Unconfigured Ad Widget

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Retracing research.

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

  • Retracing research.

    This is a "How many angels fit on the head of a pin" situation, but although it may seem very petty and pedantic, it is important to ME.

    Years ago, I started to research Owd Timothy o't' Looms, a locally famous man about whom much has been written and many trees constructed - he is, I suppose, a gateway ancestor.

    Many pundits gave his baptism date as 22 July 1700 and the LDS have transcribed this date from extracted records.

    I checked the PR - no such baptism on that date or any other date. However, at the very back of the register was a list compiled by the Vicar, of

    "Children born but not baptised according to the ceremonies of the Established Church" (there was a fine payable for non baptism between 1697 and 1706) and my man was there:

    22 July 1700 Timothy Holden, son of James Holden, a webster of Over Darwen.

    I entered into extensive correspondence with the Archivist at Lancs RO, who agreed with me that this "supplementary register" should be catalogued separately, as it recorded NON baptisms, not baptisms.

    Discussing this on another forum recently, a researcher, for whom I have the greatest respect, who transcribed the original register for the Lancs Family History Society, says he has the entry which reads:

    22nd July 1700, Timothy, BAPTISED son of James Holden of Over Darwen.

    You can see that these two entries differ. What on earth am I to think? Mine is a photocopy of the original register (via an LDS film).

    Neither entry has come from Bishops Transcripts.

    I shall have to get the flaming film out AGAIN, which is a bit pointless, as I have already photocopied this entry.

    As I said, head of a pin stuff, but it IS important, because I have traced Timothy's parents on the strength of his father being a webster, not a weaver as every other James Holden was at the time, and some of this depends on Timothy being born considerably earlier than July 1700.

    Sorry, just needed to vent my anguish!

    OC

  • #2
    Originally posted by Olde Crone Holden View Post
    (there was a fine payable for non baptism between 1697 and 1706) C

    OOOH, I didn't know that and it explains the births of my ancestors being written on the inside cover of the PR in Banbury. My ancestor must have been gutted as he married in 1695 and had his children from 1696-1704. Was this fine set up especially for him?! lol

    Sorry, I digress.......

    Erm....what is a webster?

    Comment


    • #3
      A webster is a weaver who makes webbing. A small but important nicety of distinction in an area where EVERYONE was a weaver and they are very proud of their individual skills.

      I have just re-read the other researcher's post more carefully and he says there are TWO concurrent registers which cover this period "the purpose of the second register, which is smaller and contains fewer entries, is not clear".

      So - two original documents. Great.

      OC

      Comment


      • #4
        Well what if you were to ask him if he has a copy of the page from the "other" register???

        How come the Archivist at Lancs RO didn't mention the other register?

        Would it be very important for some for Timothy to have been baptised, rather than just born?

        If there really was a second register I doubt the baptism would have taken place on the child's birth day. His lack of baptism record wouldn't have been noted until after his birth and wouldn't have been recorded at all if he was baptised within hours of birth.

        I'm willing to put a fiver on no one being able to find the "other" register!!

        Comment


        • #5
          The child seems very well travelled for someone so young! Was he baptised in at least three different places (IGI) ??

          Comment


          • #6
            My feelings exactly, Merry, but the researcher in question is extremely accurate and knowledgeable and I would feel very cheeky if I challenged him.It does seem that TWO registers were being kept at the same time. I shall have to look at them both to see if I can fathom out what was going on. (Aside: this may be the missing register that everyone has been looking for, for countless years, pmsl!)

            Timothy Holden was from a family of rabid nonconformists, who had none of their other children baptised and made no secret of their contempt for the established church. It is beyond (my) belief that they would bow to pressure to have ONE child baptised: they would count the shilling well spent as a fine.

            This village full of nonconformists rarely needed financial assistance as they "looked after their own" and I haven't found a single one who entered the workhouse, not even the naughty girls. So they could afford to cock a snook at the established church - they simply didnt need them, or their "protection".

            Timothy died in 1791 "in his 91st year" but of course we all know how wrong ages at death can be, especially when the info was given by the granddaughter with whom he lived.

            Another source, which I have found extremely reliable, says he was born "about 1698" and I think this is much more likely than 1700. However, either of those birth years would rule him out of being the child of the James Holden everyone says he is - that James Holden had four children baptised dutifully between 1698 and 1703 - hardly any room for Tim!

            OC

            Comment


            • #7
              Merry

              This man is the most misrecorded in history, I reckon! There are umpteen trees floating around for him, based on misunderstanding, blind copying and STUPIDITY.

              OC

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Olde Crone Holden View Post
                My feelings exactly, Merry, but the researcher in question is extremely accurate and knowledgeable and I would feel very cheeky if I challenged him.

                So you tell him that someone else has challenged you and that whilst you "know" Timothy was baptised, you don't have a copy of the entry, but does he??

                Comment


                • #9
                  Merry

                  He has promised to email me the image. I wait in dread!

                  OC

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    *crosses everything*

                    *wonders if his internet connection/computer will go down/crash*

                    *slaps self*

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Olde Crone Holden View Post
                      My feelings exactly, Merry, but the researcher in question is extremely accurate and knowledgeable and I would feel very cheeky if I challenged him.It does seem that TWO registers were being kept at the same time. I shall have to look at them both to see if I can fathom out what was going on. (Aside: this may be the missing register that everyone has been looking for, for countless years, pmsl!)
                      OC
                      It is not uncommon for there to be two "parish registers" for odd periods.
                      The most I have heard of is three versions of the same register plus a BT all showing variations.

                      This happens due to the fact that all parish registers are transcripts of original day books and sometimes it was decided to re-transcribe the entries to improve, correct, or amend the entries.
                      Cheers
                      Guy
                      Guy passed away October 2022

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Thankyou Guy - that makes me feel slightly better, or maybe slightly worse - not sure!

                        I am still tempted to go with what I found originally - a list clearly headed "Children NOT baptised", as NOT baptised comes before BAPTISED, surely.

                        I am used to seeing mistakes between originals and BTs, which is why I rarely use BTs, but have never come across a situation where there are two ORIGINAL registers and I will have to try to decide which is the original original!

                        OC

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Maybe you should be asking your contact where he got his image from?

                          The second book must be stored somewhere if he has an image from it.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            LOL Merry, did you see the one on the IGI who has him born in 1661 and dying in 1791?

                            (Comes under the heading of STUPIDITY, I think)

                            OC

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              No I didn't see that, but I did enjoy both the entry where his parnets were James Holden and Mrs James Holden and the one where his mother was Elizabeth (?) Halliwell (I went to school with a Halliwell) followed by all the wild stabs at a marriage date!

                              Comment


                              • #16
                                If only they had looked at the parish register, they would have found the marriage of James Holden to Elizabeth Halliwell...and then the baptism of their children, who do not include a Timothy!

                                OC

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X