RootsChat.Com
General => The Common Room => Topic started by: D_Anthony_H on Friday 12 October 12 07:41 BST (UK)
-
I am indebted to Professor Nicholas Postgate for his book: "Early Mesopotamia Society and Economy at the Dawn of History", published by Routledge in 1992. Professor Postgate tells us on page 105 of this book that Babylonian marriage was
essentially a bond between two families and the purpose of marriage is to secure sons to perpetuate the male line
Babylonian law and customs might seem to be irrelevant to early nineteenth century England. However three of my ancestors are William Tandy and his parents William and Elizabeth Tandy . They appear in Warwickshire in the 1841 Census. The younger William is then 13 years old. His two sisters are also with that family in that Census. Mary is 15, and Hannah is 11. There was also an elder brother Thomas who was 16 and had left home. William and Elizabeth are representative of parents who were guilty of baptismal sex-discrimination. They baptised both their two boys but baptised neither of their two girls. It would appear that the birth of each girl was a non-event to William & Elizabeth Tandy and not worth registering by the process of baptism at their Church. William Tandy was a labourer. Maybe being lower down the social ladder made the lives and attitudes of the Tandy parents closer to that of the ancient Babylonians.
I hope that this is a comfort to others who like myself have been frustrated to find that the baptisms of distant female ancestors cannot be found. It is not necessarily lack of diligence by you with your family research, it is not necessarily because of "gaps" in the IGI - it may simply be because you have gone back to a period where the birth of a girl was dismissed as an unfortunate failure. The Act of Parliament that required all births (from 1 July 1837) to be registered irrespective of whether the child was a girl or a boy was an Act of Parliament that could well be labelled as a prime example of sex-equality legislation.
-
Or maybe you simply haven't found the baptisms of the girls yet? ;D
It is entirely possible that the girls were baptised in the mother's faith/church?
Maybe she was non-conformist? Or even Catholic?
I have certainly heard of families where he sons are baptised in the father's faith/church, and the daughters are baptised in the mother's.
On the other hand, boys were wage earners, and brought something in to the family. Girls were expected to marry into another family?
That's just social history, and we should be wary of trying to apply present-day expectations and thoughts on previous generations.
-
Hi
I think I have found the baptisms for the 2 girls.
Firstly ages in the 1841 census for the over 15s have been rounded down to the nearest 5 years so Mary could be aged anywhere between 15 and 19. There is a baptism in Radford Semele for a Mary Tandy, 18th August 1822, father William Tandy, mother Mary. It is possible that mary was a first wife for William.
There is also a baptism in Radford Semele for a Susanna Tandy 23rd Feb 1830 father William, mother Elizabeth. I would suggest Susanna is Hannah
Andy
-
But are you sure the first names they are using the the same as the ones that the child was christened with?
name: Susanna Tandy
23 Feb 1830 - RADFORD SEMELE,WARWICK,ENGLAND
Parents William and Elizabeth.
and as Mary was now not regarded as a child on the 1841 her age has been "rounded" down like her parents ages have been.
name: Mary Tandy
18 Aug 1822 - RADFORD SEMELE,WARWICK,ENGLAND
all found on the same film/batch number
C04568-1
microfilm 554781.
They are the only Tandy family on the batch number so the chances of them being a different family is remote
Jenny
ps... Andycand types faster than me ;D
-
My goodness Andy that was fast. I accept the Hannah=Susannah. William Tandy & Elizabeth Wilson were married 20 November 1821 so I do not accept Mary. However one out of two is excellent from my viewpoint.
David
-
and as Mary was now not regarded as a child on the 1841 her age has been "rounded" down like her parents ages have been.
Jenny
It is nothing to do with being a child, the instructions were ;
"Write in figures the age of every person, opposite to their names, in one of the columns headed 'Age of Males' or 'Age of Females' according to their sex. For persons aged 15 years and upwards it is sufficient to state within what period of five years their age is, writing down the lowest number of that period: thus, for persons aged 15 and under 20, write 15- for 20 and under 25, write 20- for 25 and under 30 write 25- for 30 and under 35 write 30-, and so on up to the greatest age; but the exact age may be stated if the person prefers it. For persons under 15, write the number of years; for infants under one year the number of months."
Stan
-
My goodness Andy that was fast. I accept the Hannah=Susannah. William Tandy & Elizabeth Wilson were married 20 November 1821 so I do not accept Mary. However one out of two is excellent from my viewpoint.
David
David have you not heard of the 'short pregnancies' that used to occur ,and still do ;D
I'm sure we've all found babies born only a few months after the parents marriage,back then as now :o
-
Hannah died 21 October 1916 in Southam, the widow of John Wakefield a farmer who she married 3 April 1857 in Radford Semele. Since Hannah is my ancestor I am indebted to Andy and equally to Jenny.
-
Hi
I wouldn't rule out Mary to quickly, Familysearch IGI is only an Index and is subject to errors so it is worth checking the actual Parish Registers to check that names and dates are correct.
There are another couple of possibilities, Mary was conceived before the marriage of William & Elizabeth so she could be Williams daughter with another woman, the wording in the Parish Register would be helpful. Also, the 1841 census does not show relationshiips so Mary may not be the daughter of William & Elizabeth but possibly a relative being raised by them.
Andy
-
This is the Parish Register image
Copyright image removed
I apologise to the Copyright Editor. I did not realise that this was not allowed. I will not do it again.
The image is part of a Parish Record, a page from the Radford Semele Parish Record. It registers the baptism on 16 August 1822 of "Mary daughter of" and then "William & Mary" and then "Tandy". I have seen this image with my own eyes.
-
I'm confused - what is the connection between baptism and civil registration ?
I'm not particularly religious these days, but as far as I'm aware, baptism is a religious ceremony which is somehow supposed to ensure that the child enters 'The Kingdom of Heaven'.
Civil Registration, on the other hand, is all about making the State aware of a person's existence, so they can be taxed and traced.
Now, although both of these are very useful to the genealogist, I can't see the connection ? Many people 150 years ago couldn't afford to baptise all their children.
-
I'm confused - what is the connection between baptism and civil registration ?
Many people 150 years ago couldn't afford to baptise all their children.
Baptism is a religious ceremony and has nothing to do with civil registration.
The Church of England has never charged fees for Baptisms, (unlike weddings and funerals) except in a few exceptional places . Under Ecclesiastical law no fee can be charged for the administration of Sacraments, though the canon suggests that a fee may be payable where there is an ancient custom to that effect. The Baptismal Fees Abolition Act was passed in 1872, under which no fee can be charged for baptism notwithstanding any ancient custom to the contrary. The purpose of this act was to make the law clear in respect of fees for baptisms or for registering baptisms, it appeared that fees were being charged in some parishes, and it was intended to put an end to this system.
The legal position was that by the development of local custom, fees, often known as surplice fees, had become payable to parochial clergy for the performance of occasional offices. If this custom had existed from "time immemorial" then it was recognised by the common law and was legally-enforceable, and such customs were also recognised by Canon Law. However legally "time immemorial" means before 3rd September 1189, and the payment of fees could not be enforced if the custom in question did not exist, or could not have existed before this date. It was because Baptismal fees were always of doubtful legality, and difficulties could arise where the local custom was unclear, that the Baptismal Fees Abolition Act of 1872 was introduced. It was not until 1938 that legislation established parochial fees tables on a national basis for any parish when such powers was given to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners.
Stan
-
My goodness Andy that was fast. I accept the Hannah=Susannah. William Tandy & Elizabeth Wilson were married 20 November 1821 so I do not accept Mary. However one out of two is excellent from my viewpoint.
David
Crumbs! If I discounted all the children baptised before or very soon after the parents marriage I'd have no family tree ;D Add to that the fact that two of my families and one of hubby's can't decide on their surname, living with one and baptising children with another...well, I may as well give up now ;D
-
I don't know if it will help you in this case.
It was possible that these 'missing' girls were baptised just before they married. Until fairly recently couples marrying in the C of E had to be baptised according to the rites thereof before they could be married there. I have also heard that when the eldest daughter was to be married, it wasn't uncommon for all the children to be baptised as a sort of 'job lot'.
Stan you are a mine of information! So now we know when 'time immemorial' actually began. Why that particular date (Sept 3 1189)?
If there was no fee for baptisms, I wonder why my gt grandad had about 6 of his children baptised in one go? One of them had no other proof of his existence. His father went down to the (part-time) Register Office to register the birth and it was shut, so he didn't bother any more. My mother said he probably spent the fee on drink.
-
It wouldn't surprise me Jenny if you actually have found Mary Tandy. Her age is right - she would be 18 at the time of the 1841 Census and therefore correctly listed as 15. A difficulty is the wrong name for the mother - Mary and not the expected Elizabeth. This may have been a silly mistake made by the Curate (Thomas Chapman). Thomas Chapman's records appear to be secondary records written up in
loose sheets or in rough notebooks and copying them into the register book at the end of the year
(I quote from the Dictionary of Genealogy.) Thomas Chapman's handwriting is extremely regular on the page, just as if written at one sitting. A "give away" is his mistake - he crosses out the entry at the top of the page because it is a duplicate of an item already written on the previous page. The item crossed out is dated July 7 - and the item that was previously written is halfway up the previous page and is dated May 5. This "William & Mary Tandy" only had the one child. If we change the parents names to "William & Elizabeth" then the baptismal date of 14 September 1822 fits quite nicely after the marriage date (of William & Elizabeth) of 20 November 1821.
Fortunately Mary Tandy is not my ancestor, so I have less interest in her. If she were my ancestor, I hope that I would have resisted the temptation. I can't find Mary in the 1851 Census. I can find a 14 September 1851 marriage of Mary Tandy & William Parkins in Radford Semele. In 1861 Mary Parkins aged 38 who was born in Radford Semele was living with her husband William in Coventry. So that will be the one baptised. But was her mother called Mary or was it Elizabeth? I cannot overcome my doubts, so I dismiss her with the feeble excuse that she is someone peripheral to my tree.
However Jenny, you did well.
Warwickshire Parish Records are Ancestry Copyright, from www.ancestry.co.uk (http://www.ancestry.co.uk)
Census information is Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk (http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk)
-
Thomas Chapman was the Officiating Minister at the baptism of Susanna/Hannah. This error of name is more understandable than the Elizabeth/Mary puzzle.
But the same Cleric!
-
There was also an elder brother Thomas who was 16 and had left home.
Hi there,
I noticed mention of the surname TANDY, so I have read your thread carefully, and noticed Thomas TANDY.
At the very very long linked thread below, there’s been a search for a Thomas TANDY, who married a Bertha GORHAM in New Zealand, and they had a son, Thomas George TANDY. Sadly, Thomas Tandy (the husband) disappeared, and Bertha then re-married in NSW Australia.
Short version:
Bertha was baptised in 1830 in Kent, with her mother as Amelia GORHAM, and no mention of her father.
Amelia married some three years later, and the family moved to NSW, where sadly Amelia died in 1839. Bertha’s stepfather re-married and so Bertha stayed on with that growing family, who in 1841 migrated to the very new British Colony of New Zealand. Bertha grew up, married, had a son, became a widow, returned to NSW and re-married in May 1853. After over 190 posts on the thread, there is still two mysteries …. Who was Thomas Tandy, Bertha’s first husband; and what happened to their son, Thomas George Tandy.
May I ask, that if you have any information about “your” Thomas TANDY, that you please consider posting on the very long thread on the Aussie Board.
http://www.rootschat.com/forum/index.php/topic,568319.0.html
Cheers, JM
-
I don't know if it will help you in this case.
It was possible that these 'missing' girls were baptised just before they married. Until fairly recently couples marrying in the C of E had to be baptised according to the rites thereof before they could be married there. I have also heard that when the eldest daughter was to be married, it wasn't uncommon for all the children to be baptised as a sort of 'job lot'.
Stan you are a mine of information! So now we know when 'time immemorial' actually began. Why that particular date (Sept 3 1189)?
If there was no fee for baptisms, I wonder why my gt grandad had about 6 of his children baptised in one go? One of them had no other proof of his existence. His father went down to the (part-time) Register Office to register the birth and it was shut, so he didn't bother any more. My mother said he probably spent the fee on drink.
Mr Google helped me on that date question some time ago :) and I am sure Mr Stan will have greater depth of info, but here's the link I have just re-found
From http://sixthformlaw.info/03_dictionary/dict_t.htm
Defining : Time Immemorial
.... So, 3 September 1189 is the accession of Richard I. The Statute of Westminster in 1275 is responsible for setting the date back to 3 Sept 1189.
Cheers, JM
-
"Warwickshire Parish Records are Ancestry Copyright, from www.ancestry.co.uk "
Not so. Ancestry cannot claim copyright on the parish records, only on their interpretation / transcription of them.
Dawn M
-
......
However Jenny, you did well.
Warwickshire Parish Records are Ancestry Copyright, from www.ancestry.co.uk (http://www.ancestry.co.uk)
Census information is Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk (http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk)
Good Point Dawn, and I doubt Ancestry has actually claimed a copyright for itself over/of any Parish Records.
May I also note that just because one acknowledges a copyright holder, that does not mean that the copyright holder has actually given express permission for the work to be published by the person making the acknowledgement.
Adding see this recent thread and Reply # 16
http://www.rootschat.com/forum/index.php/topic,609669.0.html
Cheers, JM
-
Hi
Surely the images of the Parish Registers on Ancestry would subject to Ancestry copyright and can't just be downloaded and published elsewhere by someone else.
Andy
-
I am looking at an Ancestry page now,
I quote from various parts of the page with the heading Warwickshire, England Extracted Parish Records"
"Source Information
Ancestry.com. Warwickshire, England, Extracted Parish Records [database on-line]. Provo, UT, USA: Ancestry.com Operations Inc, 2001.
Original data: Electronic databases created from various publications of parish and probate records."
and futher down the page
"What should I know about this collection to access the data?
Some of the records may be in Latin or even a Welsh or Scottish dialect depending on location. The spelling is archaic, and is transcribed as it was written. There are many spelling inconsistencies and non-standard grammar. Phonetic spelling is often used. Try using variant spellings if a search yields no results.
The individual files in this database may not include all dates and records for each parish/church. Use caution in assuming that any database is a complete set of records--even for the parishes and time period listed. Due to the legibility of the original sources, there may be gaps in the records, including partial sentences, cut-off words, and other omissions.
Due to the nature of the records and because the records were originally compiled by a third party, it is difficult to absolutely verify the completeness and validity of the data. The information in this collection is as correct as it was when Ancestry.com received it, and has merely been reproduced in an electronic format."
"merely been reproduced in an electronic format" Ummmm.... I doubt that would be sufficient to claim a copyright of records that were originally compiled by a third party.....
I have looked and cannot see on that page where Ancestry.com.uk is claiming copyright ....
Cheers, JM
-
Hi
Without looking through all the fine print I think copyright relates to images, layout, transcriptions etc as published on the Ancestry website rather than the subject material.
Copyright of the Parish Registers themselves is held by the Church
Andy
-
Has Ancestry ever made waves about copyright ? They seem to be pretty laid-back about the whole subject :)
-
quote author=andycand link=topic=619264.msg4679645#msg4679645 date= Hi
Without looking through all the fine print I think copyright relates to images, layout, transcriptions etc as published on the Ancestry website rather than the subject material.
Copyright of the Parish Registers themselves is held by the Church
Andy
Right. As pointed out in post #18.
Has Ancestry ever made waves about copyright ? They seem to be pretty laid-back about the whole subject :)
Would you like to test them? They would probably only go after someone seriously if they thought they could get $$$ out of it. Just the threat of legal action would be enough for the likes of most of us.
Dawn M
-
I think people test them every day, Dawn. The place is awash with photos and scans of dubious copyright which they actively encourage you to copy :)
-
Ancestry Terms and Conditions are clear.
Limited Use LICENCE
You are licensed to use the Content only for personal or professional family history research, and may download Content only as search results relevant to that research. The download of the whole or material parts of any work or database is prohibited. Resale of a work or database or portion thereof, except as specific results relevant to specific research for an individual, is prohibited. Online or other republication of Content is prohibited except as unique data elements that are part of a unique family history or genealogy. Violation of this limited use licence may result in immediate termination of your membership and may result in legal action against you. You may use the software provided on the Service only while online and may not download, copy, reuse or distribute that software, except where it is clearly stated in connection with software that it is made available for offline use, and a licence for such use is provided in connection with that software.
Rootschat will always err on the side of caution in interpreting these rules and will remove anything we consider to be in breach of copyright.
This thread is going off topic so please get back to the original discussion.
Copyright Editor
-
I would not have started this thread if I had the information provided by the first few who replied. I have no other examples to support my original thesis that among the lower classes there was sex-discrimination which resulted in some girls not being baptised. I now see that my thesis is wrong. I am glad to be able to say that I was wrong because the attitude underlying it was negative. My "topic" has been resolved to my complete satisfaction.
The last eight postings provided me with really wonderful information about copyright and other types of protection of the ownership of data-and-information that I have sought for and failed to find (because it is usually buried so deep in Websites).
David
I am still searching for the Leicestershire Baptism of Elizabeth Peach (1785 - 1787)
-
David,
This type of discrimination still goes on today!
Take a look at places like India, China - and almost any Third World Country. (these are just examples - I don't mean to criticise any country in particular)
And I can't count the number of times I have seen a census where all the males are accounted for first, and then all the females! Almost as an afterthought!
Life was very different back in those times - which is why I said to be wary of applying modern standards to those living back then. ;D
-
The four most important things when we register an England & Wales birth are
1. Where and when born
2. Name, if any
3. Sex
4. Name and surname of father
then comes - "oh I suppose it might be worth asking who was the mother"
It may have changed, but that was the priority on the Birth Certificate some 20 years ago.
In the June 1840 General Registry Office index of births there is listed a Henry Woodfield. That is incorrect - he should be named as Henry Masters. I have a copy of this Birth Certificate. Henry was born 13 March 1840 in Warwick, England. The "Name and surname of father" is James Woodfield - his occupation is Boatman (Because this is a documentary statement of paternity I guess that James was present in the Registrar's Office when the birth was registered). The "name, surname and maiden name of mother" is Ann Masters (i.e. only two responses for the three required pieces of information). The informant is illiterate and therefore it is the profession hand of Mr Margetts the Registrar that writes the words within the entry "The mark X of Ann Masters, mother, Inmate at George Masters' Laborer Saltisford St Mary". The birth was registered after the Christening - the birth was registered on 7 May 1840. The Christening correctly names the child as Henry Masters.
Although they were a little slow in getting the baptism, and a little slow in registering the birth, they were even slower in marrying. Henry Woodfield and Ann Masters married on 27 March 1843. James is a Laborer (it could be read as Labour).
-
I don't think you are being very fair!
The registrar simply wrote down what information he was given. ;D
If he was given wrong information, then that's what appears on the Birth Certificate.
-
1836/7 regulations were not clear with instructions to recording info. so correct info given and recorded. Mr Stan has addressed this several times at RChat
JM...
-
1836/7 regulations were not clear with instructions to recording info. so correct info given and recorded. Mr Stan has addressed this several times at RChat
JM...
From Section XVIII of the 1836 Act " Particulars required to be registered according to the Forms in the said Schedules (A.)......touching every such Birth" You can see Schedule A, registration of a birth at http://www.histpop.org/ohpr/servlet/View?path=Browse/Legislation%20%28by%20date%29&active=yes&mno=4044
Stan
-
If there was no fee for baptisms, I wonder why my gt grandad had about 6 of his children baptised in one go?
A zealous new vicar making sure that all the children in the parish were baptised; they could have moved parish; to combine the cost of a family get together after the baptisms :)
Stan
-
In the June 1840 General Registry Office index of births there is listed a Henry Woodfield. That is incorrect - he should be named as Henry Masters. I have a copy of this Birth Certificate. Henry was born 13 March 1840 in Warwick, England. The "Name and surname of father" is James Woodfield - his occupation is Boatman (Because this is a documentary statement of paternity I guess that James was present in the Registrar's Office when the birth was registered). The "name, surname and maiden name of mother" is Ann Masters (i.e. only two responses for the three required pieces of information). The informant is illiterate and therefore it is the profession hand of Mr Margetts the Registrar that writes the words within the entry "The mark X of Ann Masters, mother, Inmate at George Masters' Laborer Saltisford St Mary". The birth was registered after the Christening - the birth was registered on 7 May 1840. The Christening correctly names the child as Henry Masters.
Although they were a little slow in getting the baptism, and a little slow in registering the birth, they were even slower in marrying. Henry Woodfield and Ann Masters married on 27 March 1843. James is a Laborer (it could be read as Labour).
On a birth registration a child did not have a surname only a first and sometimes middle name. If the registration indicates that the parents are a married couple then the birth is indexed under the fathers surname, if the registration indicates that the couple are not married then the birth is indexed under both surnames. If no father is on the registration then the birth is indexed under the mothers surname.
In the case of Henry, if the mother was only shown as Ann Masters ie only 2 of the required responses you refer to, then that indicates that the parents were not married and the birth should have been indexed under both surnames. If the parents had been married then the 3 responses would have been Ann Woodfield (nee Masters). It does appear that the GRO have erred in not indexing the birth under Masters as well as Woodfield.
It would certainly be not uncommon for a child to be baptised before registered as you had, I believe, 6 weeks to register a birth and many children were baptised shortly after birth.
To echo what KGarrad posted, I think you are being a bit unfair, Registrars only wrote down information they were given, and it was not always accurate, I'm also not sure where you get the idea that mothers were an afterthought.
Andy
-
As Andy says a child only has a christian name/s on a birth cert,the surname is presumed to be that of the father.
See here what you might expect from and English and Welsh birth cert
http://home.clara.net/dixons/Certificates/births.htm
-
First an opinion. I think the Registrar did an excellent job. I have no criticism whatsoever to make of him. I also believe that the information that was given to him was correct information.
Next the facts
1) Only one person's name appears in the 1840 box entitled "Signature, description and residence of informant".
2) The surname of the person in that box is Masters.
3) The full name in that box is Ann Masters.
4) On 30 March 1843 Ann gives her surname as Masters.
-
First an opinion. I think the Registrar did an excellent job. I have no criticism whatsoever to make of him. I also believe that the information that was given to him was correct information.
Next the facts
1) Only one person's name appears in the 1840 box entitled "Signature, description and residence of informant". Correct!
2) The surname of the person in that box is Masters.
3) The full name in that box is Ann Masters.
4) On 30 March 1843 Ann gives her surname as Masters. Under English Law you can call yourself anything you like! As long as there is no attempt to defraud.
-
On 30 March 1843 Ann says that she is "spinster".
I believe that she was telling the truth.
-
If there was no fee for baptisms, I wonder why my gt grandad had about 6 of his children baptised in one go?
A zealous new vicar making sure that all the children in the parish were baptised; they could have moved parish; to combine the cost of a family get together after the baptisms :)
Stan
They wouldn't have had a get-together, Stan, my gt/grandfather wouldn't have spent good beer money on other people!