My problem, similar but different...,
In indentures of 1809 & 1813 buying & selling a small piece of pasture in Notts, and in a Parish Settlement Certificate of 1818, he is shown as, "John Palmer otherwise Worthington". The 1840 Death Duty Register of his brother Francis Palmer who left him a small legacy, shows relationship as, "bro. but q." His putative father Henry Palmer married "Elizabeth Worthington" according to Lincs. parish register in 1786. I can find 5 of their children christenened in the parish register. I cannot likewise find John. His age given in the 1851 censuses make his birth about 1784, about 2 yrs before the 1786 marriage, and about 6 years before the first christened child was born, in 1790. The will of Henry's brother lists all 6 children and gives legacy equally to them. Henry's will lists all children except John. In 1811 he is a tenant in a property of Henry Palmer. The 1841 and 1851 census show "John Palmer", and not, "Palmer otherwise Worthington". I cannot find his death, apparently in Chesterfield before 1863.
I have looked for a birth of "John Worthington" in likely places. I have looked for a marriage of an "Elizabeth" to a Worthington, in likely places and years. Nothing so far.
For years I have guessed what "otherwise", or, "bro. but q." might mean; of course also considering illigitimacy. But do these words give a non-ambiguous meaning of bastardy? I think I was told once that "q." stood for the Latin, "quo", and that in this phrase it stands as abbreviation of .. something, maybe "quo uterine", which would leave no ambiguity. But might this language also be used where John is the biological son of Henry, but also a legatee of a Worthington?
