Confusion over baptism/death dates

[Mary C]

Hi,
I have two brothers, both named John Newick born in Lydeard St Lawrence, Somerset.

John-1 baptism 9 March 1783
John-2 baptism 1 Feb 1789
I have checked the actual scanned registers to confirm these dates.

I had assumed John-1 died before John-2 was born in February 1789 and there is a death record for a John 15 March 1789 - a few weeks After John-2 was born.
The death record is from Ancestry and also FreeReg but I have not been able to check actual registers.

It seems to me the only possibilities are -

* Rebecca (the mother) gave birth to John-2 and because John-1 was seriously ill/dying decided to name this second son after him,

* The death date should actually be 1788 which would mean John-1 died well before his brother was born.

I have had a couple of instances in another family where they gave two sons the same name - adding Elder and Younger - but in those cases they had been born several years apart with other children in between.

I would welcome any thoughts which might throw some light on this.
Thanks,
Mary

[emeltee]

Is it possible that John number one died but for some reason the burial was not recorded and that the 1789 burial is that of John number two.

Emeltee

[Mary C]

Is it possible that John number one died but for some reason the burial was not recorded and that the 1789 burial is that of John number two.

Emeltee

Thanks but the John born 1789 shows up in the 1841 census, married with children

[Sandyhall]

Nothing new here lots of family's named a second child with the same name as a child that had died, maybe she did'n name him until the other died, children are not all ways named strait away at birth.

[emeltee]

Forgot to add, and if this is wrong I'm sure someone will correct me, but the Church year for the Parish Registers ran from Lady Day, March 25th, until Lady Day the following year so some entries for Jan, Feb March of one year are often included in the previous year. For example a parish register will have entries from April 1789 March 1790 so the entries after December of 1789 are actually for events which took place in 1790 but tend to be classed as being in 1789. This is why some transcriptions give 1789/90 for the year. I'm not explainnig this very well but I hope you get the gist.

Emeltee

[Pam Downes]

Forgot to add, and if this is wrong I'm sure someone will correct me, but the Church year for the Parish Registers ran from Lady Day, March 25th, until Lady Day the following year so some entries for Jan, Feb March of one year are often included in the previous year. For example a parish register will have entries from April 1789 March 1790 so the entries after December of 1789 are actually for events which took place in 1790 but tend to be classed as being in 1789. This is why some transcriptions give 1789/90 for the year. I'm not explainnig this very well but I hope you get the gist.

Emeltee

The changeover from the 'old style' to the 'new style' calendars happened in 1752, so by the 1780s there shouldn't have been any confusion and unless the vicar has forgotten to put the year in the register something which was transcribed as 1790 would have taken place in 1790. It should only be events prior to 1752 which would have the year described as e.g. 1701/1702
Google/other search engine 'Calendar change 1752'

Pam

[emeltee]

Thanks Pam. Wasn't sure which year everything changed.

Emeltee

[Mary C]

Forgot to add, and if this is wrong I'm sure someone will correct me, but the Church year for the Parish Registers ran from Lady Day, March 25th, until Lady Day the following year so some entries for Jan, Feb March of one year are often included in the previous year. For example a parish register will have entries from April 1789 March 1790 so the entries after December of 1789 are actually for events which took place in 1790 but tend to be classed as being in 1789. This is why some transcriptions give 1789/90 for the year. I'm not explainnig this very well but I hope you get the gist.

Emeltee

Yes, I wondered about that. I get confused about the change to the Gregorian Calendar etc. The scans of the original baptism definitely are 1 Feb 1789 - and he was actually the first entry for that year - no-one in January and Ancestry and FreeReg both have just 1789. As you say, sometimes the record will have both dates, e.g. 1755/6 but these didn't.
It would work out well if he was born in 1790 as that would mean he was born after his brother died.
The other thought is that if his brother died in March 1788 and not 1789 - that would be a solution.
Mary

[Lesley Robertson]

Do you know the names of the grandfathers? In some families there was pressure to stick to the naming pattern and I know of several (admittedly all in Scotland) where 2 boys were given the same forename because both grandfathers had it... They didn't even always have a middle name - you got David and Davy, James and Jimmy, etc in daily life.

[Mary C]

Do you know the names of the grandfathers? In some families there was pressure to stick to the naming pattern and I know of several (admittedly all in Scotland) where 2 boys were given the same forename because both grandfathers had it... They didn't even always have a middle name - you got David and Davy, James and Jimmy, etc in daily life.

Their father was also John and it is a name which was used through several generations but I don't have the name of any grandparents at this stage.