RootsChat.Com
General => The Common Room => Topic started by: Speedwell on Sunday 30 September 18 04:37 BST (UK)
-
One of the things that fascinates me are the little extra things recorded in the parish registers. I really wish there was a place to collect these somewhere e.g.
Anyone else found little notes like this? " A Mother and a Childe (unknown) found dead upon the Heath were buried January the 21."
-
So sad that they could not identify them.
-
There are a quite a number of extra notes on the transcription of burials for Witham Friary.
e.g. Found dead in stream
Struck dead by lightning
Killed by a fall from a wagon
Accidentally burnt to death (young child)
Accidentally killed by kick of horse
That's just a few of the extra notes.
-
It was only by seeing the original parish registers that I found an ancestor had been excommunicated in 1792, along with two other "ladies" of the parish. :o
-
The parish priest in one of the parishes my family lived in was obviously quite an opinionated sort - he noted down "reputed father" for several illegitimate baptisms and in the case of one lady who had several children out of wedlock, the last was noted as "yet another b*stard of Mary Smith"...
-
The one that stays with me, although stupidly being new to research/recording I didn't note down where I saw it, was:
On this day King Charles the first was beheaded
-
Below is when and where Charles 1 was beheaded:-
On 30 January 1649, King Charles I was beheaded outside Banqueting House in Whitehall.
So perhaps that might jog your memory Retriever as to where you found it. Unless of course all the vicars in the country made a note of it in their registers. ::)
-
I did wonder if he was taking a risk making a note of it. If Cromwell’s men had seen it, it might not have gone down too well.
-
Anyone else found little notes like this? " A Mother and a Childe (unknown) found dead upon the Heath were buried January the 21."
This is fairly common in coastal parishes where drowned sailors were washed ashore. I have also seen burials of unknown soldiers of the English Civil War period.
I have only once seen a burial for an unknown woman found dead (I didn't make a note of it, but it was in Cornwall in the 1700s). My fisrst thought was "Tess of the d'Urbervilles".
Philip
-
I did wonder if he was taking a risk making a note of it. If Cromwell’s men had seen it, it might not have gone down too well.
Surely only a risk if he wrote down that he disapproved? He could argue that he was celebrating the event.
-
I don’t think the fact he gave the king his full title and didn’t refer to him as “that .... previously known as” would have been looked at favourably.
-
The one that stays with me, although stupidly being new to research/recording I didn't note down where I saw it, was:
On this day King Charles the first was beheaded
If it said 'the first' then logically it couldn't have been written before the coronation of 'the second' in 1661 :)
Carol
-
Oops, you are right of course. I should have just put King Charles.
At the time I don’t suppose they ever expected there would be another.
-
Tip of the day - if you come across a coin, document, or indeed anything referring to '(Monarch) the First' don't buy it - it won't fund your retirement ;D
Ditto anything dated 'BC'.
Carol
-
Sorry but I don’t see why the Regnal number would not be used on the date of his execution.
He was the first king of that name and yes it did not look as if there would ever be a second but it is a question of was it proper protocol to use his Regnal number.
We don’t know how many more Elizabeths there will be but we use the Regnal number.
I do agree that Victoria was also the first of that name but we do not say Victoria The First.
It is an interesting point
Viktoria.
-
Sorry but I don’t see why the Regnal number would not be used on the date of his execution.
He was the first king of that name and yes it did not look as if there would ever be a second but it is a question of was it proper protocol to use his Regnal number.
His son & heir was also Charles. If the curate was Royalist he would have thought of him as King Charles the Second of that name. When Charles 2 finally got his throne back he probably dated his accession from the date of his father's death. (It's a long time since O Level history.)
Anyway Retriever can't remember the register and may have forgotten the exact wording. It may have been "this day was the King executed". The present monarch is referred to as "the Queen" in news reports &c in Britain; it's not necessary to name her, there's no risk of a reader, viewer or listener confusing her with another monarch. :)
-
A Catholic priest in rural 18th century Lancashire used space in the notebook containing baptisms, marriages and deaths for anything else he wanted to write. There are recipes, cures and journal entries such as invitations to supper. It may have been the only notebook he had.
An Irish register has a piece of paper stuck on a page. It seems to be about settlement of a dispute or a debt between 2 parishioners, witnessed and recorded by the priest. Unfortunately the paper obscures most entries on the page.
-
Sorry but I don’t see why the Regnal number would not be used on the date of his execution.
He was the first king of that name and yes it did not look as if there would ever be a second but it is a question of was it proper protocol to use his Regnal number.
We don’t know how many more Elizabeths there will be but we use the Regnal number.
I do agree that Victoria was also the first of that name but we do not say Victoria The First.
It is an interesting point
Viktoria.
A regnal number is never used before there is a second monarch of that name.
So we have King Stephen, King John, Queen Anne, Queen Victoria. None of these will be referred to as "the First" until there is a Second.
-
[quote author=Sloe Gin link=topic=801240.msg6590299#msg6590299 date=1538435953
A regnal number is never used before there is a second monarch of that name.
So we have King Stephen, King John, Queen Anne, Queen Victoria. None of these will be referred to as "the First" until there is a Second.
[/quote]
However in the case of the executed King Charles, there was another King Charles waiting in the wings; it's just that it took him 11 years to get on stage. He took the scenic route from exile in Holland via Scotland and and stopped for a nap up an oak tree in Worcestershire.
The note in the church register might have been written several days after the execution depending on when the news reached that place.
On the subject of ordinal numbers, I know that 100 years ago my grandfather was serving in the First World War. He didn't know that at the time.
-
Coming back to the original question posed by speedwell:
" Anyone else found little notes like this?
A Mother and a Childe (unknown) found dead upon the Heath were buried January the 21."
I have seen notes in parish records that are very judgmental about children born out of wedlock and of their Mother.
At least the sad entry about the deceased mother and child was factual without judgment.
In old Derbyshire newspapers I have come across many cases of drownings of unknown persons found in the River Derwent. Sometimes these were reported as probable vagrants or suicides.
I am not sure how some of these drowned bodies would have been recorded on parish records.
Especially in the parish where bodies had floated to. Also if any assumptions / judgmental snipes recorded when a body was not subsequently identified?
I attached one short Derbyshire newspaper report from Thursday March 09, 1933.
Andy_T
-
In a lot of the 17th and 18th century London PR's I have seen "uknown man" or "unknown woman ", or even "stranger " in burial entries. The sad ones for me are the foundlings, and the notes on where and how they were found; so often named after the street in which they were found, or the first name of the person that found them.
On the side note of the two kings, yes Charles II did count his reign from the execution of his father. And if the priest did write "the First", then he would have most definitely have been a Royalist, knowing that there was an heir of the same name.
-
Coming back to the original question posed by speedwell:
I have seen notes in parish records that are very judgmental about children born out of wedlock and of their Mother.
At least the sad entry about the deceased mother and child was factual without judgment.
Andy_T
It makes me angry when I find a judgemental comment against a child for being born out of wedlock. No matter what your views on the morality of having a child out of wedlock a child does not chose the circumstances of its birth.
-
Charles II was crowned King of Scots in 1649, he wasn't crowned King of England until 1660.
The present Elizabeth is not styled Elizabeth II in Scotland as there was never a first. Post boxes in Scotland just have ER thereon ever since the introduction of boxes bearing E II R were "blown-up", post her coronation. ;D
Skoosh.
-
Coming back to the original question posed by speedwell:
I have seen notes in parish records that are very judgmental about children born out of wedlock and of their Mother.
At least the sad entry about the deceased mother and child was factual without judgment.
Andy_T
It makes me angry when I find a judgemental comment against a child for being born out of wedlock. No matter what your views on the morality of having a child out of wedlock a child does not chose the circumstances of its birth.
I attended a lecture many years ago,what I remembered most was the statement” There is no such thing as an illegitimate baby, the parents are the illegitimate ones”
Now whether you agree with that or not the point being made was the baby had no choice,whereas the parents had gone against the social mores of the time( 1950’s).
Things were pretty black and white then,and no help for such parents.
But I feel ,would you deny love to say a grandchild if your child was not married when the baby was born ?
I don’t think so.
It would need as many of its blood family as possible to give security and a sense of family. Help to the parent(s) will add to that.
In the end a well balanced child with a sense of its own worth is the aim.
Viktoria.
-
Coming back to the original question posed by speedwell:
I have seen notes in parish records that are very judgmental about children born out of wedlock and of their Mother.
At least the sad entry about the deceased mother and child was factual without judgment.
Andy_T
It makes me angry when I find a judgemental comment against a child for being born out of wedlock. No matter what your views on the morality of having a child out of wedlock a child does not chose the circumstances of its birth.
I attended a lecture many years ago,what I remembered most was the statement” There is no such thing as an illegitimate baby, the parents are the illegitimate ones”
Now whether you agree with that or not the point being made was the baby had no choice,whereas the parents had gone against the social mores of the time( 1950’s).
Things were pretty black and white then,and no help for such parents.
But I feel ,would you deny love to say a grandchild if your child was not married when the baby was born ?
I don’t think so.
It would need as many of its blood family as possible to give security and a sense of family. Help to the parent(s) will add to that.
In the end a well balanced child with a sense of its own worth is the aim.
Viktoria.
I wouldn't, no, but I do know of children (now in their 20s) who were treated badly by their grandparent and referred to as "the illegitimate ones". Incidentally the parents were actually married but one of the grandparents didn't recognise the validity of the marriage. There are also people who still pick on the children of separated parents, simply because their parents are separated.
-
Now whether you agree with that or not the point being made was the baby had no choice,whereas the parents had gone against the social mores of the time( 1950’s).
This is a topic for endless discussion, probably without definite conclusion. From the other direction, of course, the moralists might say that when there are no 'penalties' for flouting current mores there will be less attempt to follow them. Now probably as many children are 'illegitimate' as not, and no-one gives it much thought. Young people will continue to become unfortunate victims of their carnal lusts ... :o
Similarly with today's topic about allowing our jihadi bride to re-enter the UK - she is (or was) a British citizen and is about to have her third child; the UK presents itself as a forgiving nation. Even so, my preference is to say that she chose her bed and should lie in it. Other cheeks can be turned only so often.
-
In old Derbyshire newspapers I have come across many cases of drownings of unknown persons found in the River Derwent. Sometimes these were reported as probable vagrants or suicides.
I am not sure how some of these drowned bodies would have been recorded on parish records.
Especially in the parish where bodies had floated to. Also if any assumptions / judgmental snipes recorded when a body was not subsequently identified
One line of ancestors lived on the coast. Burials register has several entries "A drowned man". If 2 were buried on same day register entry for 2nd might be "Another drowned man".
-
One line of ancestors lived on the coast. Burials register has several entries "A drowned man". If 2 were buried on same day register entry for 2nd might be "Another drowned man".
While transcribing burial records for Formby (north of Liverpool on the coast) I found almost monthly entries for 'a man thrown up by the tide'; very occasionally a woman also. In the age of sail shipwrecks were common - especially on the west coast where the prevailing wind blew vessels onshore - with the usual consequences.