RootsChat.Com
England (Counties as in 1851-1901) => England => Yorkshire (West Riding) => Topic started by: nicholastolson on Wednesday 07 February 24 21:30 GMT (UK)
-
John Kilner was buried at St Nicholas', Cumberworth on 14 October 1832. He is described as "John son of John & Nina Kilner", abode Cumberworth, age 39. I have no doubt as to his identification; I have his baptismal record from 1794.
My question is: does the naming of his parents when he was 39 years old allow me to assume he was unmarried at the time of death? (Most online trees show him as having married Mary Kenworthy in 1815, which I'm reluctant to accept.)
Many thanks.
-
Different parishes had different styles of using the registers. The best way to find out is to look at the original pages for a few years before and after his burial. They might be online or you might need to consult microfilm at the conuty archives.
-
A Mary Kilner remarried 25 Oct. 1841.
At least 3 children she had with a John Kilner are with there Kenworthy Grandparents in 1841 Census.
On this Marriage 1841 and record of one to John Kilner 1815 Mary did not sign.
A bit of a difficult one unless you can find another John Kilner Burial c 1826-1841
On Bapts he was a Bookkeeper
Last child seems to be John born 22 June 1832, does not name Mother but her Parents Thomas/Sarah Kenworthy
-
I wonder if there was some confusion by whoever made the entry in the burials.
I've just looked at the image. The entry is in the middle of a page full of young persons - 6 months to 18 yrs. There is one other entry, a Joseph Shaw, aged 23. He is also shown as 'son of...' The next page is in a similar format, regardless of age.
Gadget
Add - a few pages previously. there is an entry for a woman aged 24, recorded as 'wife of...'
-
Having looked at a few more pages, what seems to be the format at the time is
entries of married women are given as 'wife of .....',
entries for unmarried children and married men are given as ' son/daughter of .....'
entries for (possibly) widowed men are recorded without any attribution.
I've not found any possible widowed women so far.
Gadget
-
Thanks to all. Before seeing this record, I'd always assumed that "son of..." applied to males before the age of majority (either 16 or 18 or 21) and after that their parents were not named (whether or not the man was married, though I have seen "married man" in some burial records).
(I'm not sure about females in this context. Mostly they seemed to move from being "daughter of" to "wife of", consistent with the customs of the time. I've even seen "wife of X" without her being given a name - hard to understand from our point of view.)
Back to John Kilner: as one of you suggested, I've now looked at all the burials at St Nicholas', Cumberworth, in the batch that Ancestry gives us. There are only six pages; the earliest burial is on 27 November 1831 and the latest 6 January 1833. I've listed all males aged 21 and over (in order of age, not date). All entries are signed by G.B.Dunn.
PARENTS IDENTIFIED
George Lockwood, 21
Joseph Shaw, 23
Henry Hinchliffe, 25
George Wood, 26
John Kilner, 39
PARENTS NOT IDENTIFIED
William Turton, 47
Joseph Senior, 55
Richard Lodge, 60
Abraham Woodhead, 83
Rev Dunn may have been using a rule that added parents' names for men up to the age of, say, 40, and John Kilner fell just on the right side of the line.
I had wondered if parents were named if they were still alive (so that older men would be less likely to have living parents) but I believe - not entirely sure - that John Kilner's father had died by 1832 so he wouldn't have been named under this rule.
I guess my question is now: has anyone heard of an age other than 16 or 18 or 21 being used as a cut-off in this way? Such ages were usually associated with property laws (age of majority and so on), and I've never heard of 40 being a significant legal age in any other context.
-
My guess is that you're looking for a rule and there really isn't one, at least not one that was consistently applied, and that we are seeing the idiosyncratic approach of one incumbent. If only the various incumbents and parish clerks had considered at the time that we genealogists would want the data nearly 200 years on!
-
I agree with Graham.
Also, you didn't look at the women's entries - see my reply #4
There is a piece at the end of the the sequence which is signed by the curate. It's not very legible and could just be a statement that the entries were 'in accordance with... ' It might give more information'
Gadget
-
Found on Familysearch (You'll have to sign in or register) Make of it what you will. ???
https://www.familysearch.org/search/record/results?q.givenName=john%20&q.spouseGivenName=mary&q.spouseSurname=kenworthy&q.surname=kilner
John Kilner X Mary Kenworthy marriage 26th Dec 1815 Kirkburton (possibly Cumberworth chapelry)
Joseph Kilner birth 11th Jan 1818 son of John Kilner and Mary Kenworthy Kilner
- Hull Yorkshire
Joseph Kilner Birth 11th Jan 1818 - baptism 22 Sept 1832 son of John Kilner and Mary Kenworthy
- Huddersfield Yorkshire
John Kilner Birth 22 Jun 1832 son of John Kilner and Mary Kenworthy Kilner
- Hull Yorkshire
John Kilner Birth 22 Jun 1832 - baptism 6th July 1832 son of John Kilner and Mary Kenworthy
- Huddersfield Yorkshire
-
Thanks, dobfarm, but I'm on Ancestry so already have this information. My query is not so much about John Kilner himself, more about the practice of naming the parents of the deceased and whether this implies that they were single - the deceased, not the parents ;-)
-
Hi Nich
What I posted this info for was the records of births in Hull and baptisms in Huddersfield ?, lot of genealogy is elimination by proving a marriage to a person or 2 different people with same name in the same time period one married and one single - Location of the ancestors abodes helps proving true identities
I found LDS IGI Familysearch is often is a good accurate website (Though they have LDS trees as well but not as many) and not full of gap filling assumptions of imagination - also in old records and parish registers in centuries past more so - also ancestry website trees and other stuff.
Assume nothing ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ check all. ;)
-
Just wondering whether the incumbent at St Nicholas had had previous knowledge of Reverend Dade. Dade registers from 1775 to 1812 for baptisms and burials listed parents.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Dade
-
I was just about to post about Dade registers /but I’m interested to see that someone else has the same idea. I’ve checked that Cumberworth isn’t on the list of Dade registers but perhaps the vicar used his own similar system using the ideas of the Revd Dade.
-
Snap!!!!! ;D