Bishop transcipt about illegitimate child

[PrawnCocktail]

It has, of course, the possible reading of "repeated" .....


The mind boggles ....

[horselydown86]

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.

[Wiggy]

     Like that thought HD!   

Be interesting to hear back from the Original poster about other illegitimate children! 

[PeasePudding]

I will look this evening and report back!

[BumbleB]

Possibly have to remember that "clergy" could be very judgemental in those days!!      Not saying they are correct, BUT!!!!

[smudwhisk]

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.

[PeasePudding]

I have found this 9 years later! Sadly no mention of the father

[PeasePudding]

Meant to say it's the second entry down - John bastard child of Elizabeth Wallas

[PeasePudding]

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.