Insights into an Era

[Maiden Stone]

[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.

[Andy_T]

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     

[pinefamily]

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.

[pharmaT]

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.

[Skoosh]

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. 

Skoosh.

[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.

[pharmaT]

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.

[Andrew Tarr]

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 ... 

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.

[Maiden Stone]

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".