David Beames wrote - Surely it's possible that whoever did the register -- the Parish Clerk, or possibly the vicar himself -- simply had a Senior Moment and wrote the wife's maiden name. Maybe he was a friend of the family, and was thinking "Ar, 'er be young Liz Basson's choild". I was researching a family in a Yorkshire parish the other and the entry varied from vicar to curate = one used the conventional John and Elizabeth MORRIS the other used John MORRIS and Elizabeth BASSON. In this case quite deliberate and a great way to discover the bride's birth name! Wendy -----Original Message----- From: David Beames Sent: Wednesday, October 05, 2011 6:13 PM To: oxfordshire@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [OXF] Anne Basson > I looked again at the OFHS transcription and found the following - > > 1750 Apr 22 MORRIS (BASSON) deleted, Anne d John and Elizabeth. > > I also looked at the transcription published in 1880 by the Rev > W.D. Macray, rector of Ducklington. > > There was no Anne Basson although the entry for Anne Morris was, > with the additional children you mentioned. > > My best guess is that the Rev W.D. Macray was responsible for the > deletion. This puts me back to square one, finding a baptism for > Anne Basson about 1753. Sorry, I don't remember how the thread started, or why you're looking for Anne BASSON, but this seems to me to be too much of a coincidence. The marriage of John MORRIS to Elizabeth BASSON was 22 Oct 1749 at Ducklington. (So Anne was a month premature :-) They baptised more children in Sept 1751 (she died) and Oct 1752. It is possible, of course, that they then moved away and had more children elsewhere, but Elizabeth wife of John was buried at Ducklington in 1756. Then a widower named John MORRIS married Mary WAIT at Ducklington 1762. Might be a different John, but I wouldn't bet on it :-) All of which suggests that the family had remained in Ducklington. How about a little speculation. Then, perhaps when the next child was baptised, someone noticed the mistake and got it corrected. BUT, suppose they didn't. When Anne wanted to marry (or for some other reason) she might well need a Baptismal Certificate from Ducklington. If she was still at the time recorded as BASSON, she had a problem. The entry couldn't just be altered -- it would probably have to go to some Diocesan Court, which would take forever to process it. Her only viable alternative might be to accept the error, and marry as BASSON. And eventually, because of the fuss she kicked up, the error got corrected, but too late for what she had wanted to do. Unless you're absolutely certain that your Anne was born about 1753, rather than 1750, I reckon that's her. DaveB ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to OXFORDSHIRE-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

> David Beames wrote - Surely it's possible that whoever did the register -- > the Parish Clerk, or possibly the vicar himself -- simply had a Senior > Moment and wrote the wife's maiden name. > Maybe he was a friend of the family, and was thinking "Ar, 'er be young Liz > Basson's choild". > > > > > I looked again at the OFHS transcription and found the following - > > > > 1750 Apr 22 MORRIS (BASSON) deleted, Anne d John and Elizabeth. > > Sorry, I don't remember how the thread started, or why you're looking for > Anne BASSON, but this seems to me to be too much of a coincidence. > > The marriage of John MORRIS to Elizabeth BASSON was 22 Oct 1749 at > Ducklington. > (So Anne was a month premature :-) I agree with Dave - this looks very much like the right girl. And although she was baptised well after the marriage, this is not prrof she was not born before it. The marriage entry may be as Basson because some interfering so and so pointed this out. She would not have needed a baptismal certificate for this purpose - just freedom from local gossips. Her alleged birthdate of 1753 is not set in stone. People had no good reason to remember their ages once they were past 21, and an age stated at death is only as accurate as the knowledge of the person stating it. The only one half likely to know the truth is in no position to say any more. EVE Author of The McLaughlin Guides for Family Historians Secretary, Bucks Genealogical Society