• Do you love Genealogy? Why not write for us? we're looking for volunteers to write articles for Family history. Please contact us for further information.

Birth and/or Baptism.

emeltee

Loyal Member
Posts
5,793
Likes
316
Location
Liverpool
#2
I think it all depends on what info you are after. If it is just the date and place of the baptism plus possibly the father's name then fine. However if you want more eg mother's maiden name, father's occupation, address etc then you really need the cert.

Emeltee
 

benny1982

Loyal Member
Staff member
Moderator
Posts
5,290
Likes
119
Location
Norwich
#3
I feel a birth cert is more sufficient for someone's identity from 1 July 1837. Before that then yes, baptisms were sufficient enough.
 

Guy

Valued Member
Posts
401
Likes
1
Location
Wakefield, West Yorkshire
Website
freespace.virgin.net
#4
Will a post 1837 baptism be sufficient to establish a persons identity, over an actual registered birth certificate, post 1837. ?

I know what I think......what is your opinion.


Steve.:)
Depends what you mean by "establish a persons identity".

A post 1837 baptismwill help in ascertaining the relationship of a child to parents but as with a birth certificate is not proof of identity.

To be sure of relationships the researcher needs to ammass as many documents as possible to confirm the connection between siblings and generations.

By using such documents as baptisms and wills etc. that bridge the gap between civil and pre-civil registers the research does not flounder when researching events before 1837 as many researchers who rely on civil Birth Certificates do.

If you look for as many different types of documents that are available all the way through your research from present day back then you will find the transition through the big changes in documentation have a far lesser effect on you than they do on the people who simply use Birth Certificates and Census for instance.

Cheers
Guy
 

DaveHam9

Loyal Member
Staff member
Moderator
Posts
78,618
Likes
1,197
Location
Sydney
#5
Interesting question Steve.

My great-grandfather Thomas Blackley - no birth reg found, but I have his baptism 5 Oct 1856 Liverpool St. Peter's.

Dave
 

ptjw7

Loyal Member
Posts
1,664
Likes
182
Location
dovercourt but born Enfield
#6
The problem with baptism certificates is that it may not have the persons actual date of birth.
Some family's would wait until they had a 'batch' to do(economy of scale)

Then again there is the problem of common surname and favourite forename(dont ask)

You have to do as Guy says collect as much information as possible and 'join the dots'.

Peter
 

DaveHam9

Loyal Member
Staff member
Moderator
Posts
78,618
Likes
1,197
Location
Sydney
#7
Strange thing is that I have copies of birth certificates for two brothers also born Liverpool but no sign of one for Thomas.

I have joined the dots. :)

Dave
 

p.risboy

Loyal Member
Staff member
Moderator
Posts
18,025
Likes
413
Location
In Ireland, but born Bucks.
#8
Yes, I agree with amassing documents etc. If a birth reg cannot be found, then a baptism would suffice among the other documentation.

Would others suspect, that without a birth registration, that the person is not a 'legal' relative.

Lets think of a certain 'fear factor', would they fear the wrath of the church, or the state, if the child is either not baptized, or registered.

One could assume, as post 1837 registration ensued, that the need for baptisms went by the wayside is some cases. Was it a question of faith, or legality. Therefore, were they transferring the 'power' of the church to the state.

We also assume, 'that the milkman' wasn't the father, if either the wife or husband strayed out of bounds. But that is whole new dilemma, isn't it.:2fun:

It is only recently, that I was found a baptism by another member, but no birth reg. That is, unless he was registered under a different christian name.:confused:

This has happened to me once before, when the name that is given in the registration, is only partly used for all other records and documents, including the baptism.
I would think this mother chose 3 christian names in the registration, then told the daughter to pick one she liked, and use it.:)

Still, interesting replies and thoughts, if only to make us think a bit harder before we, or me.......to absorb a new family member into the fold.


Steve.:)
 

ptjw7

Loyal Member
Posts
1,664
Likes
182
Location
dovercourt but born Enfield
#9
We never stop learning! :eek:

Just this minute I have found some baptisms on Familysearch that have me puzzled - in that the mothers name is her pre marriage name which on post 1837 certificates is the nee surname :- so was this prevalent pre 1837 or have I just missed it (no change there then :biggrin:)

Peter
 

p.risboy

Loyal Member
Staff member
Moderator
Posts
18,025
Likes
413
Location
In Ireland, but born Bucks.
#10
We never stop learning! :eek:

Just this minute I have found some baptisms on Familysearch that have me puzzled - in that the mothers name is her pre marriage name which on post 1837 certificates is the nee surname :- so was this prevalent pre 1837 or have I just missed it (no change there then :biggrin:)

Peter
I have noticed this in some Baptist registers, but hardly ever in non baptist.:confused:

It may depends what the cleric sees fit for his needs, his parishioners and his bishop.

Steve.:)
 

Ellie7

Loyal Member
Posts
6,829
Likes
800
Location
north ayrshire
#11
Where I stay (Town)most of the early bapts reg.is non existing .They don't know if parents didn't bother or Ministers never bothered, or records were lost. Marriages are more likely to be found. In saying that most death records in Scotland have the parents on it. I usually look for a Civil Death Reg. for someone with just a bapts record as it will have name(S) of Spouses, and hopefully both parents.

Edit-Reg Christian names can differ from Bapts names ,as likely only first and middle name on Reg.


Ellie
 

Ellie7

Loyal Member
Posts
6,829
Likes
800
Location
north ayrshire
#12
One could assume, as post 1837 registration ensued, that the need for baptisms went by the wayside is some cases. Was it a question of faith, or legality. Therefore, were they transferring the 'power' of the church to the state.
Steve.:)
Should think as Reg. became compulsory, some people would drop the Bapts.
Perhaps thinking 1 record was enough.

Ellie
 

benny1982

Loyal Member
Staff member
Moderator
Posts
5,290
Likes
119
Location
Norwich
#13
I found several parishes in the 1700s which list just the father, and if it is a common name, can be hard to crack who was the mother.

For instance, my ancestor was Patience Brown, born 1759 in Bishop Auckland, Co Durham. Daughter of John Brown. No mother listed on baptism. A number of people with the surname Brown were baptised in the same parish, children of John, and in the 1760s, on the odd occasion the mother is named, (In 1762 a Margaret daughter of John and Jane Brown was baptised) one is Jane and one child in the 1760s is the child of "John and Ann Brown". A John Brown wed Jane Arrowsmith in Dec 1757. Jane was the child of Clement Arrowsmith. A Clement Brown was baptised in March 1758 in Bishop Auckland, son of John, so may be their first child.

Patience was bapt 17 Feb 1759. She did witness the wedding of a Robert Brown in 1796. By then she was Patience Stewart. A Robert Brown was baptised in 1760 son of John, on the same day as a John son of John. No mother named.
 

Ellie7

Loyal Member
Posts
6,829
Likes
800
Location
north ayrshire
#14
That's when viewing the actual records comes in. Father's occupation can help then ,and what part of the place they were living at.

Did Woman at one time not have to show a Bapts record to get Married. I seem to recall that somewhere.

Ellie
 

benny1982

Loyal Member
Staff member
Moderator
Posts
5,290
Likes
119
Location
Norwich
#15
That's when viewing the actual records comes in. Father's occupation can help then ,and what part of the place they were living at.

Did Woman at one time not have to show a Bapts record to get Married. I seem to recall that somewhere.

Ellie
That will be the next step. I have looked for any wills and a Clement Arrowsmith mentions daughter Jane, wife of John Brown in 1782. The St Andrew Auckland registers on FamilySearch only cover 1765 onwards. And they are BT's. Cannot find any wills for a John and or Jane Brown.
 

benny1982

Loyal Member
Staff member
Moderator
Posts
5,290
Likes
119
Location
Norwich
#17
In 1856, two namesake cousins were born, both called George Musgrave. One was son of Robert and one son of Thomas. The latter, son of Thomas, is my ancestor. Both born in the same village. I can only find a birth reg for one of them. Again tried all name variants and even a FREEBMD search for all births in the reg district in 1856.

One died as a child in January 1860, son of Robert and Jane. He was the one whose birth was registered, born 5 March 1856, registered 2 days later.

My George was born around the same time as his first cousin, somehow out of the 2 George's born in the village, one missed registration, and that was my ancestor.

Both George's were baptised on the same day in the same church in April 1856. George son of Robert and Jane and George son of Thomas and Ann, christened the same day in the church of the parish of birth, Evenwood, Durham.
 

Ellie7

Loyal Member
Posts
6,829
Likes
800
Location
north ayrshire
#18
That will be the next step. I have looked for any wills and a Clement Arrowsmith mentions daughter Jane, wife of John Brown in 1782. The St Andrew Auckland registers on FamilySearch only cover 1765 onwards. And they are BT's. Cannot find any wills for a John and or Jane Brown.
You can't order the film ,but they are online by Familysearch.

https://familysearch.org/search/catalog/1808387?availability=Family History Library

Edit -https://familysearch.org/search/catalog/62848?availability=Family%20History%20Library


Baptisms, 1691-1801. Marriages, burials, 1721-1801.
Family History Library
British Film
434933
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Guy

Valued Member
Posts
401
Likes
1
Location
Wakefield, West Yorkshire
Website
freespace.virgin.net
#19
Strange thing is that I have copies of birth certificates for two brothers also born Liverpool but no sign of one for Thomas.

I have joined the dots. :)

Dave
The most common reason for this is the researcher has only looked for a birth at the GRO rather than searching for the birth at the Superintendent Registrar's office.
Other reasons of course are spelling differences in the name leading to a birth being missed and indeed the birth simply not being registered.

I would suggest (if you have not already done so, which you probably have) searching the LRO then expanding the search to locations where relatives were know to live in case the birth happened when the family (mum) was visiting.


Cheers
[FONT=&quot]Guy[/FONT]
 

DaveHam9

Loyal Member
Staff member
Moderator
Posts
78,618
Likes
1,197
Location
Sydney
#20
I have Guy.

There are about 7 variations of the name.


Not this
Births Mar 1854
Blekley Thomas W Derby 8b 357

1854 Birth in the Sub-district of West Derby Registration District of West Derby in the County of Lancaster
No. 396 - Twenty-third December 1853 Poplar Grove West Derby - Thomas - Boy - Thomas Blekley - Alice Blekley formerly Boardman - Twine spinner - The mark x of Alice Bleckley Mother Poplar Grove West Derby - Thirteenth January 1854 - Richard Bradshaw Registrar

Marriages Jun Qtr 1850
BLAKELEY Thomas Manchester 20 622
BOARDMAN Alice Manchester 20 622

Dave
 

Similar threads

Top