> From: ag.hamilton > Sent: 07 June 2012 14:44 <snip> > 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? <snip > > So the question is: were Betty and Jenny PRING the same as > Elizabeth and Jane PRING? It sounds as if every record you have was written by officials and none of them were written by Elizabeth/Betty or her close relatives. In that case you are at the mercy of the interpretations of those officials. If 'everyone knows' that Betty is short for Elizabeth, then officials are likely to infer that a woman reporting her name as Betty is actually an Elizabeth, and when they are making a formal record they may well use what they think is the formal name. One of my relations is called Tony, but 'everyone knows' that is short for Anthony, so many people assume that wedding invitations, etc., should be addressed to Anthony, because they don't realise that Tony is actually his given name and not a shortened form. If your Betty could not read she may never have known that her name was being written down as Elizabeth, or conversely, never having seen the baptismal register, she may have assumed that her 'real' name was Elizabeth even though her parents addressed her as Bett! y. 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/

It could be worse: one of my cousins was always known as Tony, and my brother was called Anthony after him. It turned out afterwards that he was in fact named John Edwin. Regards, Colin Mills On 07/06/2012 15:08, MILLARD A.R. wrote: >> From: ag.hamilton >> Sent: 07 June 2012 14:44 > <snip> >> 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? > <snip> >> So the question is: were Betty and Jenny PRING the same as >> Elizabeth and Jane PRING? > It sounds as if every record you have was written by officials and none of them were written by Elizabeth/Betty or her close relatives. In that case you are at the mercy of the interpretations of those officials. If 'everyone knows' that Betty is short for Elizabeth, then officials are likely to infer that a woman reporting her name as Betty is actually an Elizabeth, and when they are making a formal record they may well use what they think is the formal name. One of my relations is called Tony, but 'everyone knows' that is short for Anthony, so many people assume that wedding invitations, etc., should be addressed to Anthony, because they don't realise that Tony is actually his given name and not a shortened form. If your Betty could not read she may never have known that her name was being written down as Elizabeth, or conversely, never having seen the baptismal register, she may have assumed that her 'real' name was Elizabeth even though her parents addressed her as Be! tty. > > > > 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/ > > > > ------------------------------- > 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 > >