Pages: [1]

Author Topic: A Washington baptism  (Read 625 times)

Offline MickRD

  • RootsChat Extra
  • **
  • Posts: 21
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
A Washington baptism
« on: Monday 12 October 20 15:27 BST (UK) »
I'm not sure how to interpret part of an online transcription of the baptism of Thomas Robert Atkinson at Washington, County Durham on 3rd Feb 1822. On FindMyPast his father's first name is given as Thomas Bewick and his mother is Elizabeth Atkinson. I've searched without success for the baptism of Thomas Bewick Atkinson the father.
I now wonder if Bewick was in fact the father's surname and not his middle name, which would make Thomas Robert Atkinson illegitimate. I'd be grateful if anyone with access to the original record could see if it’s any clearer there.
A pity in this case that FindMyPast don’t use the convention of surnames in CAPITALS in their transcriptions!
Thanks

Offline stanmapstone

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 25,798
    • View Profile
Re: A Washington baptism
« Reply #1 on: Monday 12 October 20 15:46 BST (UK) »
The original register says Thomas Robert Illegitimate son of Thomas Bewick and Elizabeth Atkinson.
From Family Search. http://www.rootschat.com/links/01pxq/

Stan
Census Information is Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk

Offline Tickettyboo

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 6,265
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: A Washington baptism
« Reply #2 on: Monday 12 October 20 15:50 BST (UK) »
Bishop's transcript image on Family Search is here:
https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:S3HT-631Q-VFT?i=341&wc=9K59-K6N%3A13618101%2C32968401%2C24189502&cc=1309819

(you need to be signed in, - an account is free, to view the image)

And that says that Thomas Bewick is the reputed father.

No idea why FindMyPast haven't linked to the image

Boo

Offline Tickettyboo

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 6,265
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: A Washington baptism
« Reply #3 on: Monday 12 October 20 16:08 BST (UK) »
I have just checked another source for a transcription of the  entry in the original Parish Register (rather than the BT's)

and that says
Thomas Robert Atkinson, of Washington, illegitimate son of Thomas Bewick (reputed father, countryman) & Elisabeth Atkinson

So whether FindMyPast's transcription is from the Parish Register OR the BT's its wrong. I have notified them.

Boo

Offline stanmapstone

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 25,798
    • View Profile
Re: A Washington baptism
« Reply #4 on: Monday 12 October 20 16:26 BST (UK) »
Quote from: stanmapstone on Monday 12 October 20 15:46 BST (UK)
The original register says Thomas Robert Illegitimate son of Thomas Bewick and Elizabeth Atkinson.
From Family Search. http://www.rootschat.com/links/01pxq/

Stan

That link I gave was to the Bishop's transcript image on Family Search

Stan

Census Information is Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk

Offline MickRD

  • RootsChat Extra
  • **
  • Posts: 21
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: A Washington baptism
« Reply #5 on: Monday 12 October 20 17:38 BST (UK) »
Many thanks for your help Stan and Boo. I'll bear in mind the BTs on Family Search as I try to dig further back.

Mick

Offline Tickettyboo

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 6,265
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: A Washington baptism
« Reply #6 on: Tuesday 13 October 20 11:23 BST (UK) »
Quote from: Tickettyboo on Monday 12 October 20 16:08 BST (UK)

So whether FindMyPast's transcription is from the Parish Register OR the BT's its wrong. I have notified them.

Boo

I had to email FindMyPast, as there is no linked image the usual route of transcription error reporting is not available. I explained that Bewick was the father's surname, not a middle name, and asked where the info had been sourced.

and this is what they replied:
We have sourced these records from the Northumberland & Durham Family History Society, as we do not have the image associated with this record we are not able to submit a correction.

I've replied thanking them for the info and have also asked why, though they have other Durham parishes BTs on the site which link through to Family Search images, Washington is not included.

all in all it highlights the fact that a transcription of any record should be regarded as a pointer to where the original image can be checked to make sure that its been transcribed correctly.

Boo
Pages: [1]