggy.   :)
Title: Re: Bishop transcipt about illegitimate child
Post by: PrawnCocktail on Saturday 17 December 16 08:24 GMT (UK)
It has, of course, the possible reading of "repeated" .....


The mind boggles .... :D :D :D
Title: Re: Bishop transcipt about illegitimate child
Post by: horselydown86 on Saturday 17 December 16 13:22 GMT (UK)
Thanks for posting the larger images.

Having looked at the letter forms I think it must be a p, although there isn't another with as pronounced a loop at the start of the letter.

It's not a g, in my opinion.  His g has a loop in its tail.  Nor is it followed by an r.  His r is distinctly formed.

So the word (in my opinion) is Repeated.

I wonder if he is having a punning joke at the expense of Elizabeth and William.  Normally we would expect to see Reputed in the baptism of a base child.

If you find that Elizabeth has other base children, especially if William is the father, then I would say that's the explanation.

Title: Re: Bishop transcipt about illegitimate child
Post by: Wiggy on Saturday 17 December 16 19:23 GMT (UK)
 :) :)   Like that thought HD!   

Be interesting to hear back from the Original poster about other illegitimate children!  ;)
Title: Re: Bishop transcipt about illegitimate child
Post by: PeasePudding on Saturday 17 December 16 19:25 GMT (UK)
I will look this evening and report back!
Title: Re: Bishop transcipt about illegitimate child
Post by: BumbleB on Saturday 17 December 16 19:32 GMT (UK)
Possibly have to remember that "clergy" could be very judgemental in those days!!   :o ::)  Not saying they are correct, BUT!!!!



Title: Re: Bishop transcipt about illegitimate child
Post by: smudwhisk on Saturday 17 December 16 19:46 GMT (UK)
As its from the Bishops Transcripts, its worth bearing in mind its a copy and would be worth trying to see the original parish register if it survives.  Its possible the person copying it might not have been able to read the original handwriting very well.  You would expect them to have used reputed for the father and it could well be the original could say that.
Title: Re: Bishop transcipt about illegitimate child
Post by: PeasePudding on Saturday 17 December 16 20:08 GMT (UK)
I have found this 9 years later! Sadly no mention of the father
Title: Re: Bishop transcipt about illegitimate child
Post by: PeasePudding on Saturday 17 December 16 20:08 GMT (UK)
Meant to say it's the second entry down - John bastard child of Elizabeth Wallas
Title: Re: Bishop transcipt about illegitimate child
Post by: PeasePudding on Saturday 17 December 16 20:11 GMT (UK)
I can see that Elizabeth later married a Jeremiah Jarratt and had a son of the same name with him, who died at aged 8. Her 'bastard' daughter Mary had a son with John Oulman who she called Jeremiah Jarratt Oulman, which makes me happy to think that she liked her step father! Daft I know! But I can just imagine the scorn heaped on the family at the time.
Title: Re: Bishop transcipt about illegitimate child
Post by: PeasePudding on Saturday 17 December 16 20:22 GMT (UK)
Sorry for the million separate messages.. but I think I'll have to browse through the records in the couple of years leading up to Mary's birth and see if I can spot any other 'bastard' kids that might have earned her a 'repeated' label! Can't see anything else when searching.
Title: Re: Bishop transcipt about illegitimate child
Post by: PeasePudding on Saturday 17 December 16 20:39 GMT (UK)
I've found the 'r' word a few years earlier (albeit with different people) and it looks like repeated here to me!
Title: Re: Bishop transcipt about illegitimate child
Post by: PeasePudding on Saturday 17 December 16 20:44 GMT (UK)
Where as this one looks like reputed
Title: Re: Bishop transcipt about illegitimate child
Post by: sami on Saturday 17 December 16 20:51 GMT (UK)
I think its - Repeated - in your first posting. But Reputed would make sense also.

sami
Title: Re: Bishop transcipt about illegitimate child
Post by: PeasePudding on Saturday 17 December 16 20:54 GMT (UK)
I think it does read repeated. However, I can't find any other children of Elizabeth prior to Mary in this parish, so I think it may be an error and supposed to be reputed.
Title: Re: Bishop transcipt about illegitimate child
Post by: dobfarm on Saturday 17 December 16 21:11 GMT (UK)
Looks like:- Repealed ~ revoked or Repeal ~ to revoke or withdraw formally or officially

Revoked father
Title: Re: Bishop transcipt about illegitimate child
Post by: Wiggy on Saturday 17 December 16 23:31 GMT (UK)
PeasePudding - when and where does your record in post 15 come from please?

 - I am interested as I have people of the one of the names registered there.  Just wondering if they could be related.

Wiggy 
Title: Re: Bishop transcipt about illegitimate child
Post by: PeasePudding on Saturday 17 December 16 23:56 GMT (UK)
Hi wiggy that is from Driffield, Yorkshire in 1766
Title: Re: Bishop transcipt about illegitimate child
Post by: Wiggy on Sunday 18 December 16 02:19 GMT (UK)
Thanks PP - not ours then!   ;) ;)
Title: Re: Bishop transcipt about illegitimate child
Post by: horselydown86 on Sunday 18 December 16 04:12 GMT (UK)
Dobfarm, it's unlikley to be Repealed.  The letter l is looped in his writing (as was the general habit of the time).

PeasePudding, as you said, we have Repeated in the first and Reputed in the second of your recent extracts.

This confirms Repeated is the word in the original.

I still think it is a pun on Reputed. Even if you don't find earlier base children, perhaps he used Reputed when the child was the result of a single clandestine event (known only to the participants) and Repeated when it came from a couple whose licentious behaviour was constant and known to everyone for miles around.