RootsChat.Com
England (Counties as in 1851-1901) => England => Yorkshire (West Riding) => Topic started by: Mamsoth on Tuesday 06 September 16 21:50 BST (UK)
-
I wanted to run something passed you guys to see what you think. I am looking for a marriage between my great grandfather Thomas Lingard and an Elizabeth (Surname unknown). He lived in Gargrave for most of his life and died in "Coldiker" which I now know to be Cold Acre. I believe he owned a farm in the Kirkby Malham area which I'm guessing was called Cold Acre.
Anyway, he was born Circa 1650 and had his first Child in February of 1671. I can find absolutely no applicable Marriages at all, except one. It takes place 16 days after the birth of his first Child. It is between an Elizabeth Preston and a Thomas "Linger".
Elizabeth is listed as living at Kirkby Malham and Thomas (Linger) is listed as being from Gargrave. Now, I have a copy of the registers for Gargrave and there is absolutely no mention of a Linger. Not one. In fact, I can find mention of only 5 Lingers in the whole of Yorkshire, 40 years either side of my Thomas Lingards birth (using popular genealogy websites).
Does everyone think I'm ok to assume this is actually my Thomas Lingard and not Thomas Linger or am I being a bit hasty?
There's also one more piece of the jigsaw, in my copy of the gargrave registers, Thomas's first child is just mentioned as being the Son of Thomas Lingard (no mention of a wife) while every one of his other children, born later, mention a wife (Elizabeth). This could support the theory that the wedding took place after this first childs birth?
-
hi there found this could this be them
https://familysearch.org/search/record/results?count=20&query=%2Bgivenname%3Athomas~%20%2Bsurname%3Alingard~%20%2Bmarriage_year%3A1670-1673~%20%2Bspouse_givenname%3Aelizabeth~
-
Gasp! That's them!!! I can't believe I hadn't looked on family search!!! I'm putting that one down to lack of sleep. Thank you Robo, I'm convinced that is Thomas Lingard now, it has to be.
Thanks again
-
............................................................................my great grandfather Thomas Lingard ..................................................
................................................ he was born Circa 1650 ............................................................
:o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o
Tell me that's an error ;)
Frank. ( No offence, I couldn't resist it. ;) )
-
............................................................................my great grandfather Thomas Lingard ..................................................
................................................ he was born Circa 1650 ............................................................
Lol, i did wonder whether anyone would go down that route, I just figured people would realise I hadn't put the exact amount of greats in. That'd sure be one elderly grandpappy otherwise ;)
:o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o
Tell me that's an error ;)
Frank. ( No offence, I couldn't resist it. ;) )
-
Without full details of the possible register entries having been provided, I may be barking up the wrong tree here.
The marriage of Thomas LINGER and Elizabeth PRESTON 16 days after the birth a child in February 1671 would have been in February or early March 1671.
Among the results at FamilySearch is the marriage of Thomas LINGHEARD and Eliz PRESTON on 11 May 1671 at Kirkby Malham.
These results are so similar that it is tempting to suspect one of the dates has been mistranscribed.
Anyway, to help you in putting the family together, remember that 11 May 1671 was earlier than February 1671, because of the calendar then in use.
As for the naming of parents in the baptism register, I suspect the differences are due to the whim of the clergyman concerned. Sometimes mothers were recorded, sometimes not. But if it had been before the marriage, it would be more likely to have just the mother's name than just the father's.
Arthur
-
Hi Arthur. Yes I must apologise, thats my mistake. In my tired state I initially read march instead of May (not sure exactly how).
And that is a good point about the fact that if they weren't married at the time of birth it would be more likely the mother would be recorded rather than the father.
When you say 11 May 1671 was earlier than February 1671, you must be having me on? Would you be able to elaborate? That's completely new to me, and if its true, you just watch my little brain go squirting out of my eyesockets! :P
-
When you say 11 May 1671 was earlier than February 1671, you must be having me on? Would you be able to elaborate? That's completely new to me, and if its true, you just watch my little brain go squirting out of my eyesockets! :P
Pre mid 1700's (can't remeber exact year -- 1752??) the year started on Lady Day --or 25th March so ran from end March - February, not Jan - December
So February 1671 old-style would be February 1672 new-style and later than May 1671
You have to be careful with Jan Feb & most of March dates to see if they are listed as old-style or new style
many on-line transcriptions have corrected the dates to new-style but if reading original registers or uncorrected transcriptions the date can cause confusion
-
.
When you say 11 May 1671 was earlier than February 1671, you must be having me on? Would you be able to elaborate? That's completely new to me, and if its true, you just watch my little brain go squirting out of my eyesockets! :P
Hi, I think, but am not sure that they changed from a "Julian" calendar to a "Gregorian" calendar in the 1750's.
I am not completely sure and may be a million miles away but I'm sure Arthur will correct me if I'm wrong.
Don't ask me what it all did but someone will tell us ;D
Frank.
Edited to add.
Sorry Marmalady, posts must have crossed :-[
-
Hi, this may explain it all :)
Frank.
http://www.adsb.co.uk/date_and_time/calendar_reform_1752/
-
Well I'll be, thats very useful to know.
-
Thank you, Frank and Marmalady, for explaining the calendar change - and some of the information at the link provided was new to me too.