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

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

> 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/

> 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