John Waite wrote: >I hope someone can help with a question on a Baptism record. > >I found a baptism record on Scotlands people circa 1820. In brackets at >the end of the entry it has the word (neglected). > >I thought it funny that this would be included even if the child was >neglected, then noted that the same thing had been included on several >other baptisms on the same page. I find it hard to believe that half the >children baptised in the village would be neglected in the modern sense >of the word. > >My question is what does this mean, does it have an other meaning? > > It does indeed. The usage of "neglect" in the sense of "not treat well" is comparitively modern. The older meaning is rather wider, and means something like "fail to do". If there was a draught at the back of your neck, it was probably because you had "neglected" to close the door. With regard to baptisms, the term was used around 1820 (when there was an overhaul of the Kirk's rules about Registers) and again around 1855, when it became known that the Kirk's Registers would have to be submitted to the Registrar General. At both periods, there is evidence, in the Baptismal Registers, of a lot of hurried "catching up", when efforts were made to collect a record of baptisms which people had, for various reasons, "neglected" to record at the proper time. Gavin Bell

Thanks Gavin I thought it may be something like "had neglected to .........." and you have confirmed it for me. Many thanks John Waite Cranbourne Australia Gavin Bell wrote: > It does indeed. The usage of "neglect" in the sense of "not treat > well" is comparitively modern. The older meaning is rather wider, and > means something like "fail to do". If there was a draught at the back > of your neck, it was probably because you had "neglected" to close the door. > > With regard to baptisms, the term was used around 1820 (when there was > an overhaul of the Kirk's rules about Registers) and again around 1855, > when it became known that the Kirk's Registers would have to be > submitted to the Registrar General. At both periods, there is evidence, > in the Baptismal Registers, of a lot of hurried "catching up", when > efforts were made to collect a record of baptisms which people had, for > various reasons, "neglected" to record at the proper time. > > > Gavin Bell > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to ANGUS-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message > >