liverpud wrote: > Temple Burials: > > 1799 132, 27.11.1799 WORTH Matilda, Child Westbury, Under Tomb > > Could the name Matilda be applied to a child named Mary? > > As I have a great-aunt Mary Worth b. 1787 Luccombe but was living in Bristol > circa 1799. Matilda and Mary might well be one and the same, although I'm not sure a 12 year old would necessarily have been referred to as a child at that time. The usual pet version of Matilda is Patty but a child could be known by any name. She could have been named for a favoured/favourite female relative but known by her parents preferred name. -- Charani (UK) OPC for Walton, Greinton and Clutton, SOM Asst OPC for Ashcott and Shapwick, SOM http://wsom-opc.org.uk http://www.savethegurkhas.co.uk/

Hi Charani, Thanks very much. Mary Worth was alive in 1799 as mentioned in her father's (Charles Olliver Worth 1749-1800) letter from Bristol Sept. 12, 1799 to his nephew, John Worth, Esq., Worth House, Washfield nr. Tiverton. He said in the letter that his poor little girl had a nasty cough... Have checked through records of The Temple Holy Cross and Westbury on Trym, Bristol, and found nothing as to her marriage or death. Note: There was a burial at Temple Church 1799 132, 27.11.1799 Worth Matilda Child Westbury under a Tomb -- could this be her? (;-)) Edna - Ottawa ----- Original Message ----- From: "Charani" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Sunday, December 26, 2010 11:14 AM Subject: Re: [B&D] WORTH Mary or Matilda? liverpud wrote: > Temple Burials: > > 1799 132, 27.11.1799 WORTH Matilda, Child Westbury, Under Tomb > > Could the name Matilda be applied to a child named Mary? > > As I have a great-aunt Mary Worth b. 1787 Luccombe but was living in > Bristol > circa 1799. Matilda and Mary might well be one and the same, although I'm not sure a 12 year old would necessarily have been referred to as a child at that time. The usual pet version of Matilda is Patty but a child could be known by any name. She could have been named for a favoured/favourite female relative but known by her parents preferred name. -- Charani (UK) OPC for Walton, Greinton and Clutton, SOM Asst OPC for Ashcott and Shapwick, SOM http://wsom-opc.org.uk http://www.savethegurkhas.co.uk/ ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Hi all, I actually beg to differ! I suggest that the pet form for Matilda is Tilly. Phil (Looks for a quick shelter)

Thanks Philip. As we know Mary and Matilda were very common names. Just a guess on my part though. (;-)) Edna - Ottawa ----- Original Message ----- From: "Phil Warn" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Sunday, December 26, 2010 12:11 PM Subject: [Bulk] Re: [B&D] WORTH Mary or Matilda? Hi all, I actually beg to differ! I suggest that the pet form for Matilda is Tilly. Phil (Looks for a quick shelter) ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Phil Warn wrote: > Hi all, > > I actually beg to differ! One of my cousins was baptised Patty but she appeared in one census as Matilda. I spent ages trying to find this additional child who was about the same age as my Patty. I discovered much later that Patty and Matilda were one and the same because Patty is the pet form of Matilda. It would appear the enumerator "corrected" the name, making an error in the process. It's a subject that's been discussed many times on various lists. > I suggest that the pet form for Matilda is Tilly. That is a pet form. I call my grand dau Tilly because I don't like Matilda but she's most often called Tilda or Matty. -- Charani (UK) OPC for Walton, Greinton and Clutton, SOM Asst OPC for Ashcott and Shapwick, SOM http://wsom-opc.org.uk http://www.savethegurkhas.co.uk/