Sarah WADDINGTON nee OAKES

[OzJane]

Thanks so much to all of you for your insights and research. At least no one said I was over reaching in my thinking, which is in itself reassuring.
So in relation to my original query.

• • Sally' is acceptable as an alternative to 'Sarah'
    No one specifically said that the Census would have to be correct and that a birth year of  1788 is reasonable so there is likely to be an error on the 1851 Census
    Naming patterns of children would point to Sarah/Sally being the daughter of Richard and Betty
    Not out of the question for child to be born in Atherton but baptised in Leigh


So am strongly inclined to think that Sarah Oakes' (b Atherton 1788) parents were Richard and Betty with at least 2 siblings, Mary and Richard. Betty and Richard were married in 1776 in Leigh. It does seem odd that there was a very long gap between the marriage and the first recorded child in 1785, though. Could just be that the baptisms were not recorded though there are a couple with no mother on the record - possibly a change of curate/minister meant records kept differently?

James Oakes
Christening Date:   18 May 1776
Christening Place:   St. Mary-the-Virgin, Leigh, Lancashire, England
Father's Name:   Richd Oakes

Robert Oaks
Christening Date 17 Jun 1780
St. Mary-the-Virgin, Leigh, Lancashire, England
Father's Name  Richard Oaks

Anne Oaks
Christening Date
09 Nov 1782
Christening Place LEIGH,LANCASHIRE,ENGLAND
Father's Name  Richd Oaks

It is likely that Sarah had a baseborn child, Ellen, b 1811 (BTW the original parish register shows a Peter Oakes baptised on the same day and also a base born child of Sarah Oakes - twins presumably.
Sarah went onto marry Thomas Waddington in 1819. Daughter, Ellen married James Green.

Again really thrilled with your input, and Garstonite, if I stray across the border into Cheshire, I'll be in touch.

Cheers from Oz

 

[Maiden Stone]

Oz Jane, my answer to your question in post #9 as to whether a change of curate sometimes meant a change in way entries in parish registers were recorded is yes. There was no 1 set way of writing baptism registers at that time. Someone in 18th century devised a detailed format, naming both parents, which would have been a boon to family historians if it had been widely adopted. Some clergy in some parishes used it but others didn't. As I mentioned in my earlier post, the elder children of my 18thC couple had names of both parents in register; the younger ones had only father + his abode & occupation. If there was more than one man in a parish with the same name a curate may have written his abode and/or occupation or something else to distinguish him (e.g. "the Younger") or may not. Name of the curate who performed the baptism may be in the register. I also have possible multiple Richard and Elizabeth and Richard & Jane combinations from my parish. Richard and Betty seem to have been common Christian names in 18thC Lancashire.

Estimated year of birth on census was calculated by subtracting the age of the person from the census year. Census Day was March or April, except 1841 when it was held in summer. Even if the person knew their exact age and it had been written down correctly and then transcribed accurately into the census enumerator's book, it could still have been a year out, depending on when the person's birthday fell. Ages of adults on 1841 census were supposed to be rounded down to nearest multiple of 5 years but not every census enumerator did this. Some people didn't know their true age. They were seldom asked. Some, e.g. women married to younger men may have subtracted a few years. Husband, child, friend, relative, workmate, neighbour or whoever filled in a family's census form, may not have known correct age and wrote whatever they were told. POB on census sometimes changed as well.

[Maiden Stone]

To learn more about English parish registers see the page Parish Registers and Bishops' Transcripts on Ancestral Search website. www.ancestor-search.info/SRC-ParishReg.htm

[OzJane]

Thanks so much Maiden Stone, really appreciate the explanation. Makes it all a bit clearer though the temptation is there to jump to conclusions because of the variations in recording. Having the RootsChat community question me is a fabulous thing. I attended a course a few years ago and the woman running it, an experienced family historian, said you really must have two sources of information at least, if you want to be sure. Sometimes though the two sources are there but relate the wrong person! Too easy in this game to jump in and say 'that's the one'. Self discipline all the way to ensure accuracy and accepting that sometimes the answer is just not there.
The link to Ancestral website is great, I hadn't seen this one before.
My thanks to you.
Cheers
Ozjane

[Maiden Stone]

Re post #12.
I have multiple sources for my Richard/ Elizabeth/Jane/ John/Alice/ Thomas combinations of husbands & wives, fathers & daughters, including wills and leases but the elder Richards, with wives Jane and daughters Elizabeth are a conundrum. I thought there were 2 Richards, fathers of several daughters called Elizabeth and Ann, most of whom died young.      I'd identified my Richard & Jane (I thought). Recently I came across death of a Jane, wife of Richard, a few years before the birth of my ancestor (another Richard) whom I'd presumed was their son.    2 days after Jane's burial a Richard from the village married in the next parish and went on to have several children over the following decade.      Scrutinising an image of Bishops' Transcripts I saw that when my ancestor, baby Richard was baptised, it was noted that Richard, his father, was deceased.     That information was also on original parish register, but missing from the transcript, on which I'd based my previous conclusions. Helpfully the father's occupation was recorded; it was the same family business his son, grandson and great-grandson continued. I'm now leaning to the number of Richards in the village as 3, one or more with a wife, Jane, or even 1 with 2 wives called Jane.    As to which Jane was mother of fatherless baby Richard is now inconclusive. 

My later 18thC Richard & Jane, John & Elizabeth, Thomas & Mary couples & children were easier to track. As well as more detail in  Anglican parish registers, they also appeared in the R.C. registers from mid century. Matching the 2 sets of registers, I was able to confirm who was who. Some couples had 2 wedding ceremonies. Some married by licence so that was a 3rd piece of evidence. Correct ages of some brides and grooms were recorded.

The Ancestral Search site was new to me as well. It has information and guidance about many aspects of FH research.