St Thomas, Dudley - lookup needed on original PR only

[sbunter]

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

[goldie61]

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!

[sbunter]

No, you have to be at an LDS centre to view - tried it
cheers

[goldie61]

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.

[dcbnwh]

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

[sbunter]

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

thanks for any extra eyes on this problem,
cheers,
Sharon

[Dundee]

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 

[Dundee]

If they are related at all wouldn't it be possible that Thomas, William and the unmarried Sarah are all siblings?

Debra 

[sbunter]

William was born 1793 so not old enough to be Mary's father, and there was no Thomas, so no.