Surname in 1620 Baptism Register

[Janet Waterhouse]

Good evening,

I cannot decipher the surname in the 29 March 1620 entry - see attachment.

All Saints' Church, Batley, Baptism Register

Isabel D[aughter] of Bastett wids bapt the 29 day of March.

Any suggestions?

Regards,

Janet

[Claire64]

not sure, could wids be widow?  Widow Bastett?  I can't make anything else out of it I'm afraid.  Someone with a knowledge of local surnames might know more.

[Janet Waterhouse]

Thank you Claire for responding,
it would appear that others agree with your transcription by not responding.

Regards,

Janet

[PurdeyB]

I think after the surname it says 'was baptised'. If you look further down the page there is an entry for John, son of Robert and after the surname (which I can't make out) it says 'was bapt'd'.

[Ruskie]

Thank you Claire for responding,
it would appear that others agree with your transcription by not responding.

Regards,

Janet

Not necessarily. The thread could have been missed or overlooked. 

The other entries have the surname after the father’s first name, so Bassett (or whatever the forename is) then perhaps a surname rather than ‘Wid’?   

I can’t make out what either of the words are I’m afraid, but I’m sure one of the handwriting experts will be able to offer their thoughts. 

Tbh, I’m not even sure the first name is Isabel, but the experts will know.

[arthurk]

I didn't post earlier as I thought you'd got it, but on reading all the recent posts, I think PurdeyB is right about the 'was'. And for Ruskie - the ending is more or less the same as in 'Nathaniel' on the line above, so I'd be happy with Isabel.

That leaves a possible surname Bastett? Or Bastott? Not one I've come across - Basted, perhaps? I almost wondered if it might be Ba. Stott, but there doesn't seem to be any evidence for that in the writing: unlike some registers, the surnames seem to be consistently capitalised.

The lack of a forename (if that's the correct interpretation) might imply an adult baptism, where someone knows what her surname is (or was, if she's married), but can't remember her father's first name if he died when she was little. Or she might have been an orphan, from a family in another parish?

[Janet Waterhouse]

I did not wish to cause offense with saying "others agree with your transcription by not responding" when closing the topic.
I am very grateful for the time members spend answering queries, your expertise as helped me tremendously over the years, thank you.

With all the other entries showing a forename and surname, I am drawn to the surname followed by wid for widow.  I can see where PurdeyB is coming from, however, the 'a' is not closed on this entry, whereas in all other occurrences of 'a' it is closed, the tail of Lawrence does not help matters. 

I have noticed, in other registers, that illegitimate births show the surname of the mother followed by wid., highlighted by Claire64.

I have not come across the surname of Bastett or Bastott used in the All Saints', Batley, baptism register entries from 1600 to 1624.

Janet

[Claire64]

It's a difficult one this!  I always struggle with surnames unless I am doing local surnames (to me) where I usually know what they will be, being a very rural place, same names cropping up and all that.  I think we can get too hung up on comparing the other handwriting on a page because I have only to look at my own handwriting, which is not at all consistent.  But of course I always do compare the handwriting, we just need to be aware that it might not be consistent.
I still am not sure about what I said - wids, widow, I have never seen it with an s on the end.  It could well be "was" but he didn't always write "was baptised,"sometimes only "baptised." 
I cannot remember if I have ever seen a baptism as Surname Widow, it's possible, but it's usually Widow Surname. 
I can't commit an opinion I am afraid

One thought - has there ever been a publication of the register?  One a previous vicar transcribed and had printed?  That has sometimes helped me out when I have been really stuck.

[GR2]

Bastet/Bastett does appear in indexes as a surname. Perhaps it would be worthwhile looking through the same register to see if anyone else with that name is baptised/married/buried.