PR question (you'll need a fmp sub and better Latin than me)

[Merry]

I'm working on the Ames family from Armitage, Staffs. This is a page from the PRs:

http://search.findmypast.co.uk/record?id=gbprs%2fstaff%2farmitage-baptisms--marriages-d805-1-1-1673-1812%2f00013&parentid=gbprs%2fstaff%2fbur2%2f002786&highlights=%22%22

There are two entries in different ink, one half way down the top section and one right at the bottom of the page.

Is the first John son of John and Mary and the other Thomas son of John and Mary? Both baptised 29 Jan 1690/1 but written separately?

[ElizabethHerts]

Johannis filius Johannis et Mariae Ames baptizat tricesimo die Januarij Anno predict' vizt 1690
John son of John and Mary Ames baptised 30th day of January the above mentioned year vizt 1690

Thomas Ames sepultus tertio die Junij? Anno predict'
Thomas Ames buried third day June? the above mentioned year

[Merry]

Thank you Elizabeth.

I'm now very confused as I already have Thomas being buried 3rd June so I wonder where I got that from as I've not looked at this page before. *scratches head* :o

[ElizabethHerts]

I've corrected the first entry - it is 1690 not 1691.

[Merry]

And now they have two sons called John! lol

I keep going round in circles!

[kiterunner]

I'm now very confused as I already have Thomas being buried 3rd June so I wonder where I got that from as I've not looked at this page before. *scratches head* :o

From FreeREG?

[Merry]

Hmmm. I may have initially used a transcription site (yes, it might have been FreeREG) and then followed that up with fmp images and at some point got my wires crossed :o

[Merry]

Johannis filius Johannis et Mariae Ames baptizat tricesimo die Januarij Anno predict' vizt 1690
John son of John and Mary Ames baptised 30th day of January the above mentioned year vizt 1690

Thomas Ames sepultus tertio die Junij? Anno predict'
Thomas Ames buried third day June? the above mentioned year

I've just realised - did you scroll right down to the bottom for that second entry (both of the ones I was looking at were in darker ink, but the burial in June is in between, I think.)

*goes for a lie down* :o:o:o

[kiterunner]

Yes, it has John (Johannes) in the earlier entry and Thomas in the last one and both say son of John and Mary Ames, baptised 30th Jan 1690. But it looks as though the original entry just said "Johannes" and nothing else, then later it was filled in, so I am guessing that after the vicar or clerk filled the rest in, they realised it was supposed to be Thomas, not Johannes, and so they wrote it all out again at the bottom.
Edit - Either that or there were twins but they hadn't left enough room for both entries to be filled in - but in that case, wouldn't they have written Johannes et Thomas, filii etc so it wouldn't take much more space than just one entry would?

[Merry]

So, Johannes didn't exist and the baby was called Thomas but he died in June.

That would fit very well indeed!