Reg, In my experience, when I have run across a baptism that does not give parents' names, it is usually an indication of an adult baptism. I have in my own research seen children as old as 16 (and as old as their early 20s outside of my personal surname interests) baptised with the parents' names (and the child's age) given, so my guess is that William was probably over 18 at the time of his baptism. It would be nice if the registers would give us ages, parents' names, or even stated "an adult" but of course, we aren't always that lucky. Another possibility is that, if you are looking at BTs, the bishop/transcriber may have omitted details, such as the parents' names, that he considered extraneous - perhaps to save time - and the original PRs may hold more information. I've seen happen regularly this in at least one Hertfordshire parish, but it sounds as though you're already working from the PRs in this case, so this is probably not relevant. I hope this is somehow helpful - if not terribly encouraging. :-) Best Wishes, -- Toni Skidmore Tingewick list Co-Admin Chicago, USA Researching: CLIFFORD/CLIFTON, DEANE, HOLLAND, NEAL(E), and NOQUET in Bucks -------------- Original message -------------- > Dear Listers, > I have rejoined the list after a break and would appreciate any clues comments > etc on what has been a brick wall for some time. I have traced my Oakley lineage > back to possibly a christening recorded at Oakley in 1734. The Christening is in > the register as "William Oakely The 23rd of February". Adjacent records state > details of parents etc in the usual manner, but not in the case of William > Oakely. Does anyone have any explanations why this might have been the case? > Regards > Reg Oakley > "When I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of the Human > Race." > H.G. Wells.