In message <9f0e0.3bf15890.3f27e2df@aol.com>, Rdpiet@aol.com writes >The only thing I can think of us that the person that sent >this to my frien may have made an error in recording the >batism's or the parents of these chilre were to poor to get >them babtized soon after birth.........Did people pay for >babtisms and if they did not have the funds ther children could >not or woould not babtized until There are some errors in your recording. The four baptisms were recorded in the Butcombe parish register as all on the same day, 20 Mar 1853. Also William is entered as just that, not William Reuben. (A William Reuben was baptised in 1842, parents John and Harriet Clark.) A further detail is that the parents are listed as "Jeremiah and Lucy (deceased)" in each entry. There is a note in the margin by Michael's entry saying "see No.361". Entry No. 361 is also a baptism for Michael, on 29 Jan 1848, with the same details except no "(deceased)". This time there is an entry in the margin saying "See No. 417" - the 1853 entry - and also "P" which most usually denotes a private baptism. There were periods when there was a fee for baptisms, but I think they were earlier and don't apply here. One reason why a family baptised several children at once is because they had previously belonged to some non-conformist church (which may or may not have done infant baptisms) but now for some reason have decided on a CofE ceremony. Another is that there was some doubt that the children had been baptised, perhaps because the family had moved from elsewhere, but that wouldn't apply here. However, I see Lucy Clark was buried on 13 Mar 1853, just a week before these baptisms. It looks like she refused to have the children baptised, for some reason, but her husband arranged it as soon as she was gone - and perhaps even had Michael done previously without her knowledge. It is strange that the rector baptised Michael despite knowing that he'd already been done, perhaps he didn't notice until afterwards. (The first baptism was one of the very last done by the previous rector. His last entry was in Feb 1848 and the first by his successor was in Oct 1848.) The Butcombe registers can be searched through FreeREG http://www.freereg.org.uk/cgi/Search.pl -- David Hartley

Rdpiet@aol.com wrote: > Hello again............Bob from the US (that's me) has > another question > > > Hello, I am encountering quite a disparity between birtth > years and babtisim dates..............Not common at all in > the US nor in other countries I have researched......... > Below is a sampling 8>< for brevity only > Prior to that the early on children were babtized in > there year of birth. > > The only thing I can think of us that the person that > sent this to my frien may have made an error in recording > the batism's or the parents of these chilre were to poor > to get them babtized soon after birth.........Did people > pay for babtisms and if they did not have the funds ther > children could not or woould not babtized until they gave > the church money... Thanks for ay input. There's no charge for a baptism. Although some clergy liked to have children baptised on the first Sunday after the birth, this was not an obligation of any sort, legal or otherwise. It was entirely up to the parents when, or even if, they had their children baptised. Not all children were baptised. If a child was poorly at birth, it might have been privately baptised (also known as a half baptism). Anyone could have done this. It didn't need to be the vicar, rector or curate. It could have been done by the midwife, the child's father, an older sibling, the little old lady next door. If the child survived, it would be received into the church to complete the ceremony. Sometimes both events were noted in the parish register, sometimes one but not the other, sometimes which event was clearly annotated, sometimes not. Sometimes it looks as though a child was baptised twice, which isn't supposed to happen. Sometimes the first part was done, but not the second. Private baptisms can be a bit of a minefield. What struck me as odd was that the baptisms were all on the 20th of a month and all in 1853 The months were all the last of a quarter. 20 March 1853 was a Sunday. 20 June 1853 was a Monday. 20 Sept and 20 Dec 1853 were both Tuesdays. All four baptisms were actually on Sunday 20 March 1853 and there was a note by the entries stating the mother, Lucy, was deceased. Michael was privately baptised on 29 Jan 1848. That means he was /received/ into the church on 20 March 1853. Why there was a delay is another matter. It may be somethng you'll never know the answer to. Lucy would seem to be the key to the reason for it since the children were all baptised after she died. She was buried on 13 Mar 1853, age 37 meaning she would have died between 6 and 12 March. Even back then burials could have been a week after the death. The certificate will give you the actual date and the cause of death. Incidentally William Reuben was the son of John and Harriet CLARK and he was baptismed 23 Jan 1842. Source of this information is the transcript on www.freereg.org.uk The transcription would have been taken from fiche or film of the actual parish registers. -- Charani (UK) OPC for Walton, Ashcott, Shapwick, Greinton and Clutton, SOM http://wsom-opc.org.uk

Do not mean to inundate the bord on questions concering Clark. Only one question left: If I order a death certificate/record for Jeremiah Clak (1795 - 1871) will the death record sill contain the name and occupation of his father even though deceased. Thanks, Bob

Bob, A word of warning. There are three deaths for Jeremiah Clark in Axbridge after 1861. And unfortunately 1861 census only shows two. Both are born in Butcombe and live in the Axbridge area. You'll need to make sure you have the right one. Of the two in 1861:- (i) the elder born c1783 is still living with wife Sarah. This best matches the age of your 1871 death (ii) the younger born c1801 is already a widower. If you go back to 1851, all three appear. Wives are Sarah, Lucy and Mary. And if you look at 1881 census, Jeremiah and Mary are still alive. My feeling is your Jeremiah was born c1783, married Sarah and died in1871 aged 87. Jeremiah born c1801 married Lucy and was widowed by 1861. He probably died in 1863 Jeremiah born c1804 married Mary and died 1886 age 82. Either way, you'll need to check carefully. Peter

Thank you very much Ddavid for your informative response......... Greatly appreciated.......... Bob

Tank you very much Charani for your very informative information and explanations...... And also of the URL you provided.......It is greatly appreciated......... Cheers and regards....Bob

Rdpiet@aol.com wrote: > That is about as clear as mud that there is both a mailing > list and a message board for Somerset.......Is not that somewhat > duplicative. Some people prefer a mailing list, some prefer a message board. Some people only want to have answers to their specific questions which makes the boards the better option for them. Others prefer to have mails on different aspects of research in addition to answers to their own questions so they can pick up useful hints, tips and sites that could help them in their own research. That's why there's both. It's primarily the county lists that have corresponding boards. Sub-divisions don't have them unless specifically requested. At one time all the message boards were gatewayed to the mailing lists. It's how things were done when the lists and boards were first started, upwards of 30 years ago. Many of the lists have closed the gateways now so they are essentially two separate things. Hence the apparently unnecessary duplication. > Thanks the URL > http://home.clara.net/dixons/Certificates/indexbd.htm You're welcome :) -- Charani (UK) OPC for Walton, Ashcott, Shapwick, Greinton and Clutton, SOM http://wsom-opc.org.uk

Bob, The workhouse served as poor house, hospital, orphanage and retirement home for the under privileged. You can read all about them at http://www.workhouses.org.uk/ If he died in January, Jeremiah Clark wouldn't be on 1871 census. You could check for other family members though. I'd go back to 1861 and 1851 census and see what you can find. It will help identification if you have his age from the BDM death record. Peter

Rdpiet@aol.com wrote: > Not quite sure what that will have perhaps an informant or perhaps > parents names........ Parents names aren't given on English or Welsh death certificates. The father's is given in the occupation column for a child. You'll find this useful for what is and is not on English and Welsh BMD certificates. http://home.clara.net/dixons/Certificates/indexbd.htm > Not quite sure why when I click reply all the message goes > back to only the message board and not the orginator of the post > being ansered.......Not a problem to incoperate the sender but things > do not normally operate that way........ This is a mailing list rather than a message board and is set so that all replies go to the list only, not to both the list and the respondent. That way everyone gets to see to progress of a query and can add information or make suggestions as to where to look for help, etc. The whole thread is archived so a possible family member or someone else can find it later on by using a search engine. This is useful if someone is not subscribed to a Rootsweb list. Not all the Rootsweb lists are set up the same way. The mailing lists I administer on behalf of Rootsweb are also set up so replies go only to the list. There is a message board for Somerset. All messages posted there go only to the board, not to the respondent. -- Charani (UK) OPC for Walton, Ashcott, Shapwick, Greinton and Clutton, SOM http://wsom-opc.org.uk

On 2013/07/29 07:51, Rdpiet@aol.com wrote: > I have the census records for 1841, 1851, and 1861 with his > age at 45, 56, and 60. His death in 1871 denotes he was 86, > making his birth 1784........Thus a birth year of 1795 us being > used. ...His wife is in the same cemetery and died in 1853. The 60 of 1861 looks to be an obvious transcription error, which could have occurred at two different times. a) From the original, householders schedule when it was being transcribed onto the page that currently survives and has been digitised at least twice. b) During either of the transcriptions produced during the digitisation process. If both the 1861 transcripts are identical and the images are easy to read (the 1861 is notoriously difficult to read in parts resulting in poor transcriptions), then the error happened earlier. With all other ages being consistent, I would think the age should have been 66. -- Regards, Mike Fry Johannesburg

Hello again............Bob from the US (that's me) has another question Hello, I am encountering quite a disparity between birtth years and babtisim dates..............Not common at all in the US nor in other countries I have researched......... Below is a sampling ester b 1842, William 1846, Michael 1848, and Francis 1851. Esther Clark Jeremiah and Lucy 20-Mar 1853 Butcombe William Reuben Clark Jeremiah and Lucy 20-Dec 1853 Butcombe Michael Clark Jeremiah and Lucy 20-Sep 1853 Butcombe Francis Henry Clark Jeremiah and Lucy 20-Jun 1853 Butcombe Prior to that the early on children were babtized in there year of birth. The only thing I can think of us that the person that sent this to my frien may have made an error in recording the batism's or the parents of these chilre were to poor to get them babtized soon after birth.........Did people pay for babtisms and if they did not have the funds ther children could not or woould not babtized until they gave the church money... Thanks for ay input. Bob

Rdpiet@aol.com wrote: > Thanks Peer for the information on the work house......Greatly > appreciated. > > I have the census records for 1841, 1851, and 1861 with his > age at 45, 56, and 60. His death in 1871 denotes he was 86, > making his birth 1784........Thus a birth year of 1795 us being > used. ...His wife is in the same cemetery and died in 1853. There is a peculiarity with the 1841 census ONLY. All ages above 15 were rounded down to the nearest 5. Thus someone shown as aged 15 would be between 15 and 19. Someone of 20 would have been between 20 and 24 and so on. Those under up to 15 would have their ages shown exactly - or as the head of household gave on the census schedule. Censuses from 1851 onwards give ages exactly. If your man was aged 86 at death but only 60 ten years earlier, I'd suggest you are looking at two different men. Your man would have been born /about/ 1784. I would advise against using a birth date of around 1795. You could very easily end up chasing the wrong family especially as CLARK is ranked the 34th most common name in England and Wales (Information source: www.taliesin-arlein.net/names/search.php). -- Charani (UK) OPC for Walton, Ashcott, Shapwick, Greinton and Clutton, SOM http://wsom-opc.org.uk

That is about as clear as mud that there is both a mailing list and a message board for Somerset.......Is not that somewhat duplicative. Thanks the URL http://home.clara.net/dixons/Certificates/indexbd.htm Bob

HI Peter...My friends husband who lives in Canada is a decendant of Jeremiah's son Francis Henry Clark of 1851 vutage She is in the process of ordering the death certificate ........Not quite sure what that will have perhaps an informant or perhaps parents names........ Always good to have a dialogue on geneaology related matters....Appreciate you input again.. Not quite sure why when I click reply all the message goes back to only the message board and not the orginator of the post being ansered.......Not a problem to incoperate the sender but things do not normally operate that way........ Regards, Bob

Thanks the info on the 1861 census Mike..........Have a clearer understanding now about that census and the digitazattion process. Agree If both the 1861 transcripts are identical and the images are easy to read (the 1861 is notoriously difficult to read in parts resulting in poor transcriptions), then the error happened earlier. With all other ages being consistent, I would think the age should have been 66. The only reason I have Jeremiah dying in 1871, albeit his age is 86 us that his wife Lucy is in the same cemetery.,,,,,,,,,,,,,Dont imagine I will ever find his definiive bithdate..........The other reason I think the death year is correct even thoigh reported as being 86 because when Jeremiah's brother died in 1864 the cemetery list also has him listed at the Axebridge work house. Cheers and regard.........Bob

Thank you Charani for pointing out the nuiances of the 1841 census,,.......... Per the recap I previously sent to the board which included the 1841 thru 1861 cenus I am pretty sure I have the roight family... Regards Bob

Thanks tiye additional post Peter.........Understand what you are suggesting......Think I have the family pretty well squared away........... Jeremiah Clarke, G Grandfather Birth: 1795, Butcombe, Somerset, England Death: 1871, Axbridge, Somerset Father: Clarke, GG Grandfather In 1841 in Butcombe, Somerset, England Jermiah Olish 45 Lavera Olish 25 Elleanor Olish 7 George Olish 6 Susan Olish 2 Mo In 1851 in Butcombe, Somerset, England Jeremiah Clark 56 - Ag Lab Lucy Clark 39 George Clark 16 Susan Clark 11 - Scholar Hester Clark 9 William Clark 5 Michael Clark 3 Francis Clark 2 Mo Hester Bond 18 - Visitor In 1861 in Axbridge, Blagdon, England Jeremiah Clark 60 William Clark 15 Francis Clark 10 Research: England & Wales, FreeBMD Death Index, 1837-1915 about Jeremiah Clark Name:Jeremiah Clark Estimated Birth Year:abt 1786 Date of Registration: Jan-Feb-Mar 1871 Age at Death:85 Registration District:Axbridge Inferred County:Somerset Volume:5c Page:465 Spouse: Lucy Mills, G Grandmother Birth: 1812, Almonsbury, Gloucestershire, England Death: 1853, Axbridge, Somerset Research: England & Wales, FreeBMD Death Index, 1837-1915 about Lucy Clark Name:Lucy Clark Date of Registration:Jan-Feb-Mar 1853 Registration District:Axbridge Inferred County:Somerset Volume:5c Page:505 Marr: 1833, Butcombe Somersetshire Pallot's Marriage Index for England: 1780 - 1837 about Jeremiah Clark Name: Jeremiah Clark Spouse: Lucy Mills Marriage Date: 1833 Parish: Butcombe Somersetshire Children: Eleanor (1834-1846) George (1835-1853) Susan (1841-) Hester (1842-1858) William (1843-) Michael (1848-1922) Francis Henry (1851-1919) Cheers and regards. Bob

Thanks Peer for the information on the work house......Greatly appreciated. I have the census records for 1841, 1851, and 1861 with his age at 45, 56, and 60. His death in 1871 denotes he was 86, making his birth 1784........Thus a birth year of 1795 us being used. ...His wife is in the same cemetery and died in 1853. Thanks again and have a great day. Bob ....

Hello all. New to the message board.......My name is Bob Pieterse and I live in FL, USA.. I am trying to help a friend on her Clark ancestors from Butcombe, Somerset, England..........My friends Great grandfather was Jeremish Clark. I have his deth record from the BMD denoting his passong in the Jan thru Mar time frame in 1871.....Another peron had a cemetery listing and said his death date was Jan 1 oe 3 of that year.......So far o good. He is buried at ST Muchaels ad the Angels cenetery... The cemetery listing shows a reference to .Axbridge work house GGoogling the term I found it was associated with inmates. Can anyone shed aylight on what the Axbrudge work house was........ Thanks in advance. Cheers and regards Bob

I am looking for information on Joseph MUMFORD and wife Mary who appeared in Rodney Stoke sometime after the birth of their son William about 1767 and before the birth of daughter Mary which occurred in Rodney Stoke in 1776. He, and his son, soon became pillars of the community and the descendants remained there for over a century. Joseph may have come from Crewkerne, a hotbed of Mumfords, but I can't find anything conclusive. His wife, Mary, may have been a REEVE because in her 1811 will she mentions a rent "given to me by my father out of an Estate called Reeves." Donna