Author Topic: 1688 baptism record interpretation  (Read 990 times)

Offline 1JC

  • RootsChat Extra
  • **
  • Posts: 71
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
1688 baptism record interpretation
« on: Tuesday 23 April 19 11:33 BST (UK) »
Can someone help me interpret this baptism record. It is the baptism of George Stirling the youngest child of Patrick Stirling and Isobell Carmichell at Leith South, Scotland
What I don’t understand is:
-   The significance of the name before Patrick (Tho Docoass?)
-   Why there is a sponsor named (John Stirling) and what the role of this sponsor might be.
There is no sponsor named or name before Patrick in all the other five baptism records for children of Patrick and Isobell.

Online Forfarian

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 15,099
  • http://www.rootschat.com/links/01ruz/
    • View Profile
Re: 1688 baptism record interpretation
« Reply #1 on: Tuesday 23 April 19 12:36 BST (UK) »
The Deceast Patrick Stirling and Issobel Carmichaell had A S born the 22 and bap the 25 Octor 1688 N George Witt David McLaren Rot Muire and John Stirling sponsor.

The significance of the mystery word is that Patrick died before George was baptised.

I think the sponsor may be required because the child is (obviously) not being presented for baptism by his father, but I am not sure what exactly John Stirling undertook to do as sponsor.
Never trust anything you find online (especially submitted trees and transcriptions on Ancestry, MyHeritage, FindMyPast and other commercial web sites) unless it's an image of an original document - and even then be wary because errors can and do occur.

Offline Bookbox

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 7,919
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: 1688 baptism record interpretation
« Reply #2 on: Tuesday 23 April 19 18:52 BST (UK) »
I believe the child’s name is George Will(iam), not George Witt. A horizontal contraction mark across the last two letters makes double l look like double t. It's a fairly common abbreviation -- there’s another example in the first line of this extract.

ADDED - a query about the word ‘sponsor’ in this context was raised in an earlier thread and answered there by GR2 (see reply #4)
https://www.rootschat.com/forum/index.php?topic=657657.msg5035978#msg5035978

Online Forfarian

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 15,099
  • http://www.rootschat.com/links/01ruz/
    • View Profile
Re: 1688 baptism record interpretation
« Reply #3 on: Tuesday 23 April 19 19:48 BST (UK) »
I disagree. I think that what looks like Witt is an abbreviation for Witnesses, hence the contraction mark. And Scotland's People seem to think so too because their index just says plain George, not George Will or anything else. So does FamilySearch's. And the same hieroglyphic appears in the last line of the previous record.

And the reason I think the sponsor is in loco patris is because of the case I myself quoted in that very thread.
Never trust anything you find online (especially submitted trees and transcriptions on Ancestry, MyHeritage, FindMyPast and other commercial web sites) unless it's an image of an original document - and even then be wary because errors can and do occur.


Offline Bookbox

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 7,919
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: 1688 baptism record interpretation
« Reply #4 on: Tuesday 23 April 19 19:52 BST (UK) »
You may well be right.

Offline 1JC

  • RootsChat Extra
  • **
  • Posts: 71
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: 1688 baptism record interpretation
« Reply #5 on: Tuesday 23 April 19 20:34 BST (UK) »
Brilliant!
This has been unbelievably helpful for me. I did suspect the sponsor was there because the father had died before baptism but I had not twigged to The Deceased...

The Will or Witt is most definitely an abbreviation for Witness. All the baptism entries for that parish in those years had the exact same abbreviation.