Hello, Thanks for your suggestions. What puzzled me is why Phineas should have chosen not to baptise his first two sons, even though he paid for their apprenticeship. I was wondering if there might be a reason for this -- other than lack of money or nonconformism, which seem not to be in play here. David: re. missing baptisms, bear in mind that we only have the index to the registers. There has been very little -- perhaps suspiciously little -- research access to the record archive, so it is not clear how accurate the index is. There are certainly numerous examples of misspellings. Also, birth registration only became compulslory after 1875. Prior to that it was the responsibility of registrars to gather together the records. Michael -----Original Message----- From: Mr Chillistone [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 01 August 2006 00:39 To: Michael Scott; [email protected] Subject: Re: [OEL] missing baptisms Michael, I can't help with the missing baptisms, but has anyone got any thoughts on why the births of 5 children to a couple back down my family tree appear in the parish register, but are completely absent from the national births, marriages and deaths records? Kind regards, David Chillistone ----- Original Message ----- From: "Michael Scott" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Sunday, July 30, 2006 5:49 PM Subject: [OEL] missing baptisms > Hello, > > I've found a puzzling case of a late c18 Whitechapel family who did not > baptise their first two children. I have quite a lot of background > information about them and can find no obvious explanation. I wonder if > anyone has further ideas? > > Phineas Johnson and Mary Taylor married 1772 and lived on White Lyon Street > in Whitechapel (the South end of today's Leman Street). The baptisms of nine > of their children are registered at St Mary Whitechapel between 1777 and > 1792. However, there are (at least) two more: > > (1) Henry George Johnson, apprenticed a Painter Stainer and baptised in his > 40s at St Mary Lambeth (giving his date of birth 1773) > (2) James Taylor Johnson, apprenticed a Stationer in 1790. Presumably born > 1776 or earlier. > > Two explanations occurred to me, but neither seems probable: > > I wondered if Phineas might be a nonconformist -- certainly a popular option > in Whitechapel at this time. But I've found no evidence for this. He was > baptised himself, as were all his brothers and sisters, at St Mary > Whitechapel and he married at St John Wapping. > > Also, Phineas appears to have been financially ok for most of his life, if > not particularly wealthy. He was apprenticed a Painter Stainer, became free > of the City and worked as an oilman or colourman. He paid taxes on the > property in White Lyon St until his death in 1804; he also inherited > property in Hendon which he sold in the 1780s. None of the parish records > identify him as poor. > > thanks, > > Michael > -- > No virus found in this outgoing message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.10.4/399 - Release Date: 25/07/2006 > > > ==== OLD-ENGLISH Mailing List ==== > OLD-ENGLISH Web Page > http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~oel/ > > > > > -- > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.10.5/404 - Release Date: 31/07/06 > > -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.10.5/403 - Release Date: 28/07/2006 -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.10.5/403 - Release Date: 28/07/2006

Hello Michael Perhaps he did baptise them but in a different church that you haven't found yet. I had thought that two of my relatives were not baptised until they were discovered in a different church register to the others. What is more, the last birth was registered in the civil registry. It took a while to find them all but eventually I found that they had all been either baptised or registered. However, in the family of the son of this family, of his three sons, the first one was registered, the second wasn't but the third was. The only reason I can think of is that the second son was born when the first was less than two years old. The father worked on seagoing tugs and so perhaps the capability of the mother to register this birth may have been reduced. By the time of the third birth, perhaps her better health, a possible presence of her husband, and the ages of the other children, made it easier to register the latest one. Perhaps, when it came to baptising your relatives two eldest sons, it was a case of priorities. He didn't see it as necessary as providing for their futures by buying their apprenticeships. When it comes to misspellings, perhaps it's more a case of misreadings of the originals. If I hadn't known the maiden name of the mother of one of my 2x greats, I would have been none the wiser from the copy certificate. As it was a fairly unusual name, the transcriber or copier had done his/her best but got it wrong. As for the civil registers, if you know the rough date of the entry and you know the district, you can try the local register office. They have to keep their own records and, provided you don't expect them to carry out a lot of searching, they will look for you and provide a certificate. Audrey ----- Original Message ----- From: "Michael Scott" <M[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, August 01, 2006 9:58 PM Subject: RE: [OEL] missing baptisms > Hello, > > Thanks for your suggestions. What puzzled me is why Phineas should have > chosen not to baptise his first two sons, even though he paid for their > apprenticeship. I was wondering if there might be a reason for this -- > other > than lack of money or nonconformism, which seem not to be in play here. > > David: re. missing baptisms, bear in mind that we only have the index to > the > registers. There has been very little -- perhaps suspiciously little -- > research access to the record archive, so it is not clear how accurate the > index is. There are certainly numerous examples of misspellings. > Also, birth registration only became compulslory after 1875. Prior to that > it was the responsibility of registrars to gather together the records. > > > Michael > -----Original Message----- > From: Mr Chillistone [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: 01 August 2006 00:39 > To: Michael Scott; [email protected] > Subject: Re: [OEL] missing baptisms > > > Michael, > > I can't help with the missing baptisms, but has anyone got any thoughts on > why the births of 5 children to a couple back down my family tree appear > in > the parish register, but are completely absent from the national births, > marriages and deaths records? > > Kind regards, > > David Chillistone > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Michael Scott" <[email protected]> > To: <[email protected]> > Sent: Sunday, July 30, 2006 5:49 PM > Subject: [OEL] missing baptisms > > >> Hello, >> >> I've found a puzzling case of a late c18 Whitechapel family who did not >> baptise their first two children. I have quite a lot of background >> information about them and can find no obvious explanation. I wonder if >> anyone has further ideas? >> >> Phineas Johnson and Mary Taylor married 1772 and lived on White Lyon > Street >> in Whitechapel (the South end of today's Leman Street). The baptisms of > nine >> of their children are registered at St Mary Whitechapel between 1777 and >> 1792. However, there are (at least) two more: >> >> (1) Henry George Johnson, apprenticed a Painter Stainer and baptised in > his >> 40s at St Mary Lambeth (giving his date of birth 1773) >> (2) James Taylor Johnson, apprenticed a Stationer in 1790. Presumably >> born >> 1776 or earlier. >> >> Two explanations occurred to me, but neither seems probable: >> >> I wondered if Phineas might be a nonconformist -- certainly a popular > option >> in Whitechapel at this time. But I've found no evidence for this. He was >> baptised himself, as were all his brothers and sisters, at St Mary >> Whitechapel and he married at St John Wapping. >> >> Also, Phineas appears to have been financially ok for most of his life, >> if >> not particularly wealthy. He was apprenticed a Painter Stainer, became > free >> of the City and worked as an oilman or colourman. He paid taxes on the >> property in White Lyon St until his death in 1804; he also inherited >> property in Hendon which he sold in the 1780s. None of the parish records >> identify him as poor. >> >> thanks, >> >> Michael >> -- >> No virus found in this outgoing message. >> Checked by AVG Free Edition. >> Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.10.4/399 - Release Date: >> 25/07/2006 >> >> >> ==== OLD-ENGLISH Mailing List ==== >> OLD-ENGLISH Web Page >> http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~oel/ >> >> >> >> >> -- >> No virus found in this incoming message. >> Checked by AVG Free Edition. >> Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.10.5/404 - Release Date: 31/07/06 >> >> > > > -- > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.10.5/403 - Release Date: 28/07/2006 > > -- > No virus found in this outgoing message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.10.5/403 - Release Date: 28/07/2006 > > > ==== OLD-ENGLISH Mailing List ==== > OLD-ENGLISH Web Page > http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~oel/ > > > > -- > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.10.5/403 - Release Date: 28/07/2006 > >

In message <[email protected]>, Michael Scott <[email protected]> writes >Hello, > >Thanks for your suggestions. What puzzled me is why Phineas should have >chosen not to baptise his first two sons, even though he paid for their >apprenticeship. I was wondering if there might be a reason for this -- other >than lack of money or nonconformism, which seem not to be in play here. > >David: re. missing baptisms, bear in mind that we only have the index to the >registers. I am not sure what this means - civil registers of birth, or parish etc registers of baptisms - see below. > There has been very little -- perhaps suspiciously little -- >research access to the record archive, so it is not clear how accurate the >index is. There are certainly numerous examples of misspellings. >Also, birth registration only became compulslory after 1875. Prior to that >it was the responsibility of registrars to gather together the records. There is no real link between baptisms and registration of births. Baptisms were not compulsory (after about 1720, and even then the rules were widely ignored); if they did happen, they could take place in any church or chapel the parents wished to use at the time, and may not be consistently in any one denomination. A lot of people experimented with various chapels, not all of whose registers survive. Civil Registration, which only started in 1837, had nothing to do with the church at all, was supposed to be compulsory from then, but the observamce was up to the registrar and not the parent, with no enforcement by fines till 1875, as you say. So it is not at all suyrprising to find, in the early days, baptism without registration or registration without baptism. There were only a few circumstances which involved producing evidence of date of birth or parentage, and the reasons for these tended top arise years after the event. Mostly, they could be dealt with by the swearing of an affidavit by the parents or siblings or anyone who could provide personal knowledge of the birth/parents, as needed. > -- Eve McLaughlin Author of the McLaughlin Guides for family historians Secretary Bucks Genealogical Society

>> >>David: re. missing baptisms, bear in mind that we only have the index to the >>registers. > >I am not sure what this means - civil registers of birth, or parish etc >registers of baptisms - see below. This was a response to David's earlier email, not adding to what I was saying about baptisms. I meant that we do not have direct access to the certificate collection, only to the catalogues at the FRC or online indexes. It's not clear how accurately the latter describe the collection. Michael -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.10.5/403 - Release Date: 28/07/2006

Yes, the funny part about that is that our local big cotton mill employed pauper apprentices from as far apart as London and the Isle of Skye. I have always found that amazing as I can't imagine so many paupers being produced by such a rural place as the Isle of Skye. Although our mill had a very good reputation for the treatment of it's apprentices, there were some infamous mills around that used these poor children and expended them like pieces of machinery to be discarded when of no more use. Taddington parish refused to take any more paupers cast adrift from the Calver Mill. Audrey ----- Original Message ----- From: "Eve McLaughlin" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, August 03, 2006 12:56 PM Subject: Re: [OEL] missing baptisms > In message <[email protected]>, > Michael Scott <[email protected]> writes >>Hello, >> >>Thanks for your suggestions. What puzzled me is why Phineas should have >>chosen not to baptise his first two sons, even though he paid for their >>apprenticeship. I was wondering if there might be a reason for this -- >>other >>than lack of money or nonconformism, which seem not to be in play here. >> >>David: re. missing baptisms, bear in mind that we only have the index to >>the >>registers. > > I am not sure what this means - civil registers of birth, or parish etc > registers of baptisms - see below. > >> There has been very little -- perhaps suspiciously little -- >>research access to the record archive, so it is not clear how accurate the >>index is. There are certainly numerous examples of misspellings. >>Also, birth registration only became compulslory after 1875. Prior to that >>it was the responsibility of registrars to gather together the records. > > There is no real link between baptisms and registration of births. > Baptisms were not compulsory (after about 1720, and even then the rules > were widely ignored); if they did happen, they could take place in any > church or chapel the parents wished to use at the time, and may not be > consistently in any one denomination. A lot of people experimented with > various chapels, not all of whose registers survive. > Civil Registration, which only started in 1837, had nothing to do with > the church at all, was supposed to be compulsory from then, but the > observamce was up to the registrar and not the parent, with no > enforcement by fines till 1875, as you say. So it is not at all > suyrprising to find, in the early days, baptism without registration or > registration without baptism. > There were only a few circumstances which involved producing evidence > of date of birth or parentage, and the reasons for these tended top > arise years after the event. Mostly, they could be dealt with by the > swearing of an affidavit by the parents or siblings or anyone who could > provide personal knowledge of the birth/parents, as needed. >> > > > > > -- > Eve McLaughlin > > Author of the McLaughlin Guides for family historians > Secretary Bucks Genealogical Society > > > ==== OLD-ENGLISH Mailing List ==== > OLD-ENGLISH Web Page > http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~oel/ > > > > -- > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.10.5/403 - Release Date: 28/07/2006 > >