1
Cornwall / parents' names not recorded in parish baptism register
« on: Thursday 06 February 14 10:15 GMT (UK) »
Just wondering whether anyone has encountered this.
https://familysearch.org/pal:/MM9.3.1/TH-267-11831-116890-89?cc=1769414&wc=MMVH-VRJ:1481814552
St Kew baptisms 1801-1802.
Lower left and upper right of the image, on two pages starting in Sept 1801 and running to April 1802 -- no parents' names recorded. Obviously, from the handwriting, there had been a change of vicars. Did the new guy just not like that part of his job so he blew it off? It was rather obvious from the entries ahead of them that he was supposed to record that info, I would think.
I might have guessed this was a "no questions asked" parish where people brought their kids to be baptised, like the church in London where an ancestral sibling of mine married, but not every baptism for 8 months.
I love how a dozen kids got no parents at all, but the one whose parents weren't married, oh yes, that one is "bastard son of".
Of course the name I'm potentially interested in is in that dozen. The fact that there is no marriage for the surname in that parish or environs, and no other birth there for that surname before or after until 1826 ... and no apparent marriage or death for the child ... is just icing. It would support my suspicion that this was a "bastard child of", except that the vic seems to have been quite conscientious about recording that tidbit.
Has anyone invented the time machine for throttling dead people yet?!
Or found the answer to "why me" ...
Or just have a theory about why this vicar dropped the ball?
https://familysearch.org/pal:/MM9.3.1/TH-267-11831-116890-89?cc=1769414&wc=MMVH-VRJ:1481814552
St Kew baptisms 1801-1802.
Lower left and upper right of the image, on two pages starting in Sept 1801 and running to April 1802 -- no parents' names recorded. Obviously, from the handwriting, there had been a change of vicars. Did the new guy just not like that part of his job so he blew it off? It was rather obvious from the entries ahead of them that he was supposed to record that info, I would think.
I might have guessed this was a "no questions asked" parish where people brought their kids to be baptised, like the church in London where an ancestral sibling of mine married, but not every baptism for 8 months.
I love how a dozen kids got no parents at all, but the one whose parents weren't married, oh yes, that one is "bastard son of".
Of course the name I'm potentially interested in is in that dozen. The fact that there is no marriage for the surname in that parish or environs, and no other birth there for that surname before or after until 1826 ... and no apparent marriage or death for the child ... is just icing. It would support my suspicion that this was a "bastard child of", except that the vic seems to have been quite conscientious about recording that tidbit.
Has anyone invented the time machine for throttling dead people yet?!
Or found the answer to "why me" ...
Or just have a theory about why this vicar dropped the ball?