Unconfigured Ad Widget

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

I thought it was time to visit Sarah Blades again!

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • I thought it was time to visit Sarah Blades again!

    Sarah Blades is my 4x grandmother.

    She was christened Sarah Ansley/Ainsley on 17-1-1747 in Cumberworth Lincolnshire illegitimate daughter of Sarah Ansley/Ainsley and William Blades.

    She was christened again in Bilsby Lincolnshire in November 1748.......this time with the surname of Blades.

    I can not find a marriage between a Sarah and William Blades.

    I also found this birth.............Anne 8-5-1749...to Will and Sarah Blades............Bilsby Lincolnshire..............is she another child of this couple and therefore a sister to Sarah?

    There is also a marriage for a William Blades to Mary Adlard 31-5-1748.....................could this be Sarah's father and that is why she was re-christened Blades.....................if this is so then what happened to Sarah Ansley/Ainsley?

    Can anyone connect it all for me..............or rule it out.

  • #2
    Have you had a look on here? http://www.lincolnshire.gov.uk/resid...shire-archives or FMP, or http://www.freereg.org.uk/parishes/lin.htm or http://www.familyrelatives.com/searc...o=Lincolnshire

    Vonny

    Comment


    • #3
      Flashie

      nobody gets christened twice, or at least they shouldn't, so how sure are you that this is the same person both times?

      OC

      Comment


      • #4
        I have looked at freereg..............family search..........ancestry...........paid for professional research...............and still I have not solved it.

        OC.......she was definitely christened twice.

        CUMBERWORTH PRs (M.Fiche 081500401A) BTs (M.Film 4/385-6)
        The Parish Register is difficult to read in places so PRs and Bishops’ Transcripts were used together.

        Bap. 17 Jan 1747/8, Sarah, d.o. Sarah Hansley Spinster & William Blades of Bilsby Farmer


        BILSBY PRs (M.Fiche 080800201A) BTs (M.Film 4/350)
        Again, both sets of records were used as some pages are difficult to read.


        Bap. 14 Nov 1748, Sarah of Will: Blades & Sarah Hansley




        SEARCH OF SETTLEMENT AND BASTARDY INDEXES
        The following BASTARDY RECOGNIZANCE has been found.

        18 December 1747: SARAH ANSLEY of Cumberworth, mother
        Putative Father: WILLIAM BLADES of Bilsby, Labourer [Ref: LQSA/1/82 Louth 1 + 2]
        Last edited by flashieboy; 08-03-14, 09:40.

        Comment


        • #5
          How do you know the first Sarah didn't die? MOST unusual for a baby to be christened twice and I cannot see any logical reason for it, other than trying to get a place of settlement for the child, pretty useless if the parents didn't also have right of settlement.

          OC

          Comment


          • #6
            So you do not believe that what I have it correct?.........may I ask why?..........other than it is unusual.

            Comment


            • #7
              Freereg is supposed to cover Bilsby PR, although not Cumberworth. (No dates are given for bps for this parish.)

              I can find the Bilsby BAPTISM (NOT birth) of Ann Blades in 8 May (1749) but nothing is showing for the bp of a Sarah Blades/Hansley/Ansley in 1748.
              However, I don't think the freereg transcriptions include BT as well as PR.

              Have you actually seen the BT image? Sometimes mistakes did occur in the copying up from PR to BT returns. Are any of the images available through familysearch?

              Jay
              Janet in Yorkshire



              Genealogists never die - they just swap places in the family tree

              Comment


              • #8
                I have seen 'double' baptisms: not common, but not impossible either!

                Re. the dates - if separate births, the baptisms are only 10 months apart so double birth seems very unlikely (NB from a post elsewhere - dates different but same principle: In the years before 1752 the year started on 25 March, in order to avoid confusion, the months January, February and March are shown with double dating 1747/8. This means the year was 1747 but we would now consider that date to be in 1748).
                Last edited by Bertie; 08-03-14, 11:11.

                Comment


                • #9
                  If the Will(iam) BLADES is only one person, the sequence would seem to be:

                  Sarah is born on or before 18 Dec 1747 and she is baptised on 17 Jan 1748 (and assumed again on 14 Nov 1748 - would be useful to see transcript or image of this): William Blades is the father

                  William Blades maried Mary Adlard 31 May 1748

                  Anne is baptised 08 May 1749 parents Will and Sarah Blades (again would be good to see the actual image or transcript)

                  POSSIBILITIES:
                  (a) Mary Adlard died after 31 May 1748 and Will then married Sarah Blades
                  (b) William, still married, continues to have illegitimate children [recognised by him presumably] with Sarah, and they are not married

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Bertie View Post
                    I have seen 'double' baptisms: not common, but not impossible either!

                    Re. the dates - if separate births, the baptisms are only 10 months apart so double birth seems very unlikely (NB from a post elsewhere - dates different but same principle: In the years before 1752 the year started on 25 March, in order to avoid confusion, the months January, February and March are shown with double dating 1747/8. This means the year was 1747 but we would now consider that date to be in 1748).
                    I have some "double" baptisms too, but unless it's been a private bp followed by public receiving into the church, it has been a case of church AND chapel (i.e different denominations) OR there has been a much longer time span between the two events. In these cases, it would seem that confirmation of infant bp could not readily be found (change of parish) and so a second bp was conducted. One was an orphaned 13 yr old, probably about to go into place; another was a pregnant 21 yr old, living with her married twin sister and away from her home village, and about to give birth herself. The baby was born and baptised very shortly afterwards - the curate very kindly added the name of the reputed father when baptising the infant.

                    Jay
                    Last edited by Janet in Yorkshire; 08-03-14, 11:33.
                    Janet in Yorkshire



                    Genealogists never die - they just swap places in the family tree

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Have you looked at all the poss. references to BLADES, ADLARD, ANSLEY/AINSLEY on this site?



                      Just putting in William Blades came up with 142 records, but this site (unlike others) seems to have no facility to order by date. May be useful to look at in detail

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Also should have added if there were 2 Sarah births then Ann could not also be her child in May 1749. Seems more evidence for a second baptism (more likely than two Will BLADES and two Sarahs having families at the same time?)

                        BTW: I think it more positive to work with someone's information and play with the 'facts' as known rather than just rubbish it / knock it down with no analytical input!
                        Last edited by Bertie; 08-03-14, 11:49.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Thankyou Bertie, I will bear your advice in mind whilst reviewing my 40+ years of research!

                          I was not rubbishing it, nor was I disbelieving it - I was pointing out that there was more than one possible interpretation of the FACTS.

                          OC

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            What do you make of my interpretation of the facts?

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Bertie

                              your interpretation of the facts is as valid as mine. Both require proof. As it is not clear to ME where Flashieboy got his information, i.e. has he looked at the original documents or has he got the information from someone else's tree, or somewhere between those two points, that needs defining. Also where the dates came from - seen with own eyes on the original documents, or corrected up by some well meaning transcriber - this has happened to me many times.

                              I would then go on to ask if he has looked for a settlement order for William Blades. If one is found, it might help to explain why one child was baptised twice, especially an illegitimate child who would have been baptised as a matter of course immediately after birth at the "suggestion" of the workhouse master. Bastardy orders were instigated by the poor law overseers, not the mother, and therefore it would be known that the child had been baptised, making a second baptism even more unlikely.

                              If Flashieboy can say whether or not he has looked through the PRs for a death for the first Sarah, then I shall tick that question off my list. I am sorry that my thought that she may have died has caused such umbrage.

                              OC

                              Comment


                              • #16
                                For those with FMP:



                                Bottom of left-hand page as last entry:

                                "November ye 14 1748
                                Baptiz'd Sarah (word deleted)
                                Bastard Child of William
                                Blades & Sarah (if there is another word it is illegible as the paper is turned over)"
                                Elizabeth
                                Research Interests:
                                England:Purkis, Stilwell, Quintrell, White (Surrey - Guildford), Jeffcoat, Bond, Alexander, Lamb, Newton (Lincolnshire, Stalybridge, London)
                                Scotland:Richardson (Banffshire), Wishart (Kincardineshire), Johnston (Kincardineshire)

                                Comment


                                • #17
                                  There is a marriage for a William Blades in 1748 at Bilsby:



                                  "Maried May ye 31st 1748
                                  Will. Blades & Mary Adlard?"
                                  Elizabeth
                                  Research Interests:
                                  England:Purkis, Stilwell, Quintrell, White (Surrey - Guildford), Jeffcoat, Bond, Alexander, Lamb, Newton (Lincolnshire, Stalybridge, London)
                                  Scotland:Richardson (Banffshire), Wishart (Kincardineshire), Johnston (Kincardineshire)

                                  Comment


                                  • #18


                                    "May ye 8th 49 Anne daughter of
                                    Will. & Sarah Blades Baptiz'd"
                                    Elizabeth
                                    Research Interests:
                                    England:Purkis, Stilwell, Quintrell, White (Surrey - Guildford), Jeffcoat, Bond, Alexander, Lamb, Newton (Lincolnshire, Stalybridge, London)
                                    Scotland:Richardson (Banffshire), Wishart (Kincardineshire), Johnston (Kincardineshire)

                                    Comment


                                    • #19
                                      Originally posted by Elizabeth Herts View Post
                                      For those with FMP:



                                      Bottom of left-hand page as last entry:

                                      "November ye 14 1748
                                      Baptiz'd Sarah (word deleted)
                                      Bastard Child of William
                                      Blades & Sarah (if there is another word it is illegible as the paper is turned over)"
                                      N.B. It doesn't say the child was given the surname Blades. It just acknowledges William as her father.
                                      Elizabeth
                                      Research Interests:
                                      England:Purkis, Stilwell, Quintrell, White (Surrey - Guildford), Jeffcoat, Bond, Alexander, Lamb, Newton (Lincolnshire, Stalybridge, London)
                                      Scotland:Richardson (Banffshire), Wishart (Kincardineshire), Johnston (Kincardineshire)

                                      Comment


                                      • #20
                                        OC taking the facts at face value for the time being [we have both asked about the original images for detail and final judgement] my interpretation is a deduction from the facts presented while yours seems to be a supposition based on the general small likelihood of someone being baptised twice and not taking account of the presented facts.

                                        I would still appreciate your view based on the facts presented. Please, what is your view about my interpretation of them?

                                        You ask for proof. Proof prior to civil registration is sometimes, if not often, difficult and we are faced with the balance of probabilities based on what facts we have. Thus I take the view that a double baptism is much more likely than two unmarried couples both with the same names in the same small parish at the same time.

                                        My 6+ years research is, of course, much less than yours so I would be interested in your comments on what I have deduced from the facts and what they tell you that supports your view.
                                        Last edited by Bertie; 08-03-14, 21:25.

                                        Comment

                                        Working...
                                        X