Could this happen?

[Comosus]

Here's the dilemma:

John Holmes b1788 to Robert Holmes and Frances (nee Lawson) at Thorp Arch, Yorkshire
Robert was born around 1758.  There is a birth for a Robert in the perfect place to William and Elizabeth.  Great, I thought.

However earlier this month I decided to check the parish registers for deaths.  It appears that that Robert was buried 4 days after he was baptised.

Now, I was also lucky enough to find John's sister Maria b1796 on a Dade baptism register.  This gave the father's father's name as William Holmes (and the mother's father's name as John Lawson).

So this Robert born to William and Elizabeth was born in the perfect place, at the perfect time, to the perfect father.  There aren't any others that would fit.

I'm so convinced that it must be right, and I don't want to sound like I'm clutching at straws here (but I probably do).  Would it be possible for William and Elizabeth to have had twins, and for one to have died shortly after birth.  Then they baptise the one that survives as Robert, and bury the one that died as Robert, a few days later?!

Andrew

[Gadget]

Hi Andrew

I'm not sure how complete the parish records are for that parish (not familiar with it) but I would think that it is more likely that they might have had a son a wee bit later and named him Robert but that it wasn't entered in the registers.

This often happened in the areas that I am familiar with - the scrap of paper with the details written down by the vicar/curate got mislaid or was never written. The parish clerk/cleric didn't enter it in the register. All sorts of reasons.

Unfortunately, there is no way of knowing in most cases. Did William leave a Will? Did Robert name any of his children William or Elizabeth?

Otherwise if might well be a different family entirely. Where there any other Holmes in the area or adjacent parishes having children around then?

Regards

Gadget

[Comosus]

The children of Robert were William 1783, Jane 1785, John 1788, Hannah 1791, Mary 1793 and Maria 1796.

The children of William and Elizabeth were Robert 1758 and Thomas 1760.  They were baptised 17 months apart so there isn't really room for another child.  William and Elizabeth married in 1757 so they can't have been baptised when they were older.

Unfortunately, none of my families seem to have wills.  Elizabeth died in 1771.  I don't know when William died, because I moved onto another branch after finding Robert's death, but I searched between 1759 and 1837 and didn't find him.

Andrew

[Gadget]

It's a tricky one, Andrew 

It is possible (just)  for another child to be fitted in. Possibly a premature birth or the first Robert was baptised late    The more wealthy families had 'wet nurses' so the women (who were healthier than their poorer counterparts)  became fertile again much earlier than the 'breast feeding' Mums. I've seen instances of such families producing a child every year 

Gadget

[MaryA]

Just a thought - was the actual age of the child given for the death.

I had a birth and death transcribed on the IGI - they had linked both instances together, so making the death of a child aged 4.

I didn't want the death to be for this child as I believed I had him mentioned later in life in a brother's will so checked the birth and death entries and the occupations of the father was different proving they weren't the same person. 

I know the IGI isn't to blame in your case, but in my search there was no age given for the death entry which caused the confusion.

[Comosus]

No age was given, but the burial was just 4 days after the baptism.

Andrew

[Gadget]

Did it say 'son of William.....etc.' ?

Gadget

[Comosus]

Yes, it said Robert son of William and Elizabeth Holmes.

Andrew

[Gadget]

What kind of family were they, Andrew? Occupation, etc. Where there brothers to William who might have had a son Robert. Is it possible that the Robert came from a neighbouring parish and married Francis and settled there?

Gadget