1
The Common Room / Re: How much can we rely on parish records in the absence of other evidence?
« on: Monday 05 December 22 10:33 GMT (UK) »I have only one instance out of many hundreds or more of baptisms where a parish record records the mother’s maiden name in every entry on a page. Coincidentally it is in the same family that an ancestor was given the mmn as a middle name. And I can think of only a handful of cases of the latter practice (including a couple of examples where a single mother is thus naming a child’s father).
I think that if most tree-constructors strictly applied standards of proof, most trees wouldn’t go back far at all in most branches. Apart from my surname line, which is directly provable back to 1647 and pretty secure to 1600, only one other line even approaches that (to 1757). In this case there are no wills but a poor law removal, an apprenticeship indenture, and freeman records. Ironically this branch was pretty much at the bottom of the social order.
Writing some years ago W.G. Hoskins suggested that it would be an exceptional Leicestershire family descended from a yeoman farmer which could not trace its descent back to about 1600 with persistent searching, but he also refers in his paper to the use of “strong circumstantial evidence”, which is surely not up to the required standard.
Hoskins researched families in Wigston pretty thoroughly and included in one of his articles was one of my family lines, the Pawleys. He asserted that they were descended from Pauli. a Viking who settled after a big battle. There's nothing else to prove it of course so I just keep the suggestion in my mind.
But when people ask how far back I've got on my tree I do enjoy saying "Winter, 878"!