Question about Bishop's Transcripts

[kiterunner]

While transcribing the Elkesley PR's, I've noticed that in the 17th century the baptism and burial entries for "illegitimate" children didn't get copied into the Bishop's Transcripts. Has anyone come across this in other parishes, and any idea what the reason was? I'm wondering whether the vicar thought he would get in trouble because of his wayward flock, or did he just not want his parish to get a bad name?

[Phoenix]

It sounds a very dodgy practice. I thought BTs were supposed to be a true record. If there was a fire and the parish records were lost, anyone illegitimate would have an awful job proving they were entitled to poor relief.

[Olde Crone]

The only GENERAL difference I have noted between PRs and BTs,is that the BTS do not include children born and buried in the same year, which I suppose is understandable. Otherwise the BTs contain the same information about ill;egitimates as the PRs.

As Phoenix says, the BTs are supposed to be a direct copy of the PRs. I don't suppose the Vicar has put them all together on a naughty page of his own, perhaps?

OC

[kiterunner]

I did find a "naughty page" in the PR's with some of them on, but others appear on the same PR page as the rest but just don't appear in the BT's. The Elkesley BT's do include burials of babies who died in the year they were born, thank goodness, because many of the BT pages are much easier to make out than the PR's.