parish register/ bishops transcript discrepancy

[simone]

Hi all

What do you think of the differing occupations on these records for 1769...... all other baptisms of the children of Richard and Esther before and after have Richard as Husbandsman.... there is another Richard Gorton (wife Ann though) at that time who was a Weaver....

parish register



little symbol after Weaver is '&' , it is on other entries too

bishops transcripts



Thanks

Simone

[MaryA]

Came across this sort of thing quite often in the St Helens baptisms a few years ago, I more or less decided to accept them with a query against the entry in my tree, usually I had found that the marriage preceded the suspect ones that didn't help either.

[dickiesam]

I think the 'Husb' after Richard Gorton's name simply means husband, not the occupation of 'husbandsman', since his spouse is referred to as 'Esther his wife'. A rather antique and very correct way of saying the parents are married?

[MaryA]

That would make sense and be quite a relief to me in some of my earlier delves into the PRs

[Blue70]

I think Husb. used here is short for Husbandman.


Blue

[simone]

Thanks for the replies everyone
I definitely think it's husbandsman as it is annotated as such on other children's baptisms and seem to be the way it was written for others who had the same occupation . Also other records for other families in the register follow the same format , I.e fathers name followed by occupation & his wife etc.
Maybe he could turn his hand to both ! Or did the local vicar get him mixed up with the other Richard. Guess I'm not going to know for sure .
Interesting Hilary that you have had the same experience elsewhere

Thanks again

Simone x

[MaryA]

Interesting Hilary that you have had the same experience elsewhere

Or was that Mary

[simone]

oooops lol ! sorry Mary

[MaryA]

[simone]

Richard and Esther had a daughter Sarah baptised 3/7/1768 ... Not sure how old. Previous child baptised about a year earlier. So pushing it a bit to have had Esther?

[MaryA]

Reading back again I see I was a bit confused - these entries are intended to be the same person, on the same date. I would suggest that the BT's which are intended to be copies of the original Parish Registers, is mistaken.