View Full Version : Is this the 'norm'?
04-01-2007, 5:13 PM
Is this the 'norm' for baptism records, when the Mother was a Widow?
Louisa NAYLOR bap. 02 October 1859, Parents' Names: Grace, Abode: Flockton, Quality, Trade or Profession: Miner .... from fiche of Parish Records.
I purchased Louisa's birth certificate many moons ago, she was born on 01 August 1859, Flockton, Father's name: George NAYLOR deceased ..... he died 22 June 1859.
04-01-2007, 5:39 PM
I wouldn't like to say I know what the 'norm' is but I'm pretty sure the formulation I've seen is more usually to include the father's name (deceased).
Perhaps it was a difficult occasion and the vicar didn't like to ask his name.
Assuming that the "miner" was the father, not the mother, how odd that the entry would mention his trade but not his name. :confused:
When my grandfather was born in 1891, his father had been dead for 5 months. The baptism record gave his father's name and occupation with 'deceased' in brackets. I suppose it depended on what information the vicar was provided with at the time - or what he remembered to write down ;)
04-01-2007, 6:17 PM
The norm (if there is ever a norm in parish records) would be to state
"Posthumas daughter of"
PARNHAM ROBERT, 28 AUG 1802, POSTHUMAS SON OF, RICHARD PARNHAM, ELIZABETH, LABOURER, 22 AUG 1802
05-01-2007, 11:39 AM
Thank you everyone for your replies. :)
I must say that I'm very surprised at the entry, Flockton was a smallish Village and I would have thought that the Vicar knew everybody who lived there. Perhaps he was having a 'lazy' day. ;)
Poor Grace, (nee HINCHCLIFFE) - she had two legitimate children during her marriage to George, but my Gt. Grandmother's baptism record (the aforesaid Louisa), has nearly the same status as the other two children Grace had.
1. Charles Hinchcliffe NAYLOR bap. 09 Oct 1853 Thornhill, son of Grace Hinchcliffe, Spinster of Overton.
George NAYLOR m. Grace HINCHCLIFFE 16 Oct 1853, Thornhill :D
2. Harriet NAYLOR bap. 03 Aug 1862 Thornhill, daughter of Grace NAYLOR, Widow of Overton ....... 3 years after her husband died. ;)
05-01-2007, 9:51 PM
Perhaps sweet Grace had already marked her new man and the vicar wasn't sure if deceased hubby was the dad or new man was not so new. A small village would know these things almost before they happened so... she could have been whispered about and the Vicar was just making sure that he wasn't an accomplice. She sounds like my sort of ancestor LOL
06-01-2007, 8:43 AM
You may well be right, if Grace was like her Mum. ;)
Mary Hinchcliffe had four kiddies ...... a spinster for all of them! :D
13-01-2007, 8:52 PM
these are baptismal records. not all children were baptised as babies. some got baptised when they were 2 or 3, often at the same time as the next sibling.
I have one gt gt grandmother who was baptised when she was 14 years old. It threw me off tracking searching for her parents for a very long time because I thought she was 14 years younger than she actually was.
Powered by vBulletin™ Version 4.1.3 Copyright © 2013 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.