Unconfigured Ad Widget

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

2 baptisms but the names of parents are the grandparents

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

  • 2 baptisms but the names of parents are the grandparents

    John Dixon and Sarah Kerfoot marry 28 Feb 1865 at St Mary's in Lymm
    Harry baptised 3 5 1867 at St Mary The Virgin, Lymm
    Frank baptised 6 9 1868 at St Mary the virgin in Lymm
    In both cases the parents are shown as Robert and Ellen Dixon which are John Dixon's parents. Ellen was born in 1824 so would have been 43 and 44 when the children were born.
    The children were brought up by John and Sarah but I wonder if it is allowed for grandparents to baptise a child...
    Buying the certs may give the answer but there are other certificates that I would buy in preference.
    Last edited by colin taylor; 27-04-12, 11:07.

  • #2
    Originally posted by colin taylor View Post
    John Dixon and Sarah Kerfoot marry 28 Feb 1865 at St Mary's in Lymm
    Harry baptised 3 5 1867 at St Mary The Virgin, Lymm
    Frank baptised 6 9 1878 at St Mary the virgin in Lymm
    In both cases the parents are shown as Robert and Ellen Dixon which are John Dixon's parents. Ellen was born in 1824 so would have been 43 and 44 when the children were born.
    The children were brought up by John and Sarah but I wonder if it is allowed for grandparents to baptise a child...
    Buying the certs may give the answer but there are other certificates that I would buy in preference.
    Women in those days had children until quite late so 43 /44 is not something that would be a 'show stopper' in that regard. In fact even these days some woman only start having children when they're 40!!
    Margaret

    Comment


    • #3
      Ellen had already had at least 9 children to 1860 and she lived until 1891....
      I took the original information from film in Chester Archives and always thought that I had made a transcription error so put them as the children of John as the census shows them as his sons..
      Now confirmed that the notes I took were correct ... perhaps the children never knew who their real parents were.

      Comment


      • #4
        Well some woman have a 'spurt' of fertility when they start the menopause so it's highly possible the children are belonging to those who baptised them. Maybe the son and wife couldn't have any children so they took those two on instead.

        I wouldn't have thought the Parish Priest would have entered the names of grandparents instead of parents and there is no obvious reason why John and Sarah would not have registered the children themselves. Surely in a small place everyone would know who the children belonged to and there would be no point in registering anything other than hthe truth.
        Margaret

        Comment


        • #5
          I have to agree with Margaret, women had children all their lives in those days, my Mcgills had twelve children spanning 26 years, she had her first in 1820 at the age of 19 and her last in 1846 when she was 45. i also cannot see why the grandparents names would be entered instead of the parents. Only way to tell for sure would be to get the certificates.
          KAREN xx

          Comment


          • #6
            It this is the family I've been looking at on the 1881 census, Piece: 3509 Folio: 88 Page: 9, John & Sarah had a daughter born before Harry and Frank and six children after them, with a gap of about two years between them, so it certainly looks as though they were John & Sarah's children.

            Jane

            Comment


            • #7
              Yes Breckland Jane and Fuzzy you have the right family... Alice Dixon was baptised 1865 3 months after the marriage with parents names so why would anyone baptise the next two with grandparents names... they went on to have 14 children if we include Harry and Frank
              Last edited by colin taylor; 26-04-12, 17:01.

              Comment


              • #8
                it really does look like they belong to John and sarah:

                Name Age
                John Dixon 36
                Sarah Dixon 37
                Alice Dixon 16
                Harry Dixon 14
                Frank Dixon 12
                John Dixon 10
                Sarah A. Dixon 7
                Maggie Dixon 5
                Walter Dixon 4
                Amy Dixon 2
                Harriet Dixon

                think the only way you are going to know for sure is to get the certificates. I understand how you feel though as at nearly £10 a pop you like to get the ones that are essential!!
                KAREN xx

                Comment


                • #9
                  I agree with Fuzzy - the only way to know for sure is to get a birth cert and hope that is the truth!
                  Margaret

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    I have one in my family - actually my 3 x GGF. He appears on the census as the child of James and Hannah, fifth of 12 children. As he is my 3 x GGF, I got his BC and he is indeed their child, no reason to doubt.

                    Except........when I finally got around to checking the church register for this family, nine of the ten children were baptised with James and Hannah as their parents, and MY Thomas is there, right date and place, except his mother is Sarah, single woman of the parish (and sister to James). Sarah died shortly after the birth and it seems that James and Hannah registered Thomas as their own child, but didn't have the nerve to lie to the vicar.

                    OC

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      These folk would make our lives as genealogists so much easier if they didn't tell so many fibs to the registrars!!! LOL
                      KAREN xx

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Thannks for the help.. I could get a certificate but from OCs experience it would only be fruitful if the parents were shown as John and Sarah.. never occureed to me that people would lie to a registrar but not to the vicar..

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Colin

                          Please don't let my experience stop you getting certificates! Most people didn't lie.

                          I've just thought of another scenario, in my immediate tree. My daughter's great grandmother had 24 - yes, 24 children. The youngest son was brought up by his eldest sister (who was married by the time he was born, so no deceit there!) even though his parents lived on for many years. I think the mother may well have been just utterly fed up of looking after babies and given this youngest baby to her childless married daughter to raise.

                          OC
                          Last edited by Olde Crone Holden; 27-04-12, 12:01.

                          Comment

                          Working...
                          X