Genealogy Chat

Forgot to say, there were also children born in 1805 and 1807, so it can't be that one of their birth years has been recorded wrongly.

Peter, I fully agree about not assuming things, but I can't come up with an explanation as to how Thomas and Ann could have had two children in 1806 and why Ann is no longer heard of (or it so it seems at the moment) after her baptism, but then Frances turns up, the same age, without having a baptism recorded. There is sufficient evidence to show that BOTH are recorded as being their daughters. Any suggestions would be most welcome. Regards Amanda

The thing to remember is that anything is possible. Documents such as baptismal records, censuses and birth certificates are only as accurate as the information that was provided in the first place. Some families often called their children by different names, some may have had two names bot only one was ever recorded officially. It was not illegal, nor is even today, to call yourself by a different name, provided it is not done with the intent of committing a fraud or a crime. Also don't fall into the other trap, in assuming that they are one and the same. It is all to easy to convince yourself that they might be calling themselves by a different name but you are actually looking a two completely different people.

Elizabeth, What a sad story. If the vicar hadn't had the excuse of an auditory impairment it would have been unforgivable. Still unprofessional though! Best wishes Amanda

Off topic - mistakes by vicars etc reminds me of my mother's cremation. She died Dec 2004 just 4 days after my daughter's wedding. We were all very upset and the service at the crematorium was rather an ordeal. My sister had asked the vicar to say a few words about her life. Unfortunately, she hadn't realised the vicar was pretty deaf and she told him about my mother, but didn't write anything down. Anyhow, he got my name wrong, he referred to my father as Frank instead of Fred and made at least another 3 mistakes. We just didn't know whether to laugh or cry - at the end we were all feeling rather hysterical (a bit like at school when you know that laughing will get you into trouble in a serious situation!).

I've also come across this. She was probably never known as Ann at all and the family probably didn't even know about the wrong details.

Andrea, That makes complete sense. Maybe the priest filled in the details some time after the ceremony, forgot Frances's real name, saw that her mother was called Ann and put that down instead. Or maybe he genuinely mixed up her mother's name with hers. I don't suppose it helped that he was having to write all this in Latin! lol Regards Amanda

My gt gt grandmother was baptised as Elizabeth in 1813 which was her mother's name but it was obviously a mistake by the vicar. She should have been baptised Ann; she had an elder sister Elizabeth alive at the time of her baptism. I imagine that she was actually baptised as Ann - or surely the family would have mentioned it at the time - and the register was wrongly entered

... just remembered my ancestor ( how could I forget her after all the trouble tracking her name changes) She was born in 1837 and registered Silvey. Baptised Jane Sylvia, she sometimes was seen as Sylvia Jane but on the birth of several of her children, she is Jane. On census I have seen children called by a different name to their baptism name. This was particularly so in my folk if the child had been named after the parent. . eg. I have an Edward Henry named after his father, Edward Henry but in 1901, the younger one is recorded as Henry, the older one as Edward. Gwyn

Thanks for that Grannie Annie. It could well be.

Gwyneth, Thanks for the advice on presenting the text. I'm sure some people don't bother reading any further when they see so much text in one block. It can be quite off-putting! A cousin of mine born in 1970 was registered Ann Michelle at birth - her mother's choice. Her father and siblings didn't like it, so at her baptism four months later, she was named Michelle Ann. Still, her registered name is the one which counts on legal documents. As late as 1983 another cousin was told by the priest at her twin daughters' christening that Andrea, the name chosen for one child, was OK as it was the feminine form of Andrew, which is a saint's name. However, as there was obviously no saint Leanne, the other child had to be given an additional name, so Leanne became Leanne Mary, although on official documents she's just Leanne. I wondered whether 'Ann', if she had become 'Frances', would not have used the name Ann on the census return. Would it not have been illegal to use her presumed name instead? I don't suppose anyone would have known any different though. I strongly feel they are one and the same. Regards Amanda

Amanda,This has happened in my family.I have a Thomas and a Caroline.They moved with there parents from Cornwall to Gurnsey Channel Islands.There a baptism took place of Thomas and Bennett but no Caroline.That was 1851.In 1871(cant find them anywhere on 1861)Thomas has disapeared and Bennett is the same age as what Thomas would have been.I think the baptism was to change the name? Annie

Amanda It's a quirk of these GR boards that the 1st message doesn't appear spaced. I usually write in the message box then cut and paste the bulk of the message into a reply. This way the spacing stays as you want it. Gwyn

I think it is very possible that Ann and Frances are the same person. We have known of a child to be registered in one name and have a different given name at baptism, even after civil registration. ...Cert. obtained and parish records viewed and there is no other explanation. Gwyn

I'm sorry this message does not appear very easy on the eye.I DID set it out in paragraphs with plenty white space. Don't know why it's now in block.

I have found and personally viewed all the baptismal records for my ggg grandfather and his siblings, born between 1792 and 1812. I know they are accurate as the parents' names appear on all and most have common godparents, who seem to be aunts and uncles. By 1820, the family had moved a short distance away and attended a different church. The children baptised at church A are shown as being confirmed at Church B. Four sisters were confirmed in the same year, 1825. They were born in 1801, 1806, 1807 and 1809. Three of the names are the same and match the baptismal records from church A. However, Ann, born and baptised at church A in 1806 does not appear or the confirmation list. In fact, I haven't found a marriage for her or seen her on any later records (not that I've really looked that hard). I had presumed she had died as a child. Strangley, a Frances, also born in 1806 and of the same family, DOES appear on the confirmation list. She DID NOT appear in church A's baptismal records and couldn't have been born of the same parents in the same year that Ann was born. I know Frances was definitely their daughter as she is shown as unmarried and living with her elderly parents on the 1841 census. I've seen a more detailed 1841 census report on a local history site, showing address, proper ages, familial relationships etc.She's definitley their daughter. She also acted as godmother to several of her nieces and nephews. Could Ann have 'become' Frances after her baptism? It's the only explanation I can come up with. As all this predates civil registration and as (as far as I'm aware) a baptismal certificate is not a legal document, could a child's name have been changed to something else after she was baptised? Her mother's name was also Ann. Maybe it was done to lessen the confusuion. Any thoughts?