Hi Angela, I have an Elizabeth Milner in my tree, born in 1805. At her baptism, marriage and burial she is Elizabeth. In censuses she is Elizabeth but in the baptism records of three of her seven children she is called Betty. Her daughter was baptised as Betsy, is Betsy in censuses but is recorded as Elizabeth at her marriage and then later as Betsy again at the baptisms of her children. I would have thought that your Elizabeth and Betty are quite likely to be the same person. You know me as Tricia but in formal documents I am Patricia! Tricia Adam ----- Original Message ----- From: <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Sunday, June 10, 2012 8:00 AM Subject: SOG-UK Digest, Vol 7, Issue 86 > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Re: baptismal names (ag.hamilton) > 2. Re: baptismal names (MILLARD A.R.) > 3. Re: baptismal names (LostCousins) > 4. Re: Indexes to the Genealogists' Magazine (Debbie Kennett) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Sat, 9 Jun 2012 08:26:34 +0100 > From: "ag.hamilton" <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [SOG-UK] baptismal names > To: [email protected] > Message-ID: <[email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > > Hello, Me again. > > I've just remembered (in the middle of the night as one does) that I have > the will of Elizabeth PRING's husband who was the village blacksmith. He > left everything to 'Elizabeth my well beloved wife'. So presumably she > was called Elizabeth within the family - or would the will writer have put > that in even if her husband called her Betty? Oh dear oh dear - all very > confusing. > > Angela > > > > > On 8 Jun 2012, at 9:11 pm, ag.hamilton wrote: > >> Many thanks to everyone who has answered my question. It seems likely >> that Betty is indeed my Elizabeth and I now have a few new avenues to >> follow to help confirm it. People being called by a name quite different >> from the one they were originally given seems remarkably common. >> >> Thanks again >> >> Angela >> >> >> >> On 7 Jun 2012, at 2:43 pm, ag.hamilton wrote: >> >>> Hello, >>> >>> I (and several other people) have been hunting for the baptism of an >>> Elizabeth PRING in Devon somewhere around ca1782 (from her death >>> certificate, 1848) and ca 1786 (from the 1841 census) >>> >>> Her name is given as Elizabeth in the parish record for her marriage, >>> as Elizabeth or Elisabeth in the parish records for her children's >>> baptisms and as Elizabeth in the census and on her death certificate. >>> >>> She lived most of her life in the village of Broadhembury but there is >>> no baptism there for an Elizabeth PRING at around the right time. >>> >>> However there is a baptism in 1788 for Betty PRING 'being 4 years old' >>> (thus b. ca 1884) and on the same day her sister Jenny PRING. >>> >>> Betty is a commonly used form of Elizabeth and Jenny a form of Jane (and >>> we're hunting for a Jane as well). >>> >>> Is it likely that a child would be baptised using the diminutive of a >>> name but subsequently known by the name in it's full form? Elizabeth >>> and Jane PRING both appear in the parish apprenticeship records but >>> Betty and Jenny seem to have vanished. The mother of Betty and Jenny >>> was called Martha so the family wasn't trying to avoid confusion with >>> the family names. >>> >>> So the question is: were Betty and Jenny PRING the same as Elizabeth >>> and Jane PRING? >>> >>> Any thoughts would be very welcome >>> >>> Thanks >>> >>> Angela Hamilton >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ------------------------------- >>> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to >>> [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the >>> quotes in the subject and the body of the message >> >> >> >> ------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to >> [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the >> quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Sat, 9 Jun 2012 10:26:21 +0100 > From: "MILLARD A.R." <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [SOG-UK] baptismal names > To: <[email protected]> > Message-ID: > <[email protected]uk> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > >> From: ag.hamilton >> Sent: 09 June 2012 08:27 >> >> I've just remembered (in the middle of the night as one does) that I have >> the >> will of Elizabeth PRING's husband who was the village blacksmith. He >> left >> everything to 'Elizabeth my well beloved wife'. So presumably she was >> called >> Elizabeth within the family - or would the will writer have put that in >> even >> if her husband called her Betty? Oh dear oh dear - all very confusing. > > Did he sign the will or make his mark? If he signed it then there is a > chance that he actually read it. If he made his mark then you are still > dealing with the whim of the scribe in formalising names. > > Best wishes > > Andrew > -- > Andrew Millard - [email protected] > Bodimeade genealogy:?? > http://community.dur.ac.uk/a.r.millard/genealogy/Bodimeade/ > My family history:???? http://community.dur.ac.uk/a.r.millard/genealogy/ > GenUKI Middx + London: http://homepages.gold.ac.uk/genuki/MDX/ + ../LND/ > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 3 > Date: Sat, 09 Jun 2012 10:28:55 +0100 > From: "LostCousins" <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [SOG-UK] baptismal names > To: [email protected] > Message-ID: <[email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII > >> I've just remembered (in the middle of the night as one does) that I >> have the will of Elizabeth PRING's husband who was the village >> blacksmith. He left everything to 'Elizabeth my well beloved wife'. >> So presumably she was called Elizabeth within the family - or would >> the will writer have put that in even if her husband called her Betty? >> Oh dear oh dear - all very confusing. > > Angela, thanks for the additional information. > > However, we surely don't know that anyone actually called her Betty? All > we know is that - if > you've found the right baptism - it's the name the vicar wrote in the > register. Even if her mother > referred to her Betty, she might not have liked the name, and decided to > revert (as she perhaps > supposed) to Elizabeth. > > My aunt Charlotte was almost always known within the family by her > childhood nickname (which > had no connection whatsoever with her real name. The closest most of the > family ever got to > calling her by her real name was to use a diminutive, 'Lottie' or 'Lot'. > The ONLY person who ever > called her 'Charlotte' was my uncle (who would have got it in the neck if > he'd called her anything > else), and it was only when I started my research that I realised it was > her 'real' name. Even my > grandmother (her mother) didn't use it, at least not when I knew her. > > Whilst it would have been gratifying to discover that your ancestor had > been referred to as Betty > in the will, we don't know what she was called by her husband or any of > the other members of > the family - and knowing that her name is given as Elizabeth in her > husband's will makes little > difference to the likelihood that your hypothesis is correct. > > Hope this helps, > Peter > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 4 > Date: Sat, 9 Jun 2012 21:32:47 +0100 > From: "Debbie Kennett" <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [SOG-UK] Indexes to the Genealogists' Magazine > To: <[email protected]> > Message-ID: <[email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > > Chris > > The index to the first four volumes of the Genealogist's Magazine is now > in > the MySog area on the website along with digital copies of all the issues > in > those first four volumes. The volumes from 2010 to the present are also on > MySog. > > Indexing is an enormously time-consuming process so I can understand if it > was discontinued. Perhaps the remaining volumes might eventually be added > to > MySog, and people could then be encouraged to contribute to an index. > > Debbie Kennett > >>Each volume, except the recent ones, has a detailed index, either >>published > separately (together with title and contents pages for >>binding) or included in the last issue of the volume. Volumes 1 to 4, >>which > were smaller than later volumes, and are generally bound ?>together, have > a > joint index. > >>However, as far as I am aware, the last volume to be indexed was volume >>26, > which ended in 2000. We are now almost at the end of >>Volume 30. Are there any plans to catch up with the indexing? > -- > Chris Pitt Lewis > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes > in the subject and the body of the message > > > > ------------------------------ > > To contact the SOG-UK list administrator, send an email to > [email protected] > > To post a message to the SOG-UK mailing list, send an email to > [email protected] > > __________________________________________________________ > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > [email protected] > with the word "unsubscribe" without the quotes in the subject and the body > of the > email with no additional text. > > > End of SOG-UK Digest, Vol 7, Issue 86 > *************************************