• 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.

warning - Vicars can get it wrong

emeltee

Loyal Member
Posts
5,454
Likes
293
Location
Liverpool
#1
I recently came across the Will of an ancestor in which he mentioned his grandsons John and Charles Bamford. I looked for their baptisms and discovered they were the sons of Anne nee Botham and Charles Bamford. I then looked for a marriage. There was an entry on fs stating that Ann Botham married Charles Bamford in 1750. There it was an entry on fmp with an image of the original entry but it was for an Anne Botham marrying a Charles Botham. All there in black and white. Fortunately they married by Licence and a copy of the Licence showed all the same details except it had the correct name of Bamford. If it hadn't been for the Licence I would still be looking for a Botham/Bamford marriage.

So, even though everyone advises checking the original entry in the Parish Register, don't necessarily believe what the Vicar has written.

Emeltee
 

p.risboy

Loyal Member
Staff member
Moderator
Posts
17,933
Likes
402
Location
In Ireland, but born Bucks.
#2
More often, if a Licence is available, it has more information than the actual marriage.

o.t.p, for the Bride in the marriage register, but the Licences I've found, shows another Parish for the Bride. This has saved me heaps of time, and sometimes money.
Banns are another source, so if all 3 line up, you're quids in.

I guess the Licence involves money(apart from the marriage), so a level of accuracy is needed or required.

Found the same as you MLT.....also with burial ages.

Steve.:)
 

Ladybird1300

Loyal Member
Staff member
Moderator
Posts
1,914
Likes
101
Location
Essex
#3
I think they made the entries at a later date, probably at the end of the week when they had a pile to put in the book.
I have a baptism for a Frances Elizabeth Wiltshire in 1773, on the original it reads son of John Wiltshire.

I'm convinced my g g grandmother Mary Molyneux's father wasn't a postillion as recorded on her marriage certificate because that scenario just doesn't exsist. He may have been an Ostler very similar, but I think he may turn out to be a twine spinner, not much difference :eek:

Amanda
 

emeltee

Loyal Member
Posts
5,454
Likes
293
Location
Liverpool
#4
I wish I had £1 for every time I have come across Frances when it should have been Francis and vice versa. I'd be quite rich by now.

Re occupations on marriage certs - I'm convinced the bride or groom were sometimes trying to impress. I have a gt gt grandfather who gave his father's occupation as Gentleman when he was, in fact, a servant (Unless he said Gentleman's servant and the Vicar didn't hear the last bit) His wife was no better. She said her father was a Mason when he was a Plasterer according to the Censuses.

Emeltee
 

benny1982

Loyal Member
Staff member
Moderator
Posts
5,287
Likes
115
Location
Norwich
#6
How I wish there was an 1839 Register as well as the 1939 register. :D

Again, info given is only as accurate as what is being said. Some may say "Why would be say he is 52 in the census when he was only 49". Simple. Ages back then were not important and many people may not have known exactly how old they were.

I have come across some errors in original records when I know other documents support that they are the right ancestors.
 

p.risboy

Loyal Member
Staff member
Moderator
Posts
17,933
Likes
402
Location
In Ireland, but born Bucks.
#7
Miriam Gomme, married Hezekiah Ridgley, 18 Feb 1866 • Saint Paul, Hammersmith, London.

Father of Hezekiah Ridgley, was given as Jabez Williams.

So off I went, looking for his baptism in Princes Risborough around 1837, to find either a Jabez Williams, and a lady called Gomme. No such luck, it never happened.
Jabez Williams, was obviously a mate, as they were both born in Princes Risborough.

I went back to the cert, and found Jabez Williams was also a witness of the marriage. So, I went into the GRO, to find a Hezekiah Ridgley birth in 1837, hoping it would after the 'official' registration period.
The only one that came up was for a boy called......Ridgley, mmn. Saunders.

I did have Hezekiah in the census with Absolom Ridgely, who married a Mary Saunders. Hezekiah birth was registered as 'Male' Ridgely in 1837, Wycombe R.D.

So, with a flick of a Pen, by Arthur Walker, the Curate....he sent me on a wild goose chase.
But, I guess he may have been told porkies, or Mary Saunders was a naughty girl, who played away from home....but not that far..:eek::2fun:


Steve.:)
 
Last edited:

emeltee

Loyal Member
Posts
5,454
Likes
293
Location
Liverpool
#8
I have something similar in my tree. Mary Evans marrying John Smith - her father was entered on the cert as William Evans. I could have spent years looking for the right William Evans. Fortunately I knew she was a widow on her marriage to John Smith and that her maiden name was Woolfall. Father should have read William Woolfall. I can only presume that the Vicar asked for her father's name and she just said William so the poor old Vicar decided that as her surname was Evans her father must be William Evans.

Emeltee
 

Similar threads

Top