on baptismal records, was father's name shown if he was deceased?

[J.R.Ellam]

Hi

If you look at Bridgett Tolson she married Thomas Hopkin and in the 1841 census it looks like a Elizabeth Tolson was living with the Hopkin family.

Elizabeth Tolson baptised 1817 at Dewsbury daughter of Priscilla Tolson.

John

[LizzieL]

There is a marriage at Dewsbury in 1803 for James Tolson (Clothier) and Priscilla Richardson - licence says that James is 37, plus there is a burial for James Tolson, son of Richard - 17 September 1804.

If the James Tolson who died in 1804 was recorded as son of... I would suspect he is an infant or child rather than an adult

[J.R.Ellam]

Hi

Just had a look at marriage & I cannot see an age for James Tolson.
They were married by licence which usually indicates they had to marry. They had a son, David in 1804 & if the age of Priscilla Tolson in the burial records is right she would have been 28 at the time of the marriage, so if one of them was under age it would be James.
With James Tolson dying in 1804. This would mean that Biddy/Bridget & Elizabeth Tolson were born out of wedlock.

John

[BumbleB]

Marriage licence entry for James and Priscilla (FindMyPast transcription) give James as 37 and Priscilla as 24.

[macwil]

This thread now needs to be read in conjunction with this one-
on burial records, does "son of" imply the deceased was a child?

[LizzieL]

This thread needs to be read in conjunction with this one-
on burial records, does "son of" imply the deceased was a child?

Have now found images of actual burial registers from Dewsbury in early 1800s and there are a lot of burials where son of or daughter of .. are recorded. So either a lot of children died or the vicar was giving more detail than customary. The only Dewsbury baptism for a James Tolson that I can find which would match age at marriage is one who is son of Richard in 1766.
There is a baptism for a David Tolson in Jan 1804 s/o James and Priscilla, so it is looking likely the James buried in Sept 1804 is him.

[BushInn1746]

Hi

 ...

They were married by licence which usually indicates they had to marry.
 ...

Hello

Whilst true that some married because they had to marry, without giving the week's notice AND then going through the Banns process whereby the intended Marriage was publicly read out in Church 3 weeks in a row, these could obtain a Licence.

If a Licence was involved and has not survived, try and see the Marriage Bond and Allegation (if both were issued - see both).


However, there were other reasons why some married by Licence:-

1) Because the Licence was usually valid for up to three months, some may have wished to think of it as a formal engagement, or pledge of marriage.
2) Because their work (such as a Mariner) took them away for periods of time, it was easier to marry by Licence.
3) Possibly some couldn't prove who they were (no formal baptism / birth record), so had to get their Bondsman to make a £200 Bond. Also that any accompanying Marriage Allegation confirmed they were Bachelor / Spinster or Widower / Widow or Single and age/s.
4) To keep the marriage a private matter.
5) Because they had nothing, or very little to do with the Parish Church, due to being Nonconformists ...

Some Nonconformists (NC) although forced to marry in Church by Hardwicke's Marriage Act, kept contact with the Church to an absolute minimum and records of NC baptisms may depend on whether records still survive.

Bear in mind some C of E and NC changed religion back & forth too.

 -----------

General Comment

I have some family Quaker Burials, of unmarried children aged 18 years and over 18 years, two say Daughter of George Hood, Brewer and one does not. Their father was dead, but not all burials confirm the father was deceased.


Mark