I'm looking at a parish register for Audley, Staffordshire, England.
Archive reference D3483/1/1 - page 113 I think; anyway, it covers
burials from 1645 to 1653 on the two pages (small village!), then some births/baptisms 1653 to 1669.

The bit I'm looking at is about half way down the right-hand page.

I think it says

John Sonn of Thomas Henshall Borne the 13: of November
16?3: Raphe Sonn of Thomas Henshall
Bopne the 22:of June 1654
Tho: Sonn of Thomas Henshall Boxnt the.8
of July: 1658:

below that are three burials (sepulta/us erat), then two entries that definitely have the word Baptised (or paptised) [in English].

What's surprising me is that (a) it's unusual for births rather than
baptisms to be recorded in such a register - sometimes birth dates as
well as baptisms, which is always nice to find, but I've never seen
_just_ births before - and (b) there's a fuzzy patch over the three
"Borne" words in the "John ..." paragraph, as if something has been
rubbed out and Borne inserted - in particular, the middle one looks like
it has "ap" where "or" should be.

(I can't tell for sure - I think it's a scan of a microfilm of ...)

Any thoughts? [Sorry, can't post the image - I'll have got it from one
of the two main providers, and they're fussy about release of their
material. But a search for John Henshall baptised in Staffordshire in
165x should find it. (I think he's my 9th great grandfather.)]

Seems odd to have three births - or baptisms - from the same father,
from three different years, listed in the same paragraph. My _guess_ is
that he asked a clerk to make the entry, and subsequently someone
changed the three words (possibly soon after, possibly years later). But
that's only a guess.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

The desire to remain private and/or anonymous used to be a core British value, but in recent times it has been treated with suspicion - an unfortunate by- product of the widespread desire for fame. - Chris Middleton,
Computing 6 September 2011

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Sat, 16 Jan 2021 01:47:39 +0000, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
<G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:

I'm looking at a parish register for Audley, Staffordshire, England.
Archive reference D3483/1/1 - page 113 I think; anyway, it covers >burials from 1645 to 1653 on the two pages (small village!), then some >births/baptisms 1653 to 1669.

The bit I'm looking at is about half way down the right-hand page.

I think it says

John Sonn of Thomas Henshall Borne the 13: of November
16?3: Raphe Sonn of Thomas Henshall
Bopne the 22:of June 1654
Tho: Sonn of Thomas Henshall Boxnt the.8
of July: 1658:

below that are three burials (sepulta/us erat), then two entries that >definitely have the word Baptised (or paptised) [in English].

What's surprising me is that (a) it's unusual for births rather than
baptisms to be recorded in such a register - sometimes birth dates as
well as baptisms, which is always nice to find, but I've never seen
_just_ births before - and (b) there's a fuzzy patch over the three
"Borne" words in the "John ..." paragraph, as if something has been
rubbed out and Borne inserted - in particular, the middle one looks like
it has "ap" where "or" should be.

(I can't tell for sure - I think it's a scan of a microfilm of ...)

Any thoughts? [Sorry, can't post the image - I'll have got it from one
of the two main providers, and they're fussy about release of their
material. But a search for John Henshall baptised in Staffordshire in
165x should find it. (I think he's my 9th great grandfather.)]

Seems odd to have three births - or baptisms - from the same father,
from three different years, listed in the same paragraph. My _guess_ is
that he asked a clerk to make the entry, and subsequently someone
changed the three words (possibly soon after, possibly years later). But >that's only a guess.

1650s are Commonwealth era - baptismal records often not found

E.g.:
Parish of Astbury, Cheshire:
1645 - not many
1646 - a few
1647 - none
1648 - one
after which, the next page of entries appears to be 1661 (because the
year after is 1662).

One of my ancestors had two children in the late 1650s and died in the
early 1660s. At some point, full details of the births were written
into the end of the baptismal register, complete with time of the
birth as well as the date, at the end of the volume. It may be that
it was done to provide an official record of the boy's birth since he
was to inherit the family business and house when he was 16.

My recollection is that the entries were on the last half page of the
parish register ( regular entries stopping at the end of 1668 - Lady
Day) if you have access to scans and want to look. My notes indicate
that the entries were

July ye vjth Anno Domi 1657
Mary the daughter of John Vardon of Congle
=ton, was born between 9: & 10: of the Clocke in
the morning of the same day
Aprill the xixth Anno Domi 1659:
John the sonne of John Vardon of Congle
=ton, above said, and Mary his wife, was born
between 5: and 6: of ye clocke in ye morning.

The family bible entries (which may have been the source) were the
same, but with "second son" rather than "son". (The first son was born
and died as a toddler before the Commonwealth.)

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Sat, 16 Jan 2021 16:52:39 +0000, Roger Mills <watt.tyler@gmail.com>
wrote:

Is it possible that they were all baptised at the same time, and the
births all then recorded at that time?

I was about to post, that I don't know about the 17th century but in
the 19th I have seen several cases where several children in the same
family were baptised at the same time. In on instance the eldest was
about 7.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 16/01/2021 01:47, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:

I'm looking at a parish register for Audley, Staffordshire, England.
Archive reference D3483/1/1 - page 113 I think; anyway, it covers burials from 1645 to 1653 on the two pages (small village!), then some births/baptisms 1653 to 1669.

The bit I'm looking at is about half way down the right-hand page.

I think it says

John Sonn of Thomas Henshall Borne the 13: of November
16?3: Raphe Sonn of Thomas Henshall
Bopne the 22:of June 1654
Tho: Sonn of Thomas Henshall Boxnt the.8
of July: 1658:

below that are three burials (sepulta/us erat), then two entries that definitely have the word Baptised (or paptised) [in English].

What's surprising me is that (a) it's unusual for births rather than
baptisms to be recorded in such a register - sometimes birth dates as
well as baptisms, which is always nice to find, but I've never seen
_just_ births before - and (b) there's a fuzzy patch over the three
"Borne" words in the "John ..." paragraph, as if something has been
rubbed out and Borne inserted - in particular, the middle one looks like
it has "ap" where "or" should be.

(I can't tell for sure - I think it's a scan of a microfilm of ...)

Any thoughts? [Sorry, can't post the image - I'll have got it from one
of the two main providers, and they're fussy about release of their
material. But a search for John Henshall baptised in Staffordshire in
165x should find it. (I think he's my 9th great grandfather.)]

Seems odd to have three births - or baptisms - from the same father,
from three different years, listed in the same paragraph. My _guess_ is
that he asked a clerk to make the entry, and subsequently someone
changed the three words (possibly soon after, possibly years later). But that's only a guess.

Is it possible that they were all baptised at the same time, and the
births all then recorded at that time?
--
Cheers,
Roger

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Sat, 16 Jan 2021 at 17:10:14, Peter Johnson
<peter@parksidewood.nospam> wrote (my responses usually follow points
raised):

On Sat, 16 Jan 2021 16:52:39 +0000, Roger Mills <watt.tyler@gmail.com>
wrote:

Is it possible that they were all baptised at the same time, and the
births all then recorded at that time?

I was about to post, that I don't know about the 17th century but in
the 19th I have seen several cases where several children in the same
family were baptised at the same time. In on instance the eldest was
about 7.

I have this too, but mainly in the 19th (and I think early 20th); I
don't think that branch were particularly religious and/or were very
poor (they moved from Norfolk to Northumberland, I presume in search of employment), so had quite a few baptised as a "job lot" - either to save
money by bulk buying (!), or because the new environment they found
themselves in expected it more. (Or both.)

I suspect the 16xx births I mentioned are affected by the commonwealth explanation "cecilia" explained; I may look at the end of the parish
register in question, though I _do_ have the record.

(Still doesn't explain the fuzzy patches over the three occurrences of
the word "borne" - as if "bapt." had been erased and borne substituted - though!)
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

At the age of 7, Julia Elizabeth Wells could sing notes only dogs could hear.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 16/01/2021 01:47, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:

I'm looking at a parish register for Audley, Staffordshire, England.
Archive reference D3483/1/1 - page 113 I think; anyway, it covers burials from 1645 to 1653 on the two pages (small village!), then some births/baptisms 1653 to 1669.

The bit I'm looking at is about half way down the right-hand page.

I think it says

John Sonn of Thomas Henshall Borne the 13: of November
16?3: Raphe Sonn of Thomas Henshall
Bopne the 22:of June 1654
Tho: Sonn of Thomas Henshall Boxnt the.8
of July: 1658:

below that are three burials (sepulta/us erat), then two entries that definitely have the word Baptised (or paptised) [in English].

What's surprising me is that (a) it's unusual for births rather than
baptisms to be recorded in such a register - sometimes birth dates as
well as baptisms, which is always nice to find, but I've never seen
_just_ births before - and (b) there's a fuzzy patch over the three
"Borne" words in the "John ..." paragraph, as if something has been
rubbed out and Borne inserted - in particular, the middle one looks like
it has "ap" where "or" should be.

(I can't tell for sure - I think it's a scan of a microfilm of ...)

Any thoughts? [Sorry, can't post the image - I'll have got it from one
of the two main providers, and they're fussy about release of their
material. But a search for John Henshall baptised in Staffordshire in
165x should find it. (I think he's my 9th great grandfather.)]

Seems odd to have three births - or baptisms - from the same father,
from three different years, listed in the same paragraph. My _guess_ is
that he asked a clerk to make the entry, and subsequently someone
changed the three words (possibly soon after, possibly years later). But that's only a guess.

One of my families ran through a phase of being Baptists, i.e. adult
baptisms. I discovered they kept a birth register. I don't know if the movement was about as early as that but strange things happened in the C
of E at that period.

In ALmondbury the vicar died about the same time as the outbreak of the
Civil War and there was no proper replacement for a few years. There's
a note in the register to hte effect that the parish was looked after by
what we might call freelancers today. In that time there are only a
couple of records in the register, one being the baptism of the son of
the lord of a local manor who was obviously in a position to insist on
stuff being done right or maybe, bearing this thread in mind, in a
position to insist on it being registered retrospectively.

A little later in the C17th, the Rev Meeke of Slaithwaite chapel kept a
diary. He was very sympathetic to the Presbyterians and records in his
diary baptising children of some who lived out of his chapelry. I doubt
these baptisms were recorded in any register. If circumstances such as
these prevented baptisms being recorded it's possible that the births
might be recorded later.

Ian

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Sat, 16 Jan 2021 at 10:01:28, cecilia <myths@ic24.net> wrote (my
responses usually follow points raised):

On Sat, 16 Jan 2021 01:47:39 +0000, "J. P. Gilliver (John)" ><G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:

I'm looking at a parish register for Audley, Staffordshire, England. >>Archive reference D3483/1/1 - page 113 I think; anyway, it covers >>burials from 1645 to 1653 on the two pages (small village!), then some >>births/baptisms 1653 to 1669.

The bit I'm looking at is about half way down the right-hand page.

I think it says

John Sonn of Thomas Henshall Borne the 13: of November
16?3: Raphe Sonn of Thomas Henshall
Bopne the 22:of June 1654
Tho: Sonn of Thomas Henshall Boxnt the.8
of July: 1658:

below that are three burials (sepulta/us erat), then two entries that >>definitely have the word Baptised (or paptised) [in English].

What's surprising me is that (a) it's unusual for births rather than >>baptisms to be recorded in such a register - sometimes birth dates as
well as baptisms, which is always nice to find, but I've never seen
_just_ births before - and (b) there's a fuzzy patch over the three
"Borne" words in the "John ..." paragraph, as if something has been
rubbed out and Borne inserted - in particular, the middle one looks like
it has "ap" where "or" should be.

(I can't tell for sure - I think it's a scan of a microfilm of ...)

Any thoughts? [Sorry, can't post the image - I'll have got it from one
of the two main providers, and they're fussy about release of their >>material. But a search for John Henshall baptised in Staffordshire in
165x should find it. (I think he's my 9th great grandfather.)]

Seems odd to have three births - or baptisms - from the same father,
from three different years, listed in the same paragraph. My _guess_ is >>that he asked a clerk to make the entry, and subsequently someone
changed the three words (possibly soon after, possibly years later). But >>that's only a guess.

1650s are Commonwealth era - baptismal records often not found

Ah, sounds very plausible.
[]

One of my ancestors had two children in the late 1650s and died in the
early 1660s. At some point, full details of the births were written
into the end of the baptismal register, complete with time of the
birth as well as the date, at the end of the volume. It may be that

[]

My recollection is that the entries were on the last half page of the
parish register ( regular entries stopping at the end of 1668 - Lady
Day) if you have access to scans and want to look. My notes indicate

[]
I've now got round to looking back at my image - it's https://search.findmypast.co.uk/record?id=GBPRS%2FSTAFF%2F007566321%2F01837&parentid=GBPRS%2FSTAFF%2FBAP%2F363608
(you probably need a FindMyPast subscription to see it) - but it looks
(the edges of the image show the book) as if it's near the middle of a
Very Thick Book, and unlike some things, there _isn't_ a "image x of y"
at the bottom where one can manually change x. (Maybe that's only on familysearch images, I can't remember.) [There _is_ a ">" for "next
image" button on the right, but trundling through to the end of the book
that way would take forever!]

Ah well - thanks for the suggestion; it's probably right (about
commonwealth being the reason)!
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

The average US shareholding lasts 22 seconds. Nobody knows who invented the fire hydrant: the patent records were destroyed in a fire. Sandcastles kill more people than sharks. Your brain uses less power than the light in your fridge. The Statue of Liberty wears size 879 shoes.
- John Lloyd, QI supremo (RT, 2014/9/27-10/3)

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Tue, 19 Jan 2021 18:10:01 +0000, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
<G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:

On Sat, 16 Jan 2021 at 10:01:28, cecilia <myths@ic24.net> wrote (my
responses usually follow points raised):

On Sat, 16 Jan 2021 01:47:39 +0000, "J. P. Gilliver (John)" >><G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:

I'm looking at a parish register for Audley, Staffordshire, England. >>>Archive reference D3483/1/1 - page 113 I think; anyway, it covers >>>burials from 1645 to 1653 on the two pages (small village!), then some >>>births/baptisms 1653 to 1669.

The bit I'm looking at is about half way down the right-hand page.

I think it says

John Sonn of Thomas Henshall Borne the 13: of November
16?3: Raphe Sonn of Thomas Henshall
Bopne the 22:of June 1654
Tho: Sonn of Thomas Henshall Boxnt the.8
of July: 1658:

[...]

1650s are Commonwealth era - baptismal records often not found
One of my ancestors had two children in the late 1650s and died in the >>early 1660s. At some point, full details of the births were written
into the end of the baptismal register, complete with time of the
birth as well as the date, at the end of the volume. [...]
My recollection is that the entries were on the last half page of the >>parish register ( regular entries stopping at the end of 1668 - Lady
Day) if you have access to scans and want to look. [...]

I've now got round to looking back at my image - it's >https://search.findmypast.co.uk/record?id=GBPRS%2FSTAFF%2F007566321%2F01837&parentid=GBPRS%2FSTAFF%2FBAP%2F363608
(you probably need a FindMyPast subscription to see it) - but it looks
(the edges of the image show the book) as if it's near the middle of a
Very Thick Book, and unlike some things, there _isn't_ a "image x of y"
at the bottom where one can manually change x. (Maybe that's only on >familysearch images, I can't remember.) [There _is_ a ">" for "next
image" button on the right, but trundling through to the end of the book
that way would take forever!]

Ah well - thanks for the suggestion; it's probably right (about
commonwealth being the reason)!

I'm sorry if I caused confusion by mentioning that the birth entries I
saw were on the last page of the register - that may merely have been
a convenient place to put the information any time in the half-dozen
or so years between that volume being finished at the end of a year
(leaving half a page blank) and the lad turning 16.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 19/01/2021 18:10, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:

unlike some things, there _isn't_ a "image x of y" at the bottom where
one can manually change x. (Maybe that's only on familysearch images, I
can't remember.) [There _is_ a ">" for "next image" button on the right,

I've just looked back through the posts to find this as I had a vague
memory of someone saying something about this problem and I had recently noticed the same when looking at Northumberland Parish Registers on
FindMyPast.

I discovered that if one uses the < or > to move back or forward one
image, the "x of y" does then appear at the bottom of the screen, along
with the option to download the image, so one can then go forward or
back one to the original image and either download it, or type in a
number to leap to a different position in the set.

Thought I'd just mention this in case someone else hasn't discovered it.

(And on the subject of FMP, why on earth did they do away with the handy alphabetical list of record sets, which was so much quicker to use than
the current arrangement?)

--
Jenny M Benson
Wrexham, UK

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Mon, 15 Feb 2021 at 14:25:43, Jenny M Benson <NemoNews@hotmail.co.uk>
wrote (my responses usually follow points raised):

On 19/01/2021 18:10, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:

unlike some things, there _isn't_ a "image x of y" at the bottom
where one can manually change x. (Maybe that's only on familysearch >>images, I can't remember.) [There _is_ a ">" for "next image" button
on the right,

For familysearch, I've now found the "< x of y >" is in the top left
part of the screen.

I've just looked back through the posts to find this as I had a vague
memory of someone saying something about this problem and I had
recently noticed the same when looking at Northumberland Parish
Registers on FindMyPast.

I'd assumed, where it was a bishop's transcript image on FMP, it was a copyright matter, and I'd been going to the familysearch Durham Diocese
images (which cover Northumberland, Durham, and bits of Cumberland and York[shire]) to find a download button ...

I discovered that if one uses the < or > to move back or forward one
image, the "x of y" does then appear at the bottom of the screen, along
with the option to download the image, so one can then go forward or

... but I'll have to try that on FMP.

back one to the original image and either download it, or type in a
number to leap to a different position in the set.

Thought I'd just mention this in case someone else hasn't discovered it.

(And on the subject of FMP, why on earth did they do away with the
handy alphabetical list of record sets, which was so much quicker to
use than the current arrangement?)

(-: )-:
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

What's really worth knowing is for the most part unlearnable until you have enough experience to even recognise it as knowledge, let alone as useful knowledge. - Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca>, in alt.windows7.general, 2017-4-30

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)