Your opinion wanted

[ozgirl]

I have 2 cousins born 5 years apart in a small village - Simon1 was born in 1777, father John, and Simon2 was born in 1782, father Thomas.

In 1800, one of the Simons marries. One of the witnesses was Thomas. The other Simon vanishes. All this information I found out on the PRs yesterday.

When I got home I found that Simon is on a number of Ancestry trees and also a web page of the family genealogy. On all these he is assumed to be Simon2, the son of Thomas, because Thomas was a witness at his wedding.

However, on further checking, Simon and his wife are on the 1841 and 1851 census. On the 1841, his age gives a dob of 1776, and on the 1851 the dob is 1777.

As John died in 1781, and Thomas was the family elder, would it be possible that Simon1 could have had his uncle as a witness?

So I would like your opinions . is it Simon1 or Simon2 who married?

Linda

[fran]

It looks more likely that the Simon in census records is Simon1 as the year of birth is fairly consistent,unless of course the 1841 ages were rounded down.Simon 2s age would then be 55 and on 1851 it could be just wrong!
I still think it is Simon1
Fran

[Elderflower]

Did either of them have a brother called Thomas who could have been the witness? Can you find burial records for one of the Simons? Have you found all their siblings and traced them through the censuses? I have found quite frequently that people did not always use the forename they were baptised with and you can sometimes find them under different names (I'm wondering about the "lost" Simon). To be sure, I think you have to do as much investigation around these two as possible. Elimination is often the way forward.

Hope this helps.

[ozgirl]

Hi Pat, Simon2 had a brother Thomas who was still around in 1800, he married in 1801. I have traced most of Simon1's siblings, just one sister unaccounted for. Simon2 was one of 9, 3 are so far accounted for. As I said this village is very small - the PR's from 1720 to 1836 only took up about half a microfiche. There were approx 3-4 weddings a year and about the same number of burials. Births came to around 10-12 a year. I did go through the fiche quite thoroughly, so I don't think I missed any entries for the family. We did find some marriages in the nearest big city (Oxford) which is only 5 miles away, so there is a possibility that, for example, one of the Simons went to Oxford and died there before start of censuses/civil registration, but unfortunately where I was yesterday did not have the PR's for Oxford itself. I think it will mean a trip to Oxford sometime!

Thanks for your help, and also for your opinion Fran. (I also think it is Simon1 by the way)

Linda

[Christine in Herts]

How far do you have ot travel to get to Oxford? If it's any distance it might be worth getting some of the Oxon FHS CDs of parish register transcriptions. That would mean that if/when you actually get to Oxford, you'll already know which documents you need and where to look in them.

Christine

[Janet in Yorkshire]

I agree with Christine's advice.

Having a transcript at home is often very useful - you come back from the record office and start analysing your findings, only to throw up the next set of questions. So often you unearth a further set of names to investigate in the same parish - you can get busy straight away if you have a transcript.
Doing the preliminary search at home really frees up that all so important record office time.

Jay

[ozgirl]

I'm a bit confused - I looked at PR transcripts yesterday - do you mean that there can be more info on the PRs themselves - I'm about an hours drive away from Oxford, but need to fit in with school times which shortens the day a bit. I am thinking about getting one of the FHS CD's, and possibly the marriage registers for Oxfordshire too.

Linda

[Christine in Herts]

The actual registers may carry the odd extra detail. And even good transcripts could carry mistranscriptions. When you look at the registers, you might spot something that you wouldn't have noticed in the PRs - a combination of names, perhaps.

Christine

[Blackberry]

Re Oxford marriages. It could be that the incumbent of the parish was an Oxford don; many dons were clerics and took on the incumbency of a nearby village as it was extra income for them. They often (for their own convenience) persuaded their parishioners to come into Oxford to marry, and 'borrowed' a city church for the wedding. Usually the couple will still be described as 'otp' as they were the minister's parishioners. So an Oxford marriage doesn't necessarily mean that they'd moved to Oxford. Just something to bear in mind.

[Janet]

I would agree with Blackberry on this one. A marriage in a particular place whether it be Oxford or anywhere else does not necessarily mean that person is from Oxford or settling in Oxford to have his family. I always cite my own 1699 marriage of a couple in Peterborough who married by licence in Peterborough Cathedral, but they actually lived some 15 miles south of Peterborough in a small village where they lived and had their children. It can sometimes be misleading if you find same name families living in the area as this is where so many people can end up climbing a wrong tree. I am sure a few iof mine are clambering Peterborough trees, instead of finding the marriage licence at the CRO as proof that they actually come from the village 15 miles away from Peterborough.

Janet

[Little Nell]

The other advantage in looking at the parish registers is that you can see the actual signatures. Where you've got two candidates you might be able to eliminate one this way - provided you have a definite signature elsewhere to compare!