Which given name?

[maddys52]

The burial in 1832 was given in reply #3. You can see the image of Richard's baptism in the opening post.

[Eidde]

Thanks to all for your contributions. I was especially interested in the will (thanks, jonwarm) which possibly gives Richard a job in Wanstead, where three of his children were born. Richard is described as a coachman in 1812 and 1816, so that could fit.

[Andrew Tarr]

Is 'James' likely to be a mistranscription or a correction?

Your image looks to me as though 'James' is clearly in the original hand but 'Richard' is a later alteration in a slightly different one ?

[Eidde]

I think you're right, Andrew. Some of the letters in 'Richard' are quite different to others on the page: the h and d in particular. I've attached another 'Richard' from a later page for comparison. Also, 'Richard' seems to be not quite on the same line as the following words and there's a suspicious smudgy area around the name.

However, the 'Richard' document is the original and 'James' is the copy. This means that 'James' was put on the original first, which was then copied and sent off, and 'Richard' was a later correction.

So, this could still be the Richard I'm looking for (although maddys52's earlier caveat is noted).

[maddys52]

Well spotted, I hadn't noticed the different hands in the script. Curiouser and curiouser.

[maddys52]

Have you looked at the will of Ricahrd CLUTTERBUCK of Eastington proved 10 Nov 1778? I don't quite understand it all, but he mentions a Richard CLUTTERBUCK of Frampton upon Severn. Not suggesting he is yours, too young, but possibly worth investigating.

[maddys52]

Just back to the Richard CLUTTERBUCK baptised in Eastington in 1769, there is a Richard CLUTTERBUCK married Ann HOLBROW at Eastington in 1792 (Pallot's Index).

Then there is at least this baptism at Eastington
1793  Harriett (dau of Richard and Ann)

and maybe these (of Richard and Hannah)
1797  Charles
1798  Charlotte
1800  Hannah
1801  Thomas
1804  Anne
1806  James
1808  Matilda
1812  Edwin

[Eidde]

Yes, I think the Richard you found is more likely to be the one baptised in Eastington in May 1769. After all, there's no evidence that my Richard was born in Eastington - the census just says Gloucestershire. It was just that the dates seemed to fit.

[Andrew Tarr]

However, the 'Richard' document is the original and 'James' is the copy. This means that 'James' was put on the original first, which was then copied and sent off, and 'Richard' was a later correction.

That is the logical sequence of events - the change was made after the bishop's transcript had been forwarded, and the sender either forgot (or intended not) to report the change, or the recipient decided it didn't matter ?
Looking again at the lower line in the pair of images, an 'e' seems to have been added to Ann at the very end of one.  Maybe the whole document has been 'edited' - perhaps by the Rev'd gentleman being married ?