RootsChat.Com

England (Counties as in 1851-1901) => England => Yorkshire (West Riding) => Topic started by: Ermintrude46 on Monday 26 August 24 20:58 BST (UK)

Title: Females baptised/married/buried under pet names
Post by: Ermintrude46 on Monday 26 August 24 20:58 BST (UK)
Trawling through PR for Halifax and Keighley from 1750s onwards I've noticed that a lot of girls/women were baptised, married or buried under a pet name e.g. Sally for Sarah, Betty for Elizabeth, Peggy for Margaret interchangeably with the more formal version of their name.  So they might be baptised as Sally, married as Sarah and be shown as either at the baptisms of their children or their burial.  I haven't really come across this elsewhere and it doesn't seem to have applied to the male members of the families who very nearly always have their formal name used in all their records.  Does anyone know why this might be?
Ermy
Title: Re: Females baptised/married/buried under pet names
Post by: Elwyn Soutter on Monday 26 August 24 22:37 BST (UK)
Emy,

In Ireland and Scotland many forenames were/are also interchangeable eg Jean & Jane, Jenny & Janet, Nancy, Agnes & Ann, Sally & Sarah, Sheila & Julia, Mary & May, Peggy & Margaret, Peter & Patrick, Sean & John, John & Jack, Edward & Edmund, Henry & Harry, Robin & Robert, Roy & Robert, Ellen & Helen, Kathleen & Catherine. (The famous Scottish poet Robert Burns was never known as Robert to his friends. He was always Robin). It’s just something that needs to be taken into account when searching records.
Title: Re: Females baptised/married/buried under pet names
Post by: louisa maud on Tuesday 27 August 24 08:01 BST (UK)
Most of my aunts were never called by their rightful names, I suggest if deaths are registered perhaps not by a family member  they might be registered under the name they have used as a pet name, just a thought.

LM
Title: Re: Females baptised/married/buried under pet names
Post by: KGarrad on Tuesday 27 August 24 08:19 BST (UK)
In the UK people can call themselves anything they like!
Just as long as there is no intention to deceive or defraud.
Title: Re: Females baptised/married/buried under pet names
Post by: louisa maud on Tuesday 27 August 24 09:05 BST (UK)
You are right but if a death is registered by someone who doesn't know the registered name it can't really  be called deceit  or fraud.

LM
Title: Re: Females baptised/married/buried under pet names
Post by: BillyF on Tuesday 27 August 24 11:56 BST (UK)
My 4x gt grandmother was married as Suffy Grieve in 1794. She`s on the 1841 census as Sophia.
Title: Re: Females baptised/married/buried under pet names
Post by: Jebber on Tuesday 27 August 24 12:13 BST (UK)
If anyone other than me had registered my mother's death, I doubt if they would have known her real name. She hated both her first and middle names and was always known by one she chose herself as a teenager. Even older family members questioned my family tree because I have her on it by the names on her birth certificate.

There must be many people whose deaths are registered with names they were known by, not that on their birth certificate.
Title: Re: Females baptised/married/buried under pet names
Post by: KGarrad on Tuesday 27 August 24 12:24 BST (UK)
My grandmother married twice: once as Cicely Minnie, and later as Minnie Cicely.
Just to confuse people? :D