ESSEX-UK-L Archives

Archiver > ESSEX-UK > 2007-05 > 1178549910

From: "C P Biggam" <>
Subject: Re: [Ess] Christenings
Date: Mon, 7 May 2007 15:58:30 +0100
References: <001401c78f4e$2a202800$0300a8c0@MumsComputer><011501c78fb0$c1167900$0201010a@pamzmocwe33zpr><001a01c78fc0$47330fd0$4001a8c0@Gwenda><012701c790a0$fdb4a530$0301a8c0@portable><001601c790b1$60608d60$4001a8c0@Gwenda><015901c790b6$42146930$0301a8c0@portable>

> I was meaning more a mixture of the two definitions from senses 1 & 3.

***Jenny, I was just pointing out that since 'spurious' could simply mean
'illegitimate' at that date, it wasn't necessary to assume that it always
referred to the child's relationship with the supposed father (which you
seemed to suggest in your earlier message).

> I have not seen such an entry as you say you have at Harwich where the
> mother is mentioned as being spurious,

***No, the *child* was described as spurious, i.e. illegitimate.

Carole Biggam

This thread: