RootsChat.Com
England (Counties as in 1851-1901) => Worcestershire => England => Worcestershire Lookup Requests => Topic started by: sbunter on Saturday 17 February 18 02:20 GMT (UK)
-
Please can anyone help with a lookup on the original Parish Registers for St Thomas, Dudley.
I have two records from FreeReg:
County Worcestershire
Place (link for place information) Dudley
Church name St Thomas
Register type Unspecified
Baptism date 10 Feb 1811
Person forename Zacheriah
Person sex M
Father forename Tho.s.
Father surname MANDER
Mother forename Sarah
County Worcestershire
Place (link for place information) Dudley
Church name St Thomas
Register type Unspecified
Baptism date 10 Feb 1811
Person forename Daniel
Person sex M
Father forename -
Father surname -
Mother forename Sarah
Mother surname MANDER
I am convinced that Zachariah and Daniel (my ancestor) are related as the two baptised end up in Bury, Lancashire together and so do their families, and are witnesses at each other's events.
My problem is that I cannot find likely candidates for Thomas & Sarah, was perhaps Thomas a named father of an illegitimate Zachariah?
Were the two records together on the page?
Can they be read any other way?
I have loads of info on the families - it's just Thomas & Sarah I can't identify, I have traced the Birmingham and Banbury ones and don't believe that is them.
Thanks for any help,
in hope,
Sharon
-
Familysearch have the film. No 378764 for births 1794 - 1812. https://www.familysearch.org/search/catalog/253264?availability=Family%20History%20Library
Looks as if you can view it at home (you need to be signed in - free to register), but unfortunately my computer is playing up and won't do it!
-
No, you have to be at an LDS centre to view - tried it :(
cheers
-
No, you have to be at an LDS centre to view - tried it :(
No this is not so.
I looked at it today for you.
At a friend's, logged into familysearch with my user name and password, and was able to view the film.
You don't need to go to a FS library. Anyone can view it at home as long as you are registered with an account. Very easy, and FREE!
Unfortunately it doesn't give any more information in the St Thomas register. The vicars, or clerks, of St Thomas were men of few words!
The baptism of Daniel, mother Sarah, just follows in order after the baptism of Zaheriah, son to William and Sarah.
I see there is also a baptism of a MAry Mander 23 Oct 1803, to William and Sarah, and one for a Hannah Mander 17 May 1807, 'mother Sarah' again. No more information again.
If you send me a PM on here with your email address (you're not allowed to put emails addresses on ordinary posts), I can send you what I found.
-
I see that when Daniel married again in 1855, he left his father's name blank. It could mean that he couldn't remember it or that he was illegitimate.
David
-
Yes, Daniel was certainly illegitimate.
It's the relationship of Zachariah and Mary that I cannot fathom.
Grave 1342 Brunswick Chapel, Bury owned by Zachariah has the following:
Thomas Mander buried 1845 9m son of Zachariah
Daniel Mander buried 1858 48 son of Sarah
John Eli Mander buried 1859 19m son of George son of Zachariah
Mary Dikinson buried 1862 58 daughter of William & Sarah
Elizabeth Alice Mander buried 1864 5m daughter of George son of Zachariah
Sarah Talbert buried 1865 80 mother of Daniel
Joseph Mander buried 1845 12 son of Zachariah
So we have a baptism for Mary at Dudley 1804 dau of William & Sarah
a baptism for Zachariah at Dudley 1811 son of Thomas & Sarah
a baptism for Daniel same day as Zachariah son of Sarah
I have had a lookup of the PRs for St Thomas and they are simple with no extra information, Zachariah's baptism is directly above Daniels.
I cannot identify a Thomas & Sarah at Dudley, or a William & Sarah at Dudley.
I suspect that Sarah was the mother to all of them, but then maybe I want to make an easy assumption :(
The families were definitely connected, followed each other around the country, and witnesses at each others marriages, lived in the same places.
It's annoying me because I would like to put them in my tree :D
thanks for any extra eyes on this problem,
cheers,
Sharon
-
No, you have to be at an LDS centre to view - tried it :(
No this is not so.
I looked at it today for you.
At a friend's, logged into familysearch with my user name and password, and was able to view the film.
You don't need to go to a FS library. Anyone can view it at home as long as you are registered with an account. Very easy, and FREE!
Well I am logged in and can't view it...
To view these images you must do one of the following:
Access the site at a family history center.
Access the site at a FamilySearch affiliate library.
Debra :)
-
If they are related at all wouldn't it be possible that Thomas, William and the unmarried Sarah are all siblings?
Debra :)
-
William was born 1793 so not old enough to be Mary's father, and there was no Thomas, so no.
-
No, you have to be at an LDS centre to view - tried it :(
No this is not so.
I looked at it today for you.
At a friend's, logged into familysearch with my user name and password, and was able to view the film.
You don't need to go to a FS library. Anyone can view it at home as long as you are registered with an account. Very easy, and FREE!
Well I am logged in and can't view it...
To view these images you must do one of the following:
Access the site at a family history center.
Access the site at a FamilySearch affiliate library.
Debra :)
Well how very very odd! :-\
I definitely could see the whole film. No little lock next to it, but the usual magnifying glass and camera icon.
A real mystery!
-
No, you have to be at an LDS centre to view - tried it :(
No this is not so.
I looked at it today for you.
At a friend's, logged into familysearch with my user name and password, and was able to view the film.
You don't need to go to a FS library. Anyone can view it at home as long as you are registered with an account. Very easy, and FREE!
Well I am logged in and can't view it...
To view these images you must do one of the following:
Access the site at a family history center.
Access the site at a FamilySearch affiliate library.
Debra :)
Well how very very odd! :-\
I definitely could see the whole film. No little lock next to it, but the usual magnifying glass and camera icon.
A real mystery!
You were/are very lucky goldie61, I tried loads of times and ways with no luck here!
You had better make the most of it :)
-
William was born 1793 so not old enough to be Mary's father, and there was no Thomas, so no.
I don't understand. William and Sarah had a child named Mary baptised in 1803. Thomas and Sarah had a child baptised in 1811, and a (probably) unmarried Sarah had a child baptised in 1811. This suggests to me that William, Thomas and Sarah were of a similar generation.
Debra :)
-
From another thread:
There's a marriage (transcription only) of a -
Sarah Mander, 11 Aug 1811, place Sedgley, to an Edward Grifffiths
Did Sarah then remarry to Thomas TALBOT?
Name: Thomas TALBOT
Spouse's Name: Sarah Mander GRIFFITHS
Event Date: 18 Apr 1813
Event Place: Tipton,Stafford,England
Sarah Talbert buried 1865 80 mother of Daniel
I would say that the William MANDER connected to these families was definitely not born in 1793.
Debra :)
-
Correct on the marriages for Sarah, there was no sibling Thomas, no gaps where one would fit.
-
Hi There
give this site a try
www.genealogylinks.net/uk/england/worcestershire/parish-registers.htm
Ive not tried it for some time but I know Dudley st Thomas registers used to be on it but only in transcript form
All the very best
Phil
ps Ive just had a look at this site & was unable to get on so I wonder if the data has been purchased by Ancestry or the like - sorry about that