Genealogy Chat

I have a baptism which took place on 24 Dec 1775. The child is baptised as John Bourne or Shrigley, his mother is Martha Bourne and there is no father listed, John is recorded as illegitimate.

Do you think the Shrigley name could be that of his father? I can't think of any other reason why he could be 'Bourne or Shrigley'. He in fact used it as his middle name and also named his son John Shrigley Bourne (the Shrigley middle name was carried down right until the 1900's).

Thanks
Sam x

Either his father or some names were added as middle names or Christian names in order to carry down a grandmother's maiden name. It's an early baptism, have a look on the LDS site for the name Shrigley, see if you can get any clues. Try putting in a marriage between a Bourne and a Shrigley.

Alison

Maybe your best bet is to check the local parish records for a bastardy bond

I've tried the IGI, there is no marriage. I've tried the original parish records as well, there is just the baptism above that is also on the IGI.

Devon, whereabout would bastardy bonds be kept?

Sam x

Some are listed on the National Archives but the local records office to where Martha lived is the best place.

Worth checking to see if Martha married a Shrigley later.......some of mine married after the child was born.

Also worth looking to see if there is a man called Shrigley living close and born roughly the same time as Martha.

Sounds very likely that the child was a son of a Shrigley. When I've seen similar situations for illegitimate children the middle name has been the father.

If a surname is used as a middle one for a legitimate child in my family it is usually the mother or a grandmother's maiden name.

Sue