Hi Jeannette, I have read that there was poor record keeping in many parishes. In some cases it was because the government decided that a fee should be charged for recording births in Parish records. Some ministers were opposed to charging a fee as many of their parishioners couldn't afford it. Some of these ministers just stopped recording births / baptisms. In other cases the people themselves stopped taking their children to be baptized if they couldn't afford the fee. In 1855 civil records replaced the old parish records and so there was a rush prior to that date to get as many births recorded as possible. This led to whole families being recorded simultaneously. I have seen this in the case of the parish of Middlebie in Dumfriesshire. Perhaps this is what happened in the case you described. Cheers, Jim Mercer ----- Original Message ----- From: "J T Walton" <jtwalton13@comcast.net> To: <MIDLOTHIAN-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Wednesday, February 16, 2005 4:37 PM Subject: [MLN] OPR records > Hi list, > I have received a copy of a page from the OPR of Whitburn Parish on which 5 children of one family are listed in consecutive order. The dates range from August 1846 to December 1853. The birth ahead of that is dated January 1854, and the one following is dated December 1846. They are not alphabetical. > Question: Why would these five children all be listed consecutively, and not chronologically with other births in the parish? Would someone in the parish have copied these? > Many thanks, > Jeannette >

Hi everyone, it is my understanding that the Stamp Duty Act applied only to the period of 1783 to 1794. However I have seen this sort of entry time & time again, sometimes family members where inserted in the margins, at the approximate place in the register. Remember, prior to 1855, the CoS was responseable for recording all births in the parish, not just those baptisims performed in the Established Church. I have observed many of what a appear to be "catch up" entries of entire families at the end of many Parishes registers in 1854. I guess it has much to do with the diligence of the session clerk, they were after all supsosed to record all burials and we all know know much that was complied with! cheers John Dods Wellington, New Zealand --- jmercer <jmercer@mountaincable.net> wrote: > Hi Jeannette, > I have read that there was poor record keeping in > many parishes. In some > cases it was because the government decided that a > fee should be charged for > recording births in Parish records. Some ministers > were opposed to charging > a fee as many of their parishioners couldn't afford > it. Some of these > ministers just stopped recording births / baptisms. > In other cases the > people themselves stopped taking their children to > be baptized if they > couldn't afford the fee. <snip> ===== Proud to be a transcriber for the freeCEN Project and volunteer for Random Acts of Geneological Kindness Ask me how you can contribute to either of these worthy projects or for other ways of helping our hobby. Researching BATTERS in Yorkshire BENNIE in Lanarkshire, Dunbartonshire & West Lothian BENNING in Lanarkshire & Montreal COLLINS in California & PA COOPER in Yorkshire DODS in East Lothian, Berwickshire, British Columbia, Montreal, Manchester, South Africa, Hong Kong, India DOUGLAS in Lanarkshire FENTON in Edinbugh FISHER in Yorkshire FORREST in South Africa HAYTON in Yorkshire HEWAT in East Lothian LAMONT in Lanarkshire LEGGAT in Monreal MCLEAN in Argyllshire RANKINE in Dunbartonshire, Perthshire SEYMOUR in British Columbia & Montreal SHIRREFF in East Lothian SNELL in California, Oregeon SUFFILL/SUFFIELD in Yorkshire TROTTER, Lanarkshire, Stirlingshire, West Lothian WATSON in Brantford & Barrie, Ontario. WEIR in Argyllshire,Lanarkshie WILLIAMSON in Edinburgh & North Berwick __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? All your favorites on one personal page – Try My Yahoo! http://my.yahoo.com

Thanks, Jim. That's a perfect explanation. I'm sure the children were baptized shortly after their birth. Too bad I only have one page to view. Other pages in the same register would have been more enlightening. Best regards, Jeannette ----- Original Message ----- From: "jmercer" <jmercer@mountaincable.net> To: <MIDLOTHIAN-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Thursday, February 17, 2005 12:08 AM Subject: Re: [MLN] OPR records > Hi Jeannette, > I have read that there was poor record keeping in many parishes. In some > cases it was because the government decided that a fee should be charged for > recording births in Parish records. Some ministers were opposed to charging > a fee as many of their parishioners couldn't afford it. Some of these > ministers just stopped recording births / baptisms. In other cases the > people themselves stopped taking their children to be baptized if they > couldn't afford the fee. In 1855 civil records replaced the old parish > records and so there was a rush prior to that date to get as many births > recorded as possible. This led to whole families being recorded > simultaneously. I have seen this in the case of the parish of Middlebie in > Dumfriesshire. Perhaps this is what happened in the case you described. > Cheers, > Jim Mercer > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "J T Walton" <jtwalton13@comcast.net> > To: <MIDLOTHIAN-L@rootsweb.com> > Sent: Wednesday, February 16, 2005 4:37 PM > Subject: [MLN] OPR records > > > > Hi list, > > I have received a copy of a page from the OPR of Whitburn Parish on > which 5 children of one family are listed in consecutive order. The dates > range from August 1846 to December 1853. The birth ahead of that is dated > January 1854, and the one following is dated December 1846. They are not > alphabetical. > > Question: Why would these five children all be listed consecutively, > and not chronologically with other births in the parish? Would someone in > the parish have copied these? > > Many thanks, > > Jeannette > > > > >