A parish record is shown on the FreeReg web site at http://www.freereg.org.uk/cgi/SearchRes ... ID=5299066 and records the baptism of Sarah Ann in 1796. What I cannot quite work out is the meaning of the Notes which show "Late Sarah Bishop Spinster".
Compare this to the baptism of Christopher in 1794 at http://www.freereg.org.uk/cgi/SearchRes ... ID=5299098 where the notes show "Late Mary Bishop Spinster".
I know that Philip Rump was married to Mary Bishop but these notes are confusing. Can anyone suggest what they mean? Thanks.
Parish record wording
Moderators: grangers14, admin, Northern Lass
-
usuallyconfused
- Posts: 6
- Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2010 10:17 pm
- Primary Surname Interests: STAINTON
- Primary Geographical Research Areas: ENGLAND
-
MarkCDodd
- Posts: 4157
- Joined: Mon Aug 24, 2009 12:55 pm
- Primary Surname Interests: Homer, Dodd, Murphy, Cutler, Ford
- Primary Geographical Research Areas: Shropshire, Staffordshire, Worcestershire, Yorkshire
Re: Parish record wording
I had a look at the original register and it says.
Rump: Sarah Ann the daughter of Philip Rump & Sarah his wife late Sarah Bishop Spinster was baptized August 30 - 1796.
These are hand written registers and not the printed ones with the lines and colums already marked.
To stop any confusion as to the Mother's maiden name, and to signify the marital status when they married the father of the baptised child, they have used the word "late" as an indicator of "prior" status.
It does not signify they are dead.
You are lucky as not many Parish Registers at this time, apart from Catholic and Non-Conformist, actually marked downthe maiden name of the mother. Very few indicate wether or not this was there first marriage.
If you wish to view the original Norfolk Parish registers (and a greatmany are yet to be indexed) then use this link. Ignor ethe comment about the Pilot being replaced.
http://pilot.familysearch.org/recordsearch/start.html#p=waypoint&s=waypointsOnly&c=fs%3A1416598&w=0
Rump: Sarah Ann the daughter of Philip Rump & Sarah his wife late Sarah Bishop Spinster was baptized August 30 - 1796.
These are hand written registers and not the printed ones with the lines and colums already marked.
To stop any confusion as to the Mother's maiden name, and to signify the marital status when they married the father of the baptised child, they have used the word "late" as an indicator of "prior" status.
It does not signify they are dead.
You are lucky as not many Parish Registers at this time, apart from Catholic and Non-Conformist, actually marked downthe maiden name of the mother. Very few indicate wether or not this was there first marriage.
If you wish to view the original Norfolk Parish registers (and a greatmany are yet to be indexed) then use this link. Ignor ethe comment about the Pilot being replaced.
http://pilot.familysearch.org/recordsearch/start.html#p=waypoint&s=waypointsOnly&c=fs%3A1416598&w=0
Black Holes happen when God divides by zero.
-
gardener
- Posts: 3273
- Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2008 6:49 pm
- Primary Surname Interests: Rose, Wolloxall, Wallis(ace), Downs
- Primary Geographical Research Areas: Netherton, Dudley, Bewdley
- Location: Iceland
- Contact:
Re: Parish record wording
Great link Mark.
The baptisms are round about image 18/19 in the 1736-1819 group of records.
I think the confusion is over the mother's first name rather than the "late" aspect of it.
In 1794 it is late Mary Bishop who is married to Philip Rump.
In 1796 it is late Sarah Bishop.
I think it is tempting to write it off as a clerical error, giving the mother's forename as Sarah (same as the child). Image 53 has:
Mary daughter of Philip Rump & Mary his wife was buried Aug 11th 1798
I vote mistake. You could try and disprove that by looking for either a marriage for Philip or a burial for Mary between the baptism dates. Or you could look and see if there are bishops transcripts available for the same period. they sometimes have different entries (correct or at least different errors!)
The baptisms are round about image 18/19 in the 1736-1819 group of records.
I think the confusion is over the mother's first name rather than the "late" aspect of it.
In 1794 it is late Mary Bishop who is married to Philip Rump.
In 1796 it is late Sarah Bishop.
I think it is tempting to write it off as a clerical error, giving the mother's forename as Sarah (same as the child). Image 53 has:
Mary daughter of Philip Rump & Mary his wife was buried Aug 11th 1798
I vote mistake. You could try and disprove that by looking for either a marriage for Philip or a burial for Mary between the baptism dates. Or you could look and see if there are bishops transcripts available for the same period. they sometimes have different entries (correct or at least different errors!)
"The present is the key to the past" - Charles Lyell
-
usuallyconfused
- Posts: 6
- Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2010 10:17 pm
- Primary Surname Interests: STAINTON
- Primary Geographical Research Areas: ENGLAND
Re: Parish record wording
Thanks for the replies.
Looking at the original - (never knew about that link Mark, I will investigate further) - and it all makes sense. As you say, very few mention the maiden name so the way it was recorded on the FreeReg web site raised the question.
And yes, it does seem like clerical error on the Sarah Ann record.
I am in the process of verifying someone else's research so will be checking associated marriages and burials etc. and in case you were wondering, my grandmother was a Rump.
Looking at the original - (never knew about that link Mark, I will investigate further) - and it all makes sense. As you say, very few mention the maiden name so the way it was recorded on the FreeReg web site raised the question.
And yes, it does seem like clerical error on the Sarah Ann record.
I am in the process of verifying someone else's research so will be checking associated marriages and burials etc. and in case you were wondering, my grandmother was a Rump.