George said... <<snipped>> 1. I have never seen a baptism with the mother's name omitted - unless the child was a foundling. Are there other entries with the mother's name missing in the same period? If it has been done deliberately, why? <<snipped>> Yes, as Andrew says, the only rule is there are no rules. Round Cheshire, as you go back, most of the registers drop the mother's name but at different times. Worse, I'm looking in FindMyPast at some Audlem baptisms of 1646 and there isn't even a father's name! <<snipped>> 2. Presumably you have already tried to establish whether or not it was actually Thomas's own parents who "jumped the gun"? Because if so and if his mother's maiden name was Gibbons, that would in my opinion, resolve the matter . <<snipped>> Well, I'd agree with you but the records seem to fall apart about this time (1719) in Acton. Not sure if it's because people move into the parish or whether the clerk lost half the entries before writing them up. Andrew said... <<snipped>> I don't think you can assume anything about the order or inheritance of an alias. They could be inherited (or not), the names were frequently reversed, and on occasions just one of them was used. <<snipped>> Ah - that puts a rather different usage on an alias - I'd been thinking of it in simple terms of illegitimate children - mother's v. father's name, but clearly inherited names need not involve that - except perhaps years ago. I reckon Poor Law stuff is my best starter to get something out of this. Thanks for your thoughts Adrian