OPR baptism Con?

[gules]

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

[Gadget]

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

[Gadget]

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

[gules]

Ah! that makes perfect sense - Thank you.

[gules]

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.

[Gadget]

Think we cross posted 

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

[gules]

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.