2
« on: Monday 02 June 25 15:29 BST (UK) »
Yes, it is on record at that church, you know I came up with that image somehow, if I never found it - and Lanarman did a better job of transcribing it than Ancestry did.
It's actually the fact that it was at that church that caught my attention.
Ancestry transcribed it as 1870 or 1871. I looked at it and that made sense. One thing, though, the guy was clearly middle aged, if he was baptized when the church even existed. Recording who his parents were might have been a matter of form - but, they also signed it? And I didn't catch the record of their baptisms. Montreal was formal and correct with their records, but, would the parents have signed it in middle age?
The church really did not exist in 1820.
I have substantial ancestry that went there, and I'm trying to trace one of them. Jane Bane/ Bain/ Cubane/ Cabean/ Conbean. She left both her husband and the church and went to the Catholic cathedral and had two of her kids rebaptized there. The name is highland Scottish. There wree two clans, McBean, and Bain. Bain never put a k sound in front if their name. Bean was pronounced like Bain. I'm like, why was a member of this Catholic family at the UU church? Especially if he was a brewer. It was common for young clerks to join this church and attach themselves to the hardware magnates who had founded and ran it.
Yours,
Dora Smith
Show Posts