Baptismal Help * COMPLETED *

[weemantam]

Hi. I have a scenario which I'm trying to get my head round and I'm hoping that one of you guys who are up to speed on irish habits might be able to clarify.

I have a Baptism entry lifted from ancestry which provides the following information:

(female) Mctrustry
born 12 Apr 1865, Doagh, Ant, Ireland
"Baptism Place:   18, Doagh, Ant, Ireland"
parents- Charles Mctrustry & Elizabeth Mcmurray

Note that the child has no name.

Initially I thought that that it was a stillborn child BUT... on looking at a recently advised resource Ancestry Ireland I discovered this detail (note that the parents are the same)

Ulster Historical Foundation
Margaret McTrusty
born 19/05/1865, bapt. 19/05/1865 ST ANNE'S (REV J H DEACON)
www.ancestryireland.com

Now, I know it's fairly simple to simply say that it's the same person because one is perhaps a birth record of an unnamed child (because a name had not been picked) and the other is baptismal record (the child having been named in the interim). My big problem though is Doagh in the first record and Shankhill in the latter and they are about 20miles (or more) apart.

Hence (I hope) a local can explain this odd scenario.

Thanks

Steve

[shanew147]

the first record looks like an extracted civil birth record - so Doagh is likely the sub-district.

The 2nd record is a baptism, so Shankill is the parish.


Shane

[weemantam]

Thanks Shane, pretty much what I reckoned. It was just the distance of the records that bothered me. I'm going to assume Margaret was born in April in Doagh and baptised in May in Shankhill (assuming that, perhaps, St Anne's was the nearest appropriate venue for a baptism given the rural neighbourhood or possible displacement of the family in the meantime) Most of the family events happened in Shankhill around this time. It's more the Doagh involvement that causes me issue.

Thanks

 

[kingskerswell]

Hi,
    In 1858 Charles McTrustry married Elizabeth McMurray in Ballyclare Presbyterian Church, Grange of Doagh parish, Co. Antrim. I can find the following children.
 1865 Un-named female born in Doagh.
1869 Agnes born in Carrickfergus.
1874 Charles born in Belfast Urban 3.

Regards

[weemantam]

Hi Kingskerswell,

I have invested a fair bit of time in working on this Irish family and have gotten this far:

Annie McTrusty 1860 – 1924
Margaret McTrustry 1865 –  <<< The apparent unnamed child I am working on
Ellen McTrustry 1867 –
Agnes McTrusty 1869 – 1924
Charles McTrustry 1871 – 1871
George McTrusty 1873 – 1951
Charles McTrusty 1874 – 1875
Henry McTrusty 1876 – 1946

Which marries in with what you found.

Thanks for the search though.

Steve

[shanew147]

I'm not familiar with the parishes in this area, but those included in Doagh sub-district do seem a bit north of Belfast - i.e. : Ballycor, Grange, Ballylinney and Kilbride (Antrim Upr. B.).

Maybe Shankill was the original home parish of the mother or father, and that's where the child was brought for baptism.. or the family lived in Shankill and the mother went back to her family home somewhere in Doagh district for the birth of this child ?


Shane

[weemantam]

Exactly, it was the distance that was bothering me. I'm wondering if the family originated from Doagh and moved to Belfast where the mainstay of the birth/marriage records exist. It would explain the distance.

I still cant figure out why there is any kind of a civil record (or even Parish record for that matter) which didn't state a forename. I just cant get my head round it. Why create a record for someone (who clearly wasn't stillborn) and not have a name against which it can be referred. Seems sort of pointless.

[shanew147]

its not unusual to see civil birth records without a first name - just means the parents decided to register before having finalized the name. There was a time limit after the birth for the registration - otherwise theoretically they could be fined..

I think the Christian name would be required for a baptism... i.e. parish record


S.

[weemantam]

Agreed, at the end of the day, I think that it's clear (between the two records) that Margaret and the unnamed child are one and the same. I doubt there would be any scenario nowadays where you could turn up at the registrars and register your childs name undecided. Suppose there is some sense in the naming traditions of the time (in retrospect).