Is CHARLES actually WILLIAM?????

[soulsister]

Hi all

Wondering if someone could help sort something out for me.

My gtx5 grandfather, JONATHAN LEWIN was born in 1795, in leighton bromswold, the son of JONATHAN LEWIN and SARAH BEAL.

Jonathan and one of his brothers, CHARLES, resided in Brington for most of their lives until their deaths.

I have the will of both JONATHAN and his brother CHARLES and also the death dates of each, from all the information i have collected these two are DEFINITELY brothers.

Now the confusing part starts!

I have a list of baptisms from the Leighton Bromswold PRs with all children of Jonathan Lewin and Sarah Beal, BUT there are no CHARLES'!!!!

Charles died, aged 36, in 1829 so this would give him a birth year of around
1793. The only baptism that year is for twin boys by the names of Jonathan and William. Jonathan died and was buried in May the same year.

There are 3 baptisms for WILLIAMs to Jonathan and sarah.
The 1st being in 1791
The 2nd in 1793 (the twin)
and the 2rd in 1804.

Now there are 2 burials for williams.
One in oct 1793
and another in mar 1805.

My own idea is that the twin WILLIAM is actually my CHARLES, but i have no proof!!
The twin was born in april 1793, 4 months before any william had died!! If the first william had died then i would understand the naming of another son by that name, but why name him that when the first wiliam is still alive!!

Then we have the bap of the 3rd william whilst the 2nd william is still alive!!

I do hope i havent confused anyone and do hope you can understand what i have written!

Would you agree that the twin WILLIAM is indeed my CHARLES? Or should i look further??

Emma.

[bedfordshire boy]

It certainly is unusual that they should name another child William when a previous one was still living.

So either the first or second William could be a PR error, but the age at death of Charles points to it being the first William who died.

Have you checked the parish register on microfilm as opposed to relying on a transcript (the BVRI for example)? If you have and if my reading of what's in the BTs is correct ie they are missing for this period, then you are unlikely to be able to prove that the PR is wrong. But the circumstantial evidence looks strong

Your call!

Regards

David

[soulsister]

Yes, these have been checked on the PRs microfilm!!

So they really did call him William!!  How odd??!!

id say he was William Charles, aka Charles!!

Emma.

[bedfordshire boy]

No, he was entered in the register as William, which is not the same as "they really did call him William". Whoever entered it may have made a mistake and he should have written Charles. It wouldn't have been the first time it's happened - in Beds where all pre 1812 registers have been transcribed, any differences between the PR and the BT are noted. There are quite a few.

I don't buy the William Charles idea

David

[soulsister]

Ah, thats probably better then as the name WILLIAM isnt mentioned anywhere else down the line.

Do you know whether the BTs are completely missing or just not completed??

Emma.

[bedfordshire boy]

I just checked the film notes in the LDS catalogue, but I would double check with Huntingdon Records Office as to exactly what it is they are holding

David

[soulsister]

Thankyou for the advice, i will get onto that asap!!

Regards

Emma.