Thanks for this welcome assessment...I will give it some thought. I too have purchased FTM2012 but have stopped using it because I found some of my details were not appearing in 2012. It was my guess at that time it had something to do with the endevour to merge FTM into the Ancestry.co.uk online tree and I was not at all happy. You appear to confirm my suspicion! Albert Wm Gosnall From: David Martin <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Monday, 16 April 2012, 8:25 Subject: [SOG-UK] Upgrade from FTM2006? As is well known, the programme Family Tree Maker was changed significantly five years ago, and many found it poor and have held on to their old programme (FTM16/2006) ever since.  As I will probably have to upgrade one day, I've been keeping an eye on FTM and one of its competitors. I have now tried FTM2012 and compared it to the latest edition of Family Historian (v5). I think these are now both pretty good programmes.  Many of the problems with the new (post-2006) FTM have been ironed out.  I judge that its development has been influenced a little too much by the ambition of linking it to Ancestry and syncing with online trees (although this will be in its favour for those who like that facility).  To avoid that influence, I would tend to choose FH - all else being equal.  However, I am finding it difficult to choose between them - each for a different reason. The single problem I have with opting for FH5 is that it would do a less good job of picking up my existing files and data.  To transfer from FTM16/2006 to FH requires the use of GEDCOM export/import.  As is well-documented, FTM's GEDCOM is imperfect for this purpose and some data will be mishandled by FH.  It is quite marginal (most important data is fine) but it will be irritating and relatively onerous to correct. The single problem I have with opting for FTM2012 is its poor ability to produce and print an ancestor pedigree or descendant chart (with BMD labels) on a single page of A4 with as many generations as possible showing.  The old FTM does this brilliantly.  Family Historian does it just as well.  But it is surprising to report that FTM2012 falls a long way short.  Its horizontal Pedigree Ancestor chart has a limited capability, although the vertical one is an acceptable alternative.  In the case of its Descendant tree, it falls between impossible or unusable! So I am not sure which programme to pick (even though I've paid for FTM2012, as there's no trial version).  Maybe I'll stick with good old FTM2006 for a while longer....? David M ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

As is well known, the programme Family Tree Maker was changed significantly five years ago, and many found it poor and have held on to their old programme (FTM16/2006) ever since. As I will probably have to upgrade one day, I've been keeping an eye on FTM and one of its competitors. I have now tried FTM2012 and compared it to the latest edition of Family Historian (v5). I think these are now both pretty good programmes. Many of the problems with the new (post-2006) FTM have been ironed out. I judge that its development has been influenced a little too much by the ambition of linking it to Ancestry and syncing with online trees (although this will be in its favour for those who like that facility). To avoid that influence, I would tend to choose FH - all else being equal. However, I am finding it difficult to choose between them - each for a different reason. The single problem I have with opting for FH5 is that it would do a less good job of picking up my existing files and data. To transfer from FTM16/2006 to FH requires the use of GEDCOM export/import. As is well-documented, FTM's GEDCOM is imperfect for this purpose and some data will be mishandled by FH. It is quite marginal (most important data is fine) but it will be irritating and relatively onerous to correct. The single problem I have with opting for FTM2012 is its poor ability to produce and print an ancestor pedigree or descendant chart (with BMD labels) on a single page of A4 with as many generations as possible showing. The old FTM does this brilliantly. Family Historian does it just as well. But it is surprising to report that FTM2012 falls a long way short. Its horizontal Pedigree Ancestor chart has a limited capability, although the vertical one is an acceptable alternative. In the case of its Descendant tree, it falls between impossible or unusable! So I am not sure which programme to pick (even though I've paid for FTM2012, as there's no trial version). Maybe I'll stick with good old FTM2006 for a while longer....? David M

Hello George, ----- Original Message ----- From: "George Bush" <[email protected]> > Adrian > I didn't find this message until after I posted my last response. I have > not > had chance to digest the contents yet, but I sense we are thinking along > the > same lines. > Johes is a contraction of Johannes, which is itself an attempt to > Latinise > John - to my mind a purely self-serving vanity on the part of many > priests/clerks of the period. > > George I believe it was not until the 1720s (or was it 1740s - my memory is getting dim!) that the Latin was abolished and English substituted for the Ecclesiastical courts and legal system (including parish registers). Some clergy were, as usual, slow to change. "If it's been good enough up to now" was probably the reason, raher than vanity. Kind regards, John Henley

Well, you're quite wrong on this: there was a point, as I've explained: Latin was not only a lingua franca but used for official purposes for centuries. And this wasn't your original point. But if you can't or won't see what I'm getting at, then as you say we shall have to agree to differ. Regards, Colin Mills On 12/04/2012 22:53, George Bush wrote: > I'm sorry, but we shall have to agree to differ on this. I simply cannot see > the purpose of recording BMDs in Latin. > > George > > > > > > -------Original Message------- > > From: Colin Mills > Date: 12/04/2012 21:54:52 > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [SOG-UK] Meaning of Alias on Baptism? > > The use of Latin was widespread among the educated until the 18th > century all across Christendom (a 'lingua franca') - so hardly > 'pointless' -.and was much more likely in England than the use of Italian. > > Regards, Colin Mills > > On 12/04/2012 21:32, George Bush wrote: >> Goodness knows. I was probably having a little rant about the pointless > use >> of a foreign language. Or I might just have forgotten to take my > medication. >> George >> >> >> >> >> -------Original Message------- >> >> From: Colin Mills >> Date: 12/04/2012 20:34:43 >> To: [email protected] >> Subject: Re: [SOG-UK] Meaning of Alias on Baptism? >> >> What makes you think the presumably English clerk would be writing >> Italian?? Aren't more likely explanations that (a) his Latin was poor >> (b) mediaeval clerks generally didn't adhere strictly to the rules of >> grammar and syntax which applied in classical Latin?? >> >> Regards, Colin Mills >> >> On 10/04/2012 13:09, George Bush wrote: >>> <<snip>> >>> >>> 3. Undoubtedly trivial, and of no significance whatsoever, but Decimo and >>> Sexto do not seem to be Latin. I think they are Italian words and if the >>> writer was intending "sixteenth", the correct form would be sextodecimo, >> but >>> don't quote me on that. >>> >>> George >>> >>> >>> -------Original Message------- >>> >> <<snip>> >> >> >> ------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to >> [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes >> in the subject and the body of the message >> >> >> ----- >> No virus found in this message. >> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com >> Version: 2012.0.1913 / Virus Database: 2411/4932 - Release Date: 04/12/12 >> >> >> ------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes > in the subject and the body of the message >> > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes > in the subject and the body of the message > > > ----- > No virus found in this message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 2012.0.1913 / Virus Database: 2411/4932 - Release Date: 04/12/12 > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message > >

I'm sorry, but we shall have to agree to differ on this. I simply cannot see the purpose of recording BMDs in Latin. George -------Original Message------- From: Colin Mills Date: 12/04/2012 21:54:52 To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [SOG-UK] Meaning of Alias on Baptism? The use of Latin was widespread among the educated until the 18th century all across Christendom (a 'lingua franca') - so hardly 'pointless' -.and was much more likely in England than the use of Italian. Regards, Colin Mills On 12/04/2012 21:32, George Bush wrote: > Goodness knows. I was probably having a little rant about the pointless use > of a foreign language. Or I might just have forgotten to take my medication. > > George > > > > > -------Original Message------- > > From: Colin Mills > Date: 12/04/2012 20:34:43 > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [SOG-UK] Meaning of Alias on Baptism? > > What makes you think the presumably English clerk would be writing > Italian?? Aren't more likely explanations that (a) his Latin was poor > (b) mediaeval clerks generally didn't adhere strictly to the rules of > grammar and syntax which applied in classical Latin?? > > Regards, Colin Mills > > On 10/04/2012 13:09, George Bush wrote: >> <<snip>> >> >> 3. Undoubtedly trivial, and of no significance whatsoever, but Decimo and >> Sexto do not seem to be Latin. I think they are Italian words and if the >> writer was intending "sixteenth", the correct form would be sextodecimo, > but >> don't quote me on that. >> >> George >> >> >> -------Original Message------- >> > <<snip>> > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes > in the subject and the body of the message > > > ----- > No virus found in this message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 2012.0.1913 / Virus Database: 2411/4932 - Release Date: 04/12/12 > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message ----- No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2012.0.1913 / Virus Database: 2411/4932 - Release Date: 04/12/12

The use of Latin was widespread among the educated until the 18th century all across Christendom (a 'lingua franca') - so hardly 'pointless' -.and was much more likely in England than the use of Italian. Regards, Colin Mills On 12/04/2012 21:32, George Bush wrote: > Goodness knows. I was probably having a little rant about the pointless use > of a foreign language. Or I might just have forgotten to take my medication. > > George > > > > > -------Original Message------- > > From: Colin Mills > Date: 12/04/2012 20:34:43 > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [SOG-UK] Meaning of Alias on Baptism? > > What makes you think the presumably English clerk would be writing > Italian?? Aren't more likely explanations that (a) his Latin was poor > (b) mediaeval clerks generally didn't adhere strictly to the rules of > grammar and syntax which applied in classical Latin?? > > Regards, Colin Mills > > On 10/04/2012 13:09, George Bush wrote: >> <<snip>> >> >> 3. Undoubtedly trivial, and of no significance whatsoever, but Decimo and >> Sexto do not seem to be Latin. I think they are Italian words and if the >> writer was intending "sixteenth", the correct form would be sextodecimo, > but >> don't quote me on that. >> >> George >> >> >> -------Original Message------- >> > <<snip>> > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes > in the subject and the body of the message > > > ----- > No virus found in this message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 2012.0.1913 / Virus Database: 2411/4932 - Release Date: 04/12/12 > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message > >

Goodness knows. I was probably having a little rant about the pointless use of a foreign language. Or I might just have forgotten to take my medication. George -------Original Message------- From: Colin Mills Date: 12/04/2012 20:34:43 To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [SOG-UK] Meaning of Alias on Baptism? What makes you think the presumably English clerk would be writing Italian?? Aren't more likely explanations that (a) his Latin was poor (b) mediaeval clerks generally didn't adhere strictly to the rules of grammar and syntax which applied in classical Latin?? Regards, Colin Mills On 10/04/2012 13:09, George Bush wrote: > <<snip>> > > 3. Undoubtedly trivial, and of no significance whatsoever, but Decimo and > Sexto do not seem to be Latin. I think they are Italian words and if the > writer was intending "sixteenth", the correct form would be sextodecimo, but > don't quote me on that. > > George > > > -------Original Message------- > <<snip>> ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message ----- No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2012.0.1913 / Virus Database: 2411/4932 - Release Date: 04/12/12

* I see from an earlier posting that these can be alternative forms. Even after a couple of years my Latin is getting rusty. Don't know where the bullet point came from. Regards, Colin On 12/04/2012 20:31, Colin Mills wrote: > What makes you think the presumably English or Norman-French > clerk would be writing > Italian?? Aren't more likely explanations that (a) his Latin was poor > (b) mediaeval clerks generally didn't adhere strictly to the rules of > grammar and syntax which applied in classical Latin?? > > Regards, Colin Mills > > On 10/04/2012 13:09, George Bush wrote: >> <<snip>> >> >> 3. Undoubtedly trivial, and of no significance whatsoever, but Decimo and >> Sexto do not seem to be Latin. I think they are Italian words and if the >> writer was intending "sixteenth", the correct form would be sextodecimo, but >> don't quote me on that. >> >> George >> >> >> -------Original Message------- >> > <<snip>> > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message > >

What makes you think the presumably English clerk would be writing Italian?? Aren't more likely explanations that (a) his Latin was poor (b) mediaeval clerks generally didn't adhere strictly to the rules of grammar and syntax which applied in classical Latin?? Regards, Colin Mills On 10/04/2012 13:09, George Bush wrote: > <<snip>> > > 3. Undoubtedly trivial, and of no significance whatsoever, but Decimo and > Sexto do not seem to be Latin. I think they are Italian words and if the > writer was intending "sixteenth", the correct form would be sextodecimo, but > don't quote me on that. > > George > > > -------Original Message------- > <<snip>>

> From: Walt O'Dowd > Sent: 11 April 2012 18:47 > > I have been taking advantage of the New Family Search website to look up > some parish records concerning ancestors in the Great Migration of the > early seventeenth century, and have come across one forename that has me > stumped. There are two records for the person concerned (a daughter of > Christopher Marche and Francys his wife of Runham in Norfolk); a baptism > and a burial. My best stab at the name is Vasthie (Book of Esther?). These are fairly clear secretary hand. The first reads Vastha, the second Vasthie. The name now rendered Vashti from the book of Esther is Vasthi or Uasthi in 16th century translations of the Bible, for example in the Bishop's Bible of 1569 Esther 1:9 is "And the queene Uasthi made a feast also for the women in the palace of Ahasuerus." Best wishes Andrew -- Andrew Millard - [email protected] Bodimeade genealogy:   http://www.dur.ac.uk/a.r.millard/genealogy/Bodimeade/ My family history:     http://www.dur.ac.uk/a.r.millard/genealogy/ GenUKI Middx + London: http://homepages.gold.ac.uk/genuki/MDX/ + ../LND/

Walt, I agree with you that the name is Vasthi. In the first instance it appears to be written Vasthae and in the second Vasthie. Somewhere on the Family Search website there is a very good tutorial for OE handwriting, although you don't seem to be having too much trouble with it. There's also an excellent one on the National Archive website. Best wishes Sue On 11/04/2012 18:47, Walt O'Dowd wrote: > I have been taking advantage of the New Family Search website to look up > some parish records concerning ancestors in the Great Migration of the > early seventeenth century, and have come across one forename that has me > stumped. There are two records for the person concerned (a daughter of > Christopher Marche and Francys his wife of Runham in Norfolk); a baptism > and a burial. My best stab at the name is Vasthie (Book of Esther?). > The name does not occur elsewhere in the family as far as I can see and > she is the fifth child of eight, the rest of which are pretty standard: > Thomas, Elizabeth, Anne, William, Mary, Sara, and Christopher. > > The first occurance is in a 1582 baptism record: > https://familysearch.org/pal:/MM9.3.1/TH-267-11577-18420-89?cc=1416598&wc=MMVP-4SN:293861336 > > The second occurance is in a 1592 burial record: > https://familysearch.org/pal:/MM9.3.1/TH-267-11577-19344-70?cc=1416598&wc=MMVP-4SN:293861336 > > Any thoughts are welcomed. > > Walt O'Dowd > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

OOPS!!! The second reference is 1597 not 1592. Walt O'Doqd

I have been taking advantage of the New Family Search website to look up some parish records concerning ancestors in the Great Migration of the early seventeenth century, and have come across one forename that has me stumped. There are two records for the person concerned (a daughter of Christopher Marche and Francys his wife of Runham in Norfolk); a baptism and a burial. My best stab at the name is Vasthie (Book of Esther?). The name does not occur elsewhere in the family as far as I can see and she is the fifth child of eight, the rest of which are pretty standard: Thomas, Elizabeth, Anne, William, Mary, Sara, and Christopher. The first occurance is in a 1582 baptism record: https://familysearch.org/pal:/MM9.3.1/TH-267-11577-18420-89?cc=1416598&wc=MMVP-4SN:293861336 The second occurance is in a 1592 burial record: https://familysearch.org/pal:/MM9.3.1/TH-267-11577-19344-70?cc=1416598&wc=MMVP-4SN:293861336 Any thoughts are welcomed. Walt O'Dowd

Hi Walt, The first one in 1582 looks to me like Martha. But I'm not so sure about the second one in 1597, as it looks like Marthie so its probably also Martha. There's a really good book available from the SoG on old handwriting. I've just purchased it for an online course that I am doing at the Pharos Institute. You can find it for sale on the website and its called "A Secretary Hand ABC Book" by Alf Ison. Its by far the best publication on reading this type of handwriting that I've seen so far and I've done a lot of research on Paleography. Regards, Nancy Frey Newcastle, Ontario, CANADA OPC for Ansford & Castle Cary, Somerset Owner/Moderator of Yahoo! FULFORD_North Devon Group Owner/Moderator of Yahoo! DAVIDGE Connections Group ----- Original Message ----- From: "Walt O'Dowd" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2012 1:47 PM Subject: [SOG-UK] Deciphering a name in a parish register ca. 1590 >I have been taking advantage of the New Family Search website to look up > some parish records concerning ancestors in the Great Migration of the > early seventeenth century, and have come across one forename that has me > stumped. There are two records for the person concerned (a daughter of > Christopher Marche and Francys his wife of Runham in Norfolk); a baptism > and a burial. My best stab at the name is Vasthie (Book of Esther?). > The name does not occur elsewhere in the family as far as I can see and > she is the fifth child of eight, the rest of which are pretty standard: > Thomas, Elizabeth, Anne, William, Mary, Sara, and Christopher. > > The first occurance is in a 1582 baptism record: > https://familysearch.org/pal:/MM9.3.1/TH-267-11577-18420-89?cc=1416598&wc=MMVP-4SN:293861336 > > The second occurance is in a 1592 burial record: > https://familysearch.org/pal:/MM9.3.1/TH-267-11577-19344-70?cc=1416598&wc=MMVP-4SN:293861336 > > Any thoughts are welcomed. > > Walt O'Dowd > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word > 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

George said... <<snipped>> 1. I have never seen a baptism with the mother's name omitted - unless the child was a foundling. Are there other entries with the mother's name missing in the same period? If it has been done deliberately, why? <<snipped>> Yes, as Andrew says, the only rule is there are no rules. Round Cheshire, as you go back, most of the registers drop the mother's name but at different times. Worse, I'm looking in FindMyPast at some Audlem baptisms of 1646 and there isn't even a father's name! <<snipped>> 2. Presumably you have already tried to establish whether or not it was actually Thomas's own parents who "jumped the gun"? Because if so and if his mother's maiden name was Gibbons, that would in my opinion, resolve the matter . <<snipped>> Well, I'd agree with you but the records seem to fall apart about this time (1719) in Acton. Not sure if it's because people move into the parish or whether the clerk lost half the entries before writing them up. Andrew said... <<snipped>> I don't think you can assume anything about the order or inheritance of an alias. They could be inherited (or not), the names were frequently reversed, and on occasions just one of them was used. <<snipped>> Ah - that puts a rather different usage on an alias - I'd been thinking of it in simple terms of illegitimate children - mother's v. father's name, but clearly inherited names need not involve that - except perhaps years ago. I reckon Poor Law stuff is my best starter to get something out of this. Thanks for your thoughts Adrian

> From: Adrian Bruce [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: 10 April 2012 12:29 <snip> > It's just that, taken in isolation, the entries keep pushing me in the other > direction. For instance, after I'd sent the original mail, I found the next > baptism to Thomas Bate, after the marriage, and it omits the "alias Gibbons" > bit, just as it would if it were referring to the children who are now > legitimate. On the other hand, one could argue the clerk might have forgot. > > BUT I've just been checking the burials, which I hadn't done before, <snip> > So while the PR baptism implies the father had the alias, the BT baptism and > the burial both implied the son had the alias, and assign primacy to > "Gibbons"!! I don't think you can assume anything about the order or inheritance of an alias. They could be inherited (or not), the names were frequently reversed, and on occasions just one of them was used. George Redmonds in his 'Surnames and Genealogy: A new approach' discusses aliases and on p.111 gives an example where a couple married in 1586 and he was names as Stephen Hargreaves alias Farnhill. They had children recorded in the Kildwick parish register under Hargreaves (2 entries), Farnhill (4), and Farnhill alias Hargreaves (2), and as adults one son was known as Hargreaves while another was known as Farnhill! > Andrew, I feel certain that what you're saying makes sense. But I'm no > longer sure the Acton parish clerk followed the rules! I certainly feel in > no way able to decide what the "truth" was. Apart from the requirement to keep a register, there were no rules about what went into it, though there were norms for the use of names. Hence some registers are fulsome and give both parents names, their residence and occupation, with age at christening, while others frustrate us with nothing more than the names of child and father. > The context of all this is that my 6th great GF (a younger Thomas Bate of > Acton) is a brick wall - a user submitted tree on FamilySearch claims he is > the son of the Thomas Bate referred to above. I can find no evidence to back > this up - not in the PRs or BTs on FindMyPast, nor in a will. It would be worth following up later Gibbons entries in the parish records, wills, etc., in case that part of the alias was inherited. You might find something to prove or disprove the link. If there are surviving manorial records they might be helpful as they sometimes recited several generations of inheritance when land changed hands. Best wishes Andrew -- Andrew Millard - [email protected] Bodimeade genealogy:   http://www.dur.ac.uk/a.r.millard/genealogy/Bodimeade/ My family history:     http://www.dur.ac.uk/a.r.millard/genealogy/ GenUKI Middx + London: http://homepages.gold.ac.uk/genuki/MDX/ + ../LND/

A trivial point > Decimo and Sexto do not seem to be Latin. I think they are Italian words They are Latin. Decimus means tenth, but the ablative decimo means "on the tenth". Sextodecimo and decimo sexto are interchangeable. (16th in Italian is "sedicesimo") Hector

A trivial point. Ah well. Just shows what 60 years can do to the memory. George -------Original Message------- From: Hector Davie Date: 04/10/12 15:39:48 To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [SOG-UK] Meaning of Alias on Baptism? A trivial point > Decimo and Sexto do not seem to be Latin. I think they are Italian words They are Latin. Decimus means tenth, but the ablative decimo means "on the tenth". Sextodecimo and decimo sexto are interchangeable. (16th in Italian is "sedicesimo") Hector ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message ----- No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2012.0.1913 / Virus Database: 2411/4926 - Release Date: 04/10/12

Looking through the Bedfordshire baptisms unfortunately I have seen early periods where the mother's name is not included despite her being the person to actually give birth. And I've also seen early marriages which don't give the bride's name, being a big full stop to family research! From Merryl Wells of Luton, Beds. E-Mail: [email protected] GOONS Mem. No. 1757 Reg. ONS: Bawtree; Gullick/ock, Moist/Moyst. ----- Original Message ----- From: "George Bush" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2012 1:09 PM Subject: Re: [SOG-UK] Meaning of Alias on Baptism? >I agree with Andrew that, as recorded in the register, the alias can only >be > Thomas Bate's. However, there are some interesting features of this entry. > > 1. I have never seen a baptism with the mother's name omitted - unless the > child was a foundling. Are there other entries with the mother's name > missing in the same period? If it has been done deliberately, why? > > 2. Presumably you have already tried to establish whether or not it was > actually Thomas's own parents who "jumped the gun"? Because if so and if > his > mother's maiden name was Gibbons, that would in my opinion, resolve the > matter . > > 3. Undoubtedly trivial, and of no significance whatsoever, but Decimo and > Sexto do not seem to be Latin. I think they are Italian words and if the > writer was intending "sixteenth", the correct form would be sextodecimo, > but > don't quote me on that. > > George > > > -------Original Message------- > > From: Adrian Bruce > Date: 04/09/12 12:10:57 > To: [email protected] > Subject: [SOG-UK] Meaning of Alias on Baptism? > > On 16 January 1718/19, the parish register for Acton, Cheshire, records > the > baptism of Maria in these terms: > > Maria fil: Thomae Bate alias Gibbons de Hurleston Decimo Sexto Jan: 16 > > Which I reckon translates to: > Maria, daughter of Thomas Bate alias Gibbons, of Hurleston, 16 January > [1718/19] (my punctuation). > > So my question is - to whom does that "alias" belong?? Anyone familiar > with > similar wording who can say? > > My first inclination is that it's Thomas Bate who has an alias of Thomas > Gibbons. However, on 15 June 1719, there's a marriage at Acton of Thomas > Bate to Rachel Gibbons, which seems to suggest a distinct possibility that > Thomas and Rachel have jumped the gun (there's a similar baptism to Thomas > in 1713). But no sign of "illegitimus" or whatever the real Church Latin > is... > > It may not be possible to decide but has anyone certain knowledge of the > meaning of such a form elsewhere? Thanks > > Adrian Bruce > > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes > in the subject and the body of the message > > > ----- > No virus found in this message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 2012.0.1913 / Virus Database: 2411/4924 - Release Date: 04/09/12 > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes > in the subject and the body of the message

Adrian I didn't find this message until after I posted my last response. I have not had chance to digest the contents yet, but I sense we are thinking along the same lines. Johes is a contraction of Johannes, which is itself an attempt to Latinise John - to my mind a purely self-serving vanity on the part of many priests/clerks of the period. George -------Original Message------- From: Adrian Bruce Date: 04/10/12 12:31:06 To: 'MILLARD A.R.'; [email protected] Subject: Re: [SOG-UK] Meaning of Alias on Baptism? <<snipped>> It has to belong to Thomas. Giving the daughter's surname would be unusual in a christening register of this date, but when it was given it would appear before 'fil:'. <<snipped>> Thanks for that - I needed someone who'd got some feeling for the format of the entries. What you say makes perfect sense and is what I thought it should be when using logic. It's just that, taken in isolation, the entries keep pushing me in the other direction. For instance, after I'd sent the original mail, I found the next baptism to Thomas Bate, after the marriage, and it omits the "alias Gibbons" bit, just as it would if it were referring to the children who are now legitimate. On the other hand, one could argue the clerk might have forgot. BUT I've just been checking the burials, which I hadn't done before, and the burial in the PR of the earliest "Bate alias Gibbons" child is described thus: "Johes Gibbons alias Bate de Stoke sepultus July the 31st [1713]" His baptism in the PR was "Johes filius Thomae Bate alias Gibbons de Stoke July 28 [1713]" While in the BT it's "Johes Gibbons alias Bate de Stoke Bapt [vicessimo] octavo July 28 [1713]" (I think "Johes" is actually a contraction, so probably ought to be transcribed "Joh'es") So while the PR baptism implies the father had the alias, the BT baptism and the burial both implied the son had the alias, and assign primacy to "Gibbons"!! Andrew, I feel certain that what you're saying makes sense. But I'm no longer sure the Acton parish clerk followed the rules! I certainly feel in no way able to decide what the "truth" was. The context of all this is that my 6th great GF (a younger Thomas Bate of Acton) is a brick wall - a user submitted tree on FamilySearch claims he is the son of the Thomas Bate referred to above. I can find no evidence to back this up - not in the PRs or BTs on FindMyPast, nor in a will. My only hope is one of the more unusual sources might provide evidence for a link, e.g. Poor Law, bastardy exams - although looking at the above, I'm not sure I want to find that link! Adrian B ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message ----- No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2012.0.1913 / Virus Database: 2411/4926 - Release Date: 04/10/12