General opinion wanted

[myluck!]

I agree that in all probability in a small village where the father had other children with a wife that this is an error.
On one of my ancestors her civil marriage certificate shows her husband as Thomas and Michael, his brother, as a witness but the father of all her children is Michael and she lived with him as her husband. We can only conclude that they signed the incorrect lines on the register!
In 1800 I am sure a note of reference would have been made if this child had a different mother; some one maybe distracted the vicar or perhaps he filled in the book later in the day when he couldn't quite remember her name!

[Redroger]

Names of mothers are quite often wrong, and in some parts of the country mainly in older records omitted altogether. Another device used by the vicar is to cross through the surname of the child and follow it with the mother's surname to indicate illegitimacy and that he knows the father.

[doodleysquat]

Thank you all very much. I have posted on this topic before & we couldn't come to any definite conclusion, which is why I haven't posted the full details (there's no point anyone going over all the work again. I've also had some friends from outside these boards trying to help)

Since then, though, I've found the "spare possible mother", so I'm really asking you where you would go from here.

What I've got is the baptism of a William, parents John & Ann. I can find a James & Ann & a John & Mary, but no John & Ann. The baptism of William would fit into a "gap" in either family, according to the records of baptisms I've got for their other children. One of these families did have a William six years later, whereas the other couple don't seem to have named another child William.

As I've said, I've also found the death of an Ann, whose age would have made it possible for her to have been William's mother. I don't know whether she was a widow or a single woman. I can't find a marriage for a second Ann in the village.

Several people have looked at William's baptism record for me, but they can't find anything untoward. There was a John & Ann in a neighbouring village, but, if William was their son, he would have had to have been born a few years before they married & they had a William "of their own".

William's first son was Thomas, so this doesn't tie in with his father being either John or James (but it would tie in with a grandfather)

At what point do you say "I can't reach any conclusion" or would you pursue the couple who didn't have a William "of their own"?

Thank you

[Redroger]

My family tree software (Legacy7) allows me to enter this information, and to subsequently remove it if I find the entry to be wrong. What I do in these circumstances is enter the information in its most likely place, and ensure that I have made extensive notes on the entries drawing attention to the potential problems. Then if I need to I can alter it with a minimum of fuss. Hope this helps.

[doodleysquat]

Thanks, Roger. I think that's all I can do, unless anything else comes to light. If it WERE the couple that didn't have "another" William, then there would be a naming pattern which meant that William (who would have been the first son) & William's first son, would have both been named after their parental grandfathers. So maybe that's the best bet to go with, while making regular checks to see if I can find anything else. I can't find a birth for the "spare" Ann

[Redroger]

I wonder if the practice of naming children with the same forename as deceased siblings of the same gender could come into this somewhere?

[greyingrey]

Not unless there was a miscarriage/stillbirth that wasn't registered. "My" William would have been the first child of the couple that didn't have another William., &, if he wasn't their child, they wouldn't have named a son after the paternal grandfather (not impossible, but, in view of the number of children, unlikely) He was  also  born before the Williams of the 2 other couples (although, obviously, it's not impossible to find 2 children of the same set of parents with the same name).

If we rule all those out, that just leaves the Ann living alone as the mother....if she was married, her husband died/disappeared before the first census & I can't find a baptism/marriage for her. So maybe William was her illegitimate son & she just adopted the surname...but there's nothing on William's baptism to suggest he was illegitimate.

Unless records have been lost, I reckon the couple I want is the one that  didn't have another William & a mistake was made with one of the parents' names. But it's incredibly irritating not to be able to find out one way or another

[Redroger]

Know the feeling, then as now mistakes were made.