In a message dated 30/03/2004 01:09:49 GMT Daylight Time, rowell_genealogy@hotmail.com writes: On the Staindrop baptisms 1806-1921 I have found a Mother (relative) who had three daughters Baptised 24 Sep 1828, 7 Apr 1833 and 11 Mar 1838 and on all baptisms she is shown as a Spinster. Since sending my first response to this query I have had another thought, which may be relevant. . Staindrop was the centre of a district within which there were many Quakers. Quakers were, with Jews, the only exceptions tothe rule about weddings always having to be in a C of E parish church. However, although Quakers did conduct their own marriage ceremonies, many C of E clergy did not recognise them, so at one level we might say "Perhaps she was a Quaker". However, this raises the objection that Quakers did not believe in infant baptisms and in any case, had nothing to do with "the steeple house" as they called parish churches. I would therefore say that one scenario you should consider is that perhaps she was an ex-Quaker, who had left the Quakers and returned to the C of E. If that is so, then she would have had to have been baptised, as an adult, and there should be a baptism entry at some date in the register to record that. However, if so, that raises the question of why she and her "husband" did not go through a C of E marriage ceremony to make things completely OK by the C of E. I suppose they might have said that their Quaker wedding was valid in the eyes of the Law and that was all they were bothered about, but the local Vicar might have still been unwilling to recognise it as it was not C of E. It might even be that she had left the Quakers but he husband had not, though, if so, then that would have caused him a lot of grief with his "Friends"! The records of the Staindrop Monthly "Quaker" Meeting (Durham Record Office) might give you more information. Geoff Nicholson 57 Manor Park, Concord, WASHINGTON, Tyne & Wear NE37 2BU Ask for details of NBL/DUR family history research in depth by THE local expert, working for YOU.