William James Briers or Glazebrook

[AussieKate]

i was wondering if anyboy can confirm via the original records the birth of my 3x G Grandfather, i know that his name was William James but i am unsure of the surname, i am pretty sure that it was Briers, according to the Familysearch site there are 2 William James' baptised on the same day Briers and Glazebrook both at Stevenage and i think that they are one and the same person, because the father and mother on both are the same (Joseph Glazebrook and Elizabeth Briers), according to the record online he was baptised on the 17/5/1818 in stevanege, and his parents were married on the 29/5/1819, so i guess that because they weren't married he took the mothers surname (Briers) and the rest of their children Edward (1822), Joseph (1830), Maria (1827), Mary (1832), Phoebe (1837), Sarah (1824), Sarah Ann (1841) and Elizabeth (1835) all had the surname Glazebrook.

Thanks
Aussie

[bedfordshire boy]

I think your interpretation of the IGI entries is correct, particularly as on marriage to Kezia Pateman, as William John Briars, he names his father as Joseph Glazebrook.

The parish register would confirm the single entry for the baptism, but being prior to 1837 there is no birth entry. The microfilm can be ordered from and viewed at your nearest LDS Family History Centre. As you know, I have the same William and Kezia in my tree.

David

[RichardK]

Hi Aussie

I checked the microfilm at County Hall in Hertford this morning.  The register is in a tabular format (as is normal for post 1813 baptism registers).  You need to understand how the table is laid out in order to see what's happened here - in essence it's not clear from the baptism whether his surname was Glazebrook or Briers, which is why I imagine FamilySearch has transcribed him under both names.  I can't get RootsChat to do a sophisticated enough table to show it, but I have managed to do it on WeRelate:
http://www.werelate.org/wiki/Person:William_Briers_%282%29

I believe the rule at the time was that your surname was whatever your mother's surname was at the time of your birth, hence he was probably legally a Briers.  That said, as his parents subsequently married and had more children together it's a bit odd that he didn't adopt Glazebrook as his surname irrespective of the legal position.

Hope that helps
Richard.

PS: I also transcribed the baptisms of the first three children born after their parents' marriage - again on WeRelate (linked from the page mentioned) to get the table format right.

[AussieKate]

Richard you are a star!!

Thanks for that i really do appreciate it!

Aussie