RootsChat.Com
England (Counties as in 1851-1901) => England => Durham => Topic started by: JoTH on Wednesday 14 February 18 16:28 GMT (UK)
-
I have John Tulip
Throckley Black Row Born November 25th 1805 Baptised January 26th 1806 1st son of William Tulip pitman native of Ovingham Parish by his wife Margaret Bones native of Lanchester
and John Tulip
4 Dec 1808 Jno Tulip of High Felling, born 12 Oct, 2nd son of William Tulip (collier, native of Ovingham) & Margaret Barnes [Bones] (native of Lanchester, daughter of Thomas Barnes)
One of them is my 3xgreat grandfather but as I can't find a death for the one in 1805 and the 1808 one is abbreviated, I'm wondering which one could be the right one!! I have John throughout the census (date of birth vary) and his death in 1863 which puts his age as 58.
-
My initial assumption was that the first John died between 1806 and 1808
( as concluded on this thread http://www.rootschat.com/forum/index.php?topic=510342.msg3666474#msg3666474 )
But I see that 'your' John consistently gives his birthplace as Northumberland, indeed in the 1861 census it's Throckley which fits with the 1805 John.
Are the entries you quote taken from the original parish registers or from the Bishops Transcripts? If they are from the transcripts, there is always the vague possibility that the priest got the name wrong :-\ (Edit - this question was asked in your earlier thread - did you resolve it?)
-
But I see now that on this thread http://www.rootschat.com/forum/index.php?topic=744253.msg5912181#msg5912181 you came to the conclusion that 1805 John was indeed your man, and that 1808 John wasn't :-\
-
Hi
Have to say I am inclined towards the former on the basis that he seems to consistently say he was born in Northumberland. If he was born in High Felling his county of birth would have been co Durham- in 1841 he is born out of county while living on co. Durham His age at death would also seem to favour the former.
Now I am no handwriting expert but looking at the Bishop's Transcript of the Heworth baptism(the handwriting is not the best!) could the first name be abbreviated to something other than John?
William
Added: My go to site when looking at first name issues is "whatsinaname". Jno is considered there to be a diminutive of Jonathan as well as John.
-
Oh dear, my memory failed me that I'd put something up before on this! I guess I just keep coming back to it because it's not really resolved :(
I'm wondering if, although on DRO and Ancestry the second John (Jno) has been transcribed as John it is something else.
Am I allowed to put up an image of the parish register for you guys to look at the writing?
-
Now I am no handwriting expert but looking at the Bishop's Transcript of the Heworth baptism(the handwriting is not the best!) could the first name be abbreviated to something other than John?
https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:S3HT-6WL2-5P?i=393&cc=1309819&cat=1820929
it looks like Jno to me, but I see that lower down John is written in full (this has also already been covered in the earlier thread)
-
Am I allowed to put up an image of the parish register for you guys to look at the writing?
Please bear in mind that what you see online is NOT the Parish register, it is from the Bishops Transcripts, so there is always the possibility of error.
Can I just repeat my earlier question :)
Are the entries you quote taken from the original parish registers or from the Bishops Transcripts? If they are from the transcripts, there is always the vague possibility that the priest got the name wrong :-\ (Edit - this question was asked in your earlier thread - did you resolve it?)
-
JenB - I hadn't realised. I think the first John may well be the parish register as it has the name of the curate at the bottom
-
On looking back on the old thread, I saw this:
I contacted Holly who is the site manager for Durham Records online and asked her where the transcription had come from of Jno baptism, she did reply that it was the Bishop of Durham's transcripts but offered to have one of her researchers check the parish register. The outcome:
" Here's my researcher's response:
Clearly JOHN Tulip - written out in full, no doubts at all"
-
JenB - I hadn't realised. I think the first John may well be the parish register as it has the name of the curate at the bottom
Is this the one you are looking at?
https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:S3HY-6XW9-F2X?i=212&cc=1309819&cat=1809361
If so it is from the Bishops Transcripts. The name at the bottom simply means that it was copied by the curate from the original.
And I see that Holly confirmed that it is shown as John on the original, which shows that you can't always trust what is shown on the transcript ;D
-
Jen yes that's the one.
Wonder if I could get Holly at DRO to look at original if they have it for the first John!
-
If you live near to a family search centre you could view the original parish records yourself. The catalog shows that they have been digitised for both parishes.
William
-
William, I did have a centre near me and used regularly in my first few years of research (12 years ago) but it would seem it's no longer there now :(
-
If you live near to a family search centre you could view the original parish records yourself. The catalog shows that they have been digitised for both parishes.
Alternatively put up a Woodhorn look-up request on the Northumberland board. A few people go there on a fairly regular basis.
If you do this, please add a link to this thread, so that you don't get even more duplication of information :)
-
Thanks Jen
-
This is what I had back from DRO on requesting that they look at the parish registers rather than the bishops transcripts:
We have checked the register and the 1806 baptism is definitely John, written clearly. The only change is that the abode is Throckley Black Row rather than just Black Row - if you review the record from the My Orders tab, you will see this change has been made.
While it is more common for a baptism to go unrecorded than a burial, it is not unheard of for burials to go unrecorded. It is also possible that the first John died elsewhere, perhaps along the way while the family was moving to Heworth, and that happened in a place whose burial records we have not yet transcribed. It is even possible that they named 2 living sons John - we have seen that before, odd as it seems. It is also possible that the clerk made an error when entering either of the Johns - one may have actually been called something else.
Interestingly according to the BT the parents also baptised two further sons with the name William!
Thanks to everyone for your input.
Joanna