Sarah WADDINGTON nee OAKES

[OzJane]

Good morning from Sydney,
Seeking some advice/maybe reassurance that I'm not missing the obvious. This is the  information I have to date. (Lancs OPC, Ancestry, Family Search).

I have Thomas WADDINGTON marrying Sarah OAKES in Deane in June 1819 both of that parish. She is a spinster (thought at one point she may have remarried).
Now trying to establish her parents.
1841 Census Sarah b Leigh 1789 (52 yo)
1851 Census Sarah b Atherton 1799 (52 yo) All other details for the Waddington family are correct on both Census' so would it be beyond the realms of possibility that the birth year/age are incorrect on the 1851 Census? Are they two different Sarah's?
1861 Census has a Sarah Waddington living with her daughter, Ellen Green, (BTW I can't find her as a daughter of Thomas and Sarah) b Atherton 1786 (75 yo) and 1871 Census still living with Green family, this time b Leigh 1787 (84yo).
Are the birth locations likely to alternate between Leigh and Atherton? or again, are there two Sarah's, each  marrying a Thomas Waddington?

If Sarah was born in Leigh around 1789, there are two possibilities: D of Joseph and Sarah of Bedford bapt 1787; or Sally Oakes D of Richard and Betty of Atherton bapt 1788.  Sally a diminutive of Sarah? though not called Sally anywhere else).

I had thought that Sally was the best bet as forenames for subsequent generations included Richard and Betty, but now am thinking maybe too much reliance on naming patterns.

Would really appreciate comments/criticism of where I am thinking.

Thanks so much.

[garstonite]

Marriage: 20 Jun 1819 St Mary the Virgin, Deane, Lancashire, England
 Thomas Waddington - (X), Weaver, this Parish [Deane]
 Sarah Oaks - X, Spinster, this Parish [Deane]
     Witness: Abrm. Boardman; George Bowden, (X)
     Married by Banns by: S. Johnson M.A. Off. Minister
     Register: Marriages 1818 - 1824, Page 36, Entry 108
     Source: Manchester Archives microfilm L85/1/3/4

have you noticed (x) for Thomas and George Boardman - but x for Sarah ?...could anyone explain why Sarahs record is not in brackets ?
their children were
Betty
Richard
Thomas and you have posted this info
"or Sally Oakes D of Richard and Betty of Atherton bapt 1788 - daughter of Richard and Betty and first 2 children are named Betty and Richard - looks very likely these are her parents - that would make her 30 /31 at her marriage ?
looks like the 1788 baptism to me .
My surname is Oakes and I have researched back to 1724 with my branch - in Over and Middlewich ,Cheshire - moved to Garston ,Liverpool 1870
if you come across any ancestors from Cheshire feel free to contact me
good luck with your research 

[garstonite]

Baptism: 3 Sep 1785 St Mary the Virgin, Leigh, Lancashire, England
 Mary Oakes - Daughter of Richd. Oakes & Betty
     Abode: Atherton
     Register: Baptisms 1782 - 1797, Page 40
     Source: LDS Film 1885648

'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''
Baptism: 10 Sep 1788 St Mary the Virgin, Leigh, Lancashire, England
 Sally Oakes - Daughter of Richard Oakes & Betty
     Abode: Atherton
     Register: Baptisms 1782 - 1797, Page 68
     Source: LDS Film 1885648

,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Baptism: 15 May 1791 St John the Baptist, Atherton, Lancashire, England
 Margaret Oakes - Daughter of Richard Oakes & Elizabeth
     Occupation: Weaver
     Notes: Pauper
     Source: LDS Family Search

,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Baptism: 5 Jul 1794 St Mary the Virgin, Leigh, Lancashire, England
 Richard Oakes - Son of Richard Oakes & Betty
     Abode: Atherton
     Register: Baptisms 1782 - 1797, Page 152
     Source: LDS Film 1885648
 
Have you noticed that  Mary / Sally / Richard are born in Atherton - but baptised in Leigh - Margaret is baptised in Atherton - father a Weaver - PAUPER and mother is Elizabeth - not Betty .
this looks to me like 2 different families and my guess is that Betty or Richard local church was in Leigh even though the kids were born Atherton they have gone back to their local church for the Baptisms of their children .
so
Marriage: 5 Dec 1776 St Mary the Virgin, Leigh, Lancashire, England
 Richard Oakes - (X), Weaver, Atherton, Leigh Parish
 Batty Markland - (X), Spinster, Atherton, Leigh Parish
     Witness: Isaac Turner; Thomas Oakes
     Banns Read: 10 Nov 1776, 2nd: 17 Nov 1776, 3rd: 24 Nov 1776
     Married by Banns with Consent of Parents by: John Barlow, Vicar ( the baptism below will show Betty was only 18 when she married )
     Register: Marriages 1773 - 1777, Page 86, Entry 347
     Source: LDS Film 559188

obviously Batty - should read Betty
so IF this is her parents - there is a previous 9 years between their marriage and Mary born 1785 - I can't find a marriage in Lancashire for Richard / Betty around 1784/5 - so the 1776 looks to be the only one
.........................................
Baptism: 6 Jan 1757 St John the Baptist, Atherton, Lancashire, England
 Richard Oakes - Son of Thomas Oakes
     Abode: Atherton
     Source: LDS Film 0559186

.....................................................................................
Baptism: 1 Apr 1758 St Mary the Virgin, Leigh, Lancashire, England
 Betty Markland - Daughter of Robert Markland
     Abode: Atherton
     Register: Baptisms 1757 - 1769, Page 59
     Source: LDS Film 1885648

......  still puzzled as to why all born Atherton - they are baptised in St Mary the Virgin ,Leigh and not St John the Baptist ,Atherton ??

[heatherjulie]

St John the Baptist was a Chapel of ease for St Mary's Leigh

[lancsann]

Marriage: 20 Jun 1819 St Mary the Virgin, Deane, Lancashire, England
 Thomas Waddington - (X), Weaver, this Parish [Deane]
 Sarah Oaks - X, Spinster, this Parish [Deane]
     Witness: Abrm. Boardman; George Bowden, (X)
     Married by Banns by: S. Johnson M.A. Off. Minister
     Register: Marriages 1818 - 1824, Page 36, Entry 108
     Source: Manchester Archives microfilm L85/1/3/4

have you noticed (x) for Thomas and George Boardman - but x for Sarah ?...could anyone explain why Sarahs record is not in brackets ?

jsut the way it has been transcribed - on the original and in the Bishops transcripts is says 'mark x of'

[lancsann]

Ellen Green's baptism

Baptism: 1 Jun 1811 St Mary the Virgin, Leigh, Lancashire, England
Ellen Oakes - Daughter of Sarah Oakes
    Abode: Atherton
    Notes: Base

On 1861 both the James & Thomas Green are registered as having mmn as Oakes

If Sarah was born in 1899 as in that 1851 census she would only have been about 12 years old so 1886-89 more likely

[Maiden Stone]

Have you noticed that  Mary / Sally / Richard are born in Atherton - but baptised in Leigh - Margaret is baptised in Atherton - father a Weaver - PAUPER and mother is Elizabeth - not Betty .
this looks to me like 2 different families...

Elizabeth and Betty were not necessarily 2 women. The name may have been recorded differently depending on (1) who took the baby to church for baptism; baby's father may have called his wife a different version of her name to the one her parents used; (2) the clergyman performing the ceremony. Around this time my 4xGGM Elizabeth was recorded as "Elisabeth" or "Eliz." at baptisms of most of her children. Then a new curate took over and didn't include mother's name. When Elizabeth died she was Betty in burial register. One of her granddaughters was Betty in  C. of. E. baptism register, Elizabeth in R.C. one, Elizabeth on census and Betsey when she died. Another granddaughter was Elizabeth in R.C. registers but Betty in C. of E. registers. They and 2 others were all Elisabeth in wills.
The inclusion of the word " pauper" on a baptism entry was to signify that the family was exempt from the tax on births, marriages and deaths. This tax was imposed for a few years to pay a war debt. Anglican clergy were responsible for collecting the tax. The father may have been a pauper for a short time, until his trade picked up or he got another job. Most paupers got " Outdoor Relief" in this era. Once the tax was discontinued there was no need to note in church register whether a person was a pauper.

[OzJane]

Thanks everyone for your input and research, really appreciated.
Just racing out the door to go to work so will consider in detail over weekend your thoughts and suggestions.
Bottom line, on a first reading, is that some of my deductions are not so far fetched which is very reassuring. Will work it all through and let you know where I end up.
Again thanks so much.
Jane
PS: Lancsann, sorry just confirming is  "mmn as Oakes" mother's maiden name? Cheers

[lancsann]

Yes sorry I should have written mother’s maiden name in full