RootsChat.Com
General => The Common Room => Topic started by: kenace on Wednesday 21 July 10 14:33 BST (UK)
-
Hi everyone, I am searching for my GGFx6with not much luck. I contacted a person on the web who had access to parish records they said they found the baptism of the person I was looking for but it did not have any parentage is this common for early 1700s. I would be grateful for any response, Thanks Kenace.
-
Welcome to Rootschat. You haven't given us any details (name, date, church, etc.) so it's difficult to know what sort of response you are hoping for here.
-
they found the baptism of the person I was looking for but it did not have any parentage is this common for early 1700s
well, not uncommon but more usual to have at least the Mothers name..
-
Hi sorry for lack of info. my ggfx6 was john johnson baptised in holy trinity church bolton le sands lancs 1710, he was married at the same church in 1735 to ann sparling their abode is given as rishton house in the parish of bolton le sands would marriage register give parentage Thanks Kenace
-
As a very general rule I think that marriage registers for that date would probably only list date, bride and groom but you would need to check the actual church records to verify this.
-
This marriage is on Lancashire OPc
http://www.lan-opc.org.uk/Bolton-le-Sands/index.html
I believe that the information on this site gives all the information from the register entry, no fathers names
Rosie
-
Hi Kenace, can't solve your problem, unfortunately, but I would tend to disagree with Mort29, in that I have found it more usual to see the name of the father on baptism records, rather than the mother (if only one name is given) - unless it is an illegitimate child in which case the mother's name would be given, eg John son of Thomas Johnson, baptised 29 February 1710.
I'm a bit dubious also about the marriage, although rosie99 says that it is on the Lancashire parish registers site, so that is good. ;D The baptism entry I can find for John Johnson in 1710 shows no parents because it is a submitted record on IGI with no date either and is, perhaps, an assumption that men got married at the age of 25 (by which time they had completed their apprenticeships and had accumulated a little bit of money in order to be able to afford a wife), and the marriage on IGI is also a submitted entry, but if rosie99 says that it is on the Lancashire site then that would confirm, to me at least, that the marriage was genuine. But you do need to check it for yourself.
Sorry to be so pessimistic. :'(
BumbleB
-
Hi sorry for lack of info. my ggfx6 was john johnson baptised in holy trinity church bolton le sands lancs 1710, he was married at the same church in 1735 to ann sparling their abode is given as rishton house in the parish of bolton le sands would marriage register give parentage Thanks Kenace
Hi would like to thank you all for your help, Thanks Ken.
-
but I would tend to disagree with Mort29, in that I have found it more usual to see the name of the father on baptism records, rather than the mother (if only one name is given) - unless it is an illegitimate child in which case the mother's name would be given
given that there is never any doubt about the mother, I find it strange that you think that its 'more usual' to find a father's name in the circumstances you outline.
-
Early 18th century baptism registers often only named the father of the child unless the child was illegitimate in which case the mother would be named. However, this is not always the case and some registers would name both parents while a few provided no information other than the name of the child and date of baptism.
As examples, up until the late 1750s the baptism register for Longbridge Deverill (Wiltshire) only showed the name of the father (or mother if the child was illegitimate). However, since the 1600s the nearby parish of Norton Bavant showed both parents in the baptism register (unless the child was illegitimate).
Nigel
-
Hi Mort: your parish registers are obviously different to the ones I have looked at. In my own experience looking for my family names in the 1700s the only information given in the register for a baptism is the name of the child, father's name (and occasionally where he comes from and perhaps occupation) plus the date of baptism - Tadcaster, Healaugh. However, because both these parishes followed Dade's teachings, towards the end of the century (from the 1770's) we get parents and grandparents named plus occupations and locations - an exceptional bonus ;D
BumbleB
-
just based on early (pre 1837 mostly) 19th C I confess - some parishes in Essex, Cambs and parts of old Middx; by no means exhaustive or typical I guess - but also the IGI countrywide.
Looking on the web I see this 'content definition', so I must have been lucky in the examples I researched :)
The contents have changed over time, not being standardised in England until the Acts of 1753 and 1812. The following are among what you can expect to find in later registers, though in the earlier ones it is quite common to find only names recorded. Early entries will be in some form of Latin, often abbreviated.
[edit] Baptisms
* Date of baptism
* Date of birth (but this is often not recorded)
* Child's forename
* Child's surname (though normally omitted as father's name is assumed)
* Father's name — blank if illegitimate
* Mother's name (but this is often not recorded)
* Father's occupation or rank
* Place of birth (for large parishes)
Hadnt come across these either:-
Dade and Barrington Registers
Dade and Barrington Registers are detailed registers that contain more information than standard contemporary baptism and burial registers. They usually commence in the late eighteenth century, but come to an end in 1812, when they were superseded by the requirements of George Rose’s 1812 Act, which required more information to be recorded than in normal registers, but actually required less information to be recorded than in Dade and Barrington Registers. There are examples of a few parishes continuing to keep Dade or Barrington Registers after 1813. In some cases, two registers were kept, for example in the Co Durham parish of Whickham both Barrington and Rose Registers were kept for the period 1813-1819, after which the former were discontinued.
Dade Registers are named after Rev. William Dade, a Yorkshire clergyman (b.1740) who went to St. John's College, Cambridge. From 1763 until his death in 1790, he was curate, vicar and rector of five parishes in York and two in the East Riding of Yorkshire.
Dade was far ahead of his time in seeing the value of including as much information on individuals in the parish register as possible. In 1777 Archbishop William Markham decided that Dade's scheme should be introduced throughout his diocese. The baptismal registers were to include child's name, seniority (e.g. first son), father's name, profession, place of abode and descent (i.e. names, professions and places of abode of the father's parents), similar information about the mother, and mother's parents, the infant's date of birth and baptism. Registers of this period are a gold-mine for genealogists, but the scheme was so much work for the parish priests that it did not last long.
In 1770 Dade wrote in the parish register of St. Helen's, York: "This scheme if properly put in execution will afford much clearer intelligence to the researches of posterity than the imperfect method hitherto generally pursued." His influence spread and the term Dade register has come to describe any parish registers that include more detail than expected for the time.
The application of this system was somewhat haphazard and many clergymen, particularly in more populated areas, resented the extra work involved in making these lengthy entries. The thought of duplicating them for the Bishop’s Transcripts put many of them off and some refused to follow the new rules. Several letters of complaint were printed in the York newspapers of the time, and the scheme suffered when the Archbishop indicated there was no punishment for vicars who failed to comply.
Indeed a bonus to get that extra info :)
-
Hi everyone, I am searching for my GGFx6with not much luck. I contacted a person on the web who had access to parish records they said they found the baptism of the person I was looking for but it did not have any parentage is this common for early 1700s. I would be grateful for any response, Thanks Kenace.
Hi ,
The baptism should show a parent's name.
Most of my baptism records in the early 1700's that I have accessed in a few of the churches I visited ( My records were in a couple of villages in Glamorganshire ) list father (if they have a father of course) - They also list address - this can be detailed listing the house , or just the village name . Mine list occupation on some in the early 1700's but not all ,I also have a few where they have listed exact address and occupation .
Ask your contact exactly where they accessed the parish records so that you can check those records out. Any good researcher will be more than happy to tell you where the information came from -so that you can check the information out yourself and make your own mind up about it. Be very wary if the person won't tell you where the information exactly came from
I have a feeling too like BumbleB that the person has taken a submitted baptism record off the IGI. If the person has genuine access to the said church's baptism records - the person should know the name of a parent.
The IGI submitted records are notorious for this - for example : a marriage of a couple they do generally take off 25 years for a man and 21 for a woman and they also put the birth place the same as where they were married.
Kind regards
-
.....................
The baptism should show a parent's name.
Most of my baptism records in the early 1700's that I have accessed in a few of the churches I visited ( My records were in a couple of villages in Glamorganshire ) list father (if they have a father of course) - They also list address - this can be detailed listing the house , or just the village name . Mine list occupation on some in the early 1700's but not all ,I also have a few where they have listed exact address and occupation .
Ask your contact exactly where they accessed the parish records so that you can check those records out. Any good researcher will be more than happy to tell you where the information came from -so that you can check the information out yourself and make your own mind up about it. Be very wary if the person won't tell you where the information exactly came from
...........................
As mentioned in my previous post not all baptism registers record the name of a parent in the early 1700s. For example, the baptism register for Alderbury (Wiltshire) does not record the names of any parents during the periods 1728 to 1732, 1735 to 1756 and 1761 to 1765. All the Alderbury register shows is the date of baptism and the name of the child with a very small number of entries giving an abode (indicating somewhere other than Alderbury) and/or stating the child was 'base born'.
The Alderbury baptism register is very inconsistent in the information recorded. Despite the above, during the period 1700 to 1705 occupations of fathers were being recorded. In the periods 1715 to 1725 and 1732 to 1735 both parents were being recorded (unless the child was illegitimate).
Another good example of problems with some baptism registers is Alburgh, Norfolk (original images can be viewed at http://pilot.familysearch.org/recordsearch/start.html#w=0&p=waypoint&s=waypointsOnly&c=fs%3A1416598 - see, for example, images 36 and 37 of 57 under baptisms, marriages, burials). This register is far from being in chronological order!
Nigel
-
The reason that a father's name only is recorded on many baptism registers is that the father was considered to be the important one, just as its only fathers' names (even today) are given on marriage certs.
The father was important for inheritance reasons - illegitimate children wouldn't inherit from their fathers as a matter of right.
In early divorce cases fathers were often awarded custody of their children, especially if it was the mother who had committed adultery.