Lucy Hodges is my great grandmother also. Her daughter Alice Maud is my grandmother. I also have been trying to work out the correct people regarding Lucy's parents, so far unsuccessfully! According to Lucy's marriage certificate, they are James Hodges & Mary Gilmore, but there is a notation on the certificate, stating that this information was added in 1931, some 76 years after the event. I question the accuracy of this information. Lucy's birth & baptism transcription also states his name as "James." However, on Mary Gilmore's marriage transcription he is shown as "John." This "John" & Mary Gilmore were married in the Catholic Church at Bathurst in 1855. But, Lucy was born in 1851 & baptised in the Catholic Church 1853! As far as I know, Lucy could not have been baptised a Catholic if she was illegitimate. Her brother James was born in 1852 & baptised the same day as Lucy in 1853. My take on this is that the "John" Hodges & Mary Gilmore married in 1855 are not the parents of Lucy. I believe "James" is her father's correct name, but there appears to be no record of him marrying Mary Gilmore. Maybe "Gilmore" is incorrect for her mother's maiden name!!
I think I may have added some more questions, rather than getting any answers.
Hi there,
It is entirely possible that information was added to the NSW BDM register re the marriage. In the decades after civil registration commenced in March 1856, there was an on-going dispute between the civil authority of the Registrar General on the one hand, and the many denominations on the other hand, in respect of the level of detail that the Reg Gen's Office expected to be made available on the civil registry of marriages. The dispute was finally resolved in the 1890s. In 1912 NSW BDM commenced reconciling their marriage registers with the Church records, and therefore added the information originally recorded by the clergy at the time the bride and groom were interviewed prior to the ceremony. So the clergy had initially forwarded to the Reg Gen's offices ONLY a summary of their own registers. Of course, reconciling the NSW BDM records to the Church records was a huge task, which required funding. The process started in 1912 and stopped in about mid 1915 due to the experienced clerks at NSW BDM were needed by the AIF for Base Records clerical duties. There has been several false starts since then. And the process has not ever been completed.
May I suggest that as there has been information added in 1931, the NSW BDM will have signed off on that information. IF the document you have does NOT provide you with confidence that the NSW BDM signed off by consulting with the original church registers, then of course the best option is to seek out the original church registers. The clergy did ask for
the names and occupation of the fathers of both the bride and the groom,
the names and maiden names of the mothers of both the bride and the groom,
the groom's place of birth, usual occupation, then age
the bride's place of birth, usual occupation, then age
If either the bride or the groom were not yet 21 years of age, then they could NOT give their own consent to the marriage, and so a responsible adult (usually the father) would have needed to give consent. That consent, and the person and their relationship would be recorded on the NSW BDM register AND on the Church register.
It is not unusual for the information to still be missing from the NSW BDM's register, and they do mention this on their website, and they suggest that the church registers will hold further information. I should also note that after re-reading this thread, I can agree that there are several missing registers from some rural districts, I recall mention of Bathurst, Young, Albury, Wagga, and up the north coast around the Clarence River....
Hope this is helpful. I can provide further tips and clues if needed.
I agree with Aghadowey, there's no reason for a baby to be denied a baptism by any denomination just because the Dad is not named on the record. The delay in baptising NSW babies in that era would be more likely as a consequence of the rapid increase in the population due to the gold rushes and the huge territory the circuit priests needed to cover to get to all their flock.
Cheers, JM
