Unconfigured Ad Widget

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Backdated parish records and too many Marys

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

  • Backdated parish records and too many Marys

    I’m wondering if anyone can solve a problem for me please. My great great grandparents married in the Parish of Bingley in 1815. A digistised copy of the event plus banns is online. The bride was from the parish. The 1851 and 1861 census returns are consistent with her age and expected year of birth. I thought I found her in the birth indexes along with a heap of siblings and left her for other ancestors. Later, after coming to a brick wall with her husband, his first appearance is in the banns and the 1841 census reports birth in Yorkshire, along with numerous other males of the same name. He was dead before the next census. I returned to the wife in the hope that she might help. I then noticed that the woman I’d chosen as the ancestor, was born out of wedlock, according to dates, and I didn’t think it made sense when the parents were constantly trooping to the church to baptize babies. I then looked again and found another woman with the correct name, also born in the parish, with the exact year instead of almost, and with some siblings. Later when I looked more closely at the digitized copy of the baptismal register I discovered all of the children in the family were recorded sequentially and in a register 20-30 years after their baptisms. The next couple of baptisms also look to be out of place, but only by a year or so.

    Does anyone know why this would have occurred and if I can trust the record?

    In addition, I now have 2 women by the same name born in the same village within 2 years of each other to different fathers. How can I really trust which is the correct one given I know nothing else about my ancestor as the marriage record doesn’t name the fathers ? Maybe my thought about wedlock was incorrect or a record was transcribed incorrectly. In addition, I found another woman by the same name, same village, right date and correct apart from missing an “s” on the end of the surname. Her father’s baptismal record is also missing the “s” so can probably discount her, I hope.

    My great great grandparents had a couple of children baptized in other parishes in Staffordshire and then moved to Yorkshire where they remained. He was a butler.

    Any suggestions and help would be appreciated.

  • #2
    Welcome to Family Tree Forum indie48

    It would help researchers if you gave more details names and dates so they can help check this out for you

    Edna

    Comment


    • #3
      Too many Marys and a backdated parish register

      Originally posted by clematised View Post
      Welcome to Family Tree Forum indie48

      It would help researchers if you gave more details names and dates so they can help check this out for you

      Edna
      Thanks for responding.

      I have put together information about the 3 Marys baptised in Bingley between 1788 and 1790. My problem is that the most likely fit comes with a very much backdated parish register. I don't know if I should trust it.

      Have just discovered that my copied images don't transfer to your web. Will try with more words.

      1 Mary Briggs Born 1788, baptised 26 May 1827, father Francis

      The Bingley Parish Register states it is the 1827 register . Previous baptisms are in 1827. Then the Briggs family is inserted, reportedly born between 1780 and 1801 and all are baptized on May 6 1827. The abode seems to be Fawether. Mary Briggs had already been married (1815) in the Bingley church where she is reported to have been baptized years later. I have looked at the other pages in the register and there is no explanation that I can see.

      2 Another Mary Briggs Baptised 1790, father William. From Wilsden.



      3 Mary BRIGG baptised August 1788, father Hezekiah from Bingley


      My ancestor’s tombstone states she was aged 74 when she died on 6 December 1862 ie born 1788. She was "of the parish" when married and recorded Bingley as her birthplace on census returns. Parents names are not recorded in the marriage register.

      The best fit for birth in terms of age and name is NO 1 who has the backdated baptism along with her siblings. BUT why would that happen and is it trustworthy?

      Any thoughts about this would be welcome.

      Comment


      • #4
        So it appears that they were all baptised together in May 1827, as a family group of adults, perhaps their parents didn't have them baptised as children for some reason. This isn't that uncommon and doesn't mean the baptisms were inserted into a later register or backdated in any way.

        There are also a couple of Briggs baptisms on the previous page of the Bingley register (on April 16th).
        Retired professional researcher, and ex- deputy registrar, now based in Worcestershire. Happy to give any help or advice I can ( especially on matters of civil registration) - contact via PM or my website www.chalfontresearch.co.uk
        Follow me on Twittter @ChalfontR

        Comment


        • #5
          Sounds like a late baptism, rather than "backdated." (Their events are not out of sequence in the register.)

          1) the family could have been non-conformist & then changed to C of E
          2) the clergyman could have been doing a purge and rounding up families with non-bp members
          3) one of the family members could have needed proof of bp for some reason - I have an orphaned rellie bp for a second time when she was 13/14. This could well have been a requirement of going into place and, as she was then living with relatives in a different parish, her infant bp wouldn't have been in the register for that parish, so they may have decided to play safe and arrange a definite baptism.
          The orphan's mother (& mother's twin sister) were also baptised when adults, even though I have found infant bp for them both. In their cases, it was around the births of their first child, so perhaps it was to do with both women being churched - again, better safe than sorry, as it were.

          Jay
          Last edited by Janet in Yorkshire; 01-12-14, 16:28.
          Janet in Yorkshire



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

          Comment


          • #6
            Have you followed through the other women in marriage records and later in census returns? This could lead to finding them recorded with a relative at some time. Chasing up that family connection could either confirm or negate them as a possibility for your Mary.

            Jay
            Janet in Yorkshire



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

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by AntonyM View Post
              So it appears that they were all baptised together in May 1827, as a family group of adults, perhaps their parents didn't have them baptised as children for some reason. This isn't that uncommon and doesn't mean the baptisms were inserted into a later register or backdated in any way.

              There are also a couple of Briggs baptisms on the previous page of the Bingley register (on April 16th).
              I take the point that the baptisms weren't backdated but adult baptisms. Sometimes you get to close to something to see straight and that's what's happened to me.

              Was proof of baptism required for marriage in those days? She was married in Bingley in 1815.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Janet in Yorkshire View Post
                Sounds like a late baptism, rather than "backdated." (Their events are not out of sequence in the register.)

                1) the family could have been non-conformist & then changed to C of E
                2) the clergyman could have been doing a purge and rounding up families with non-bp members
                3) one of the family members could have needed proof of bp for some reason - I have an orphaned rellie bp for a second time when she was 13/14. This could well have been a requirement of going into place and, as she was then living with relatives in a different parish, her infant bp wouldn't have been in the register for that parish, so they may have decided to play safe and arrange a definite baptism.
                The orphan's mother (& mother's twin sister) were also baptised when adults, even though I have found infant bp for them both. In their cases, it was around the births of their first child, so perhaps it was to do with both women being churched - again, better safe than sorry, as it were.

                Jay
                I can see that sometimes a person may need adult baptism for such reasons. I was startled to find almost an entire family and then an additional 2 a few weeks earlier as pointed out by AntonyM. I wondered why they all needed it and the logistics of having everyone turn up. My Mary was 9 months past the last of 5 babies and the next/last didn't appear for almost 2 years. If she'd been baptised as an adult shouldn't her married surname been used?

                Comment


                • #9
                  I haven't looked at Mary's siblings. However, I know none of them turned up in census records for Mary's children apart from one child who disappears between the 1851 census and death in 1864 perhaps via a marriage and child. I'm awaiting a birth certificate. Given I don't know the origin of her husband I can't check if any Briggs' intermingled with his family. However, I will check Mary's sisters and see if any are connected with a person from her husbands line.

                  Thanks to both of you for your thoughts.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    I would normally expect an adult baptism to be in the name at the time she was baptised (i.e. her married name if that was the case).
                    Retired professional researcher, and ex- deputy registrar, now based in Worcestershire. Happy to give any help or advice I can ( especially on matters of civil registration) - contact via PM or my website www.chalfontresearch.co.uk
                    Follow me on Twittter @ChalfontR

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by AntonyM View Post
                      I would normally expect an adult baptism to be in the name at the time she was baptised (i.e. her married name if that was the case).
                      I've found both scenarios. Of course the christian names are the important part of a baptim and the next columns in the register are then used to identify which particular John, Mary or whoever was being baptised by giving parents christian and surnames. In the case of an adult baptism sometimes I've found the vicar still named the parents, in other cases I've found him entering just the surname and perhaps adding a note in brackets such as "adult", or "married woman"
                      Judith passed away in October 2018

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        I don't think there were any rules about it, and different vicars may record different information - and as Judith points out, the surname of the person isn't actually recorded in the register (only that of her father). I have seen an adult baptism with "Wife of ..." written in the parents column , and others with just the parents details (and some with both).
                        Retired professional researcher, and ex- deputy registrar, now based in Worcestershire. Happy to give any help or advice I can ( especially on matters of civil registration) - contact via PM or my website www.chalfontresearch.co.uk
                        Follow me on Twittter @ChalfontR

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Too many Marys and adult sibling baptisms

                          Originally posted by AntonyM View Post
                          I don't think there were any rules about it, and different vicars may record different information - and as Judith points out, the surname of the person isn't actually recorded in the register (only that of her father). I have seen an adult baptism with "Wife of ..." written in the parents column , and others with just the parents details (and some with both).

                          I was under the impression that I'd replied and have been awaiting a response only to discover that no reply appeared.

                          I've checked siblings to extent I can and there is no demonstrated connection with my ancestor's spouses family. Essentially I asked if other people would accept the Mary with adult baptism as being the ancestor; correct name/location/birth year? Are there any other tests/checking that I should undertake?

                          Many thanks

                          Comment

                          Working...
                          X