1841 Census - Bardock COLE

[nannyj]

Have looked for bardock c1812 baptism on little and great Oakley, ramsey, wix, Hardwick, parkeston and
Wrabness Parish registers to no avail!
There are a fair few Cole baptisms but no bardock.

[nannyj]

There is a Cole baptised to John and Mary 4 August 1816. It’s a bit difficult to read. Think it says Caleb, but maybe it starts with a b? Image 11. Great Oakley.

[jonw65]

FreeReg has a baptism of an Elizabeth Mason otherwise Cole in Little Oakley, 25 June 1836
Parents Bardick + Elizabeth

The BT has it in 1837, rather than 36, and no mention of Cole on that (and I can't be sure the name actually is Mason!)
https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:9Q97-YSLF-LZ6?i=340&cat=515277

Hopefully nannyj might be able to investigate.
John

[nannyj]

FreeReg has a baptism of an Elizabeth Mason otherwise Cole in Little Oakley, 25 June 1836
Parents Bardick + Elizabeth

The BT has it in 1837, rather than 36, and no mention of Cole on that (and I can't be sure the name actually is Mason!)
https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:9Q97-YSLF-LZ6?i=340&cat=515277

Hopefully nannyj might be able to investigate.
John

There is a note at the side of the record in the Parish register that says ‘ this family is always called Cole, but wrongfully as the born (difficult to read that word) was an illegitimate child, Lord on eight (can’t make out those three words) to the name of the person who afterwards married her mother.

Little Oakley baptisms image 26 for anyone who has access.

[jonw65]

Thanks, nannyj.
I wonder if they really did get married.
Another Elizabeth!
2 January 1840, Little Oakley
Elizabeth
daur of Bardock + Elizabeth Mason alias Cole
Labourer

That baptism from the BT

[nannyj]

The note added is different handwriting and I saw on a family treee that the first Elizabeth died 1839 (haven’t looked for a burial yet). Elizabeth is not with bardock 1841 census but he is with son bardock.

[nannyj]

BRdock is baptised to bardock and Elizabeth Cole, Elizabeth 1836 (found her burial in little Oakley in 1839) and Elizabeth 1840 are to bardock and Elizabeth Rason (think it’s an R) alias Cole. Sarah 1844 and James 1852 are just bardock and Elizabeth Cole. So if, and I think it is an if, they did marry, it looks like before 1844. Have looked all over the area with no luck for a marriage.

[sherrbert]

Started out with a load of Bardock's and now I've got a bunch of Elizabeth's. Did a search for Bardock b.1883 and came up with a Bardock Raison aboard a vessel in Harwich 1881! Big coincidence!!! I think he is Cole using the mother's maiden name that he should have been given at birth as his parents weren't wed. There is also a Bardock Cole marrying a Mary Cuthbert in 1843! Bardock is such an uncommon name this marriage must tie in somehow.

[jonw65]

Are we sure it wasn't Bardock who was illegitimate?
That would explain Rason alias Cole.

If the Elizabeths were known to be illegitimate (althogh we still haven't found a marriage!) then usually only the mother would be named on the baptism, or it would say the parents were Bardock Cole + Elizabeth Rason. Or something like that!