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

> From: Adrian Bruce > Sent: 09 April 2012 12:09 > > 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? 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:'. > 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... In the absence of any indication of illegitimacy, I think that it is as likely that Thomas was marrying a cousin, and the earlier christening entry is a child by an previous wife. 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/

<<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

> 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/

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