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

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