Chatting with other family historians during RO visits.

[coombs]

It is nice when you get chatting to a fellow person who is doing their family tree and they have the same niggles as you. I was recently chatting to a lady who wishes that every parish gave "wife of" when women were buried or "widow of". I know the feeling as back then records were not made to help us genealogists. She also commented on how many pre 1813 baptisms gave just the father's name.

[BumbleB]

On the other hand there are some wonderful entries in parish registers.  Some Yorkshire parishes followed Reverend Dade whereby baptism entries gave parents and grandparents, including occupations.  Unfortunately this ceased in 1812 when the printed version of the registers was introduced. 

[stanmapstone]

Just to add there was  the "Barrington period" in the local parish registers of Durham and Northumberland for the years 1798 - 1812  when the amount of information especially in baptisms, was given in great detail. It lasted until Rose's Act came into force on 1 January 1813 and put an end to it. The Bishop of Durham Shute Barrington was the man responsible for this.
By Rose's Act of 1812 (The Parochial Registers Act) parish incumbents were required to use specially printed registers, from and after the 31st December 1812. The act required detailed information to be recorded for baptisms. In addition to the name of the child and the date of the baptism Rose's Act also required the register to include the names of the parents, their abode, and the father's quality, trade or profession and the name of the officiating clergyman.

Stan

[jonw65]

Just to add there was  the "Barrington period" in the local parish registers of Durham and Northumberland for the years 1798 - 1812  when the amount of information especially in baptisms, was given in great detail. It lasted until Rose's Act came into force on 1 January 1813 and put an end to it.

But if you have ancestors from Reading in Berkshire (and many other places) the new baptism and burial registers were a vast improvement!
Apparently what Rose originally proposed re information to be given in the registers went much further, great pity it got watered down! Figure 2, Original schedules as proposed in Rose’s Bill  (image 5 of 20)
http://www.localpopulationstudies.org.uk/PDF/LPS76/Article_3_Basten_pp43-62.pdf

[JenB]

Just to add there was  the "Barrington period" in the local parish registers of Durham and Northumberland for the years 1798 - 1812  when the amount of information especially in baptisms, was given in great detail. It lasted until Rose's Act came into force on 1 January 1813 and put an end to it. The Bishop of Durham Shute Barrington was the man responsible for this.

Here's the great man. Every time I go to Auckland Castle I go and look at this portrait and thank him
https://artuk.org/discover/artworks/shute-barrington-17341826-bishop-of-durham-17911826-43613

[BushInn1746]

Just to add there was  the "Barrington period" in the local parish registers of Durham and Northumberland for the years 1798 - 1812  when the amount of information especially in baptisms, was given in great detail. It lasted until Rose's Act came into force on 1 January 1813 and put an end to it.

But if you have ancestors from Reading in Berkshire (and many other places) the new baptism and burial registers were a vast improvement!
Apparently what Rose originally proposed re information to be given in the registers went much further, great pity it got watered down! Figure 2, Original schedules as proposed in Rose’s Bill  (image 5 of 20)
http://www.localpopulationstudies.org.uk/PDF/LPS76/Article_3_Basten_pp43-62.pdf

Hello

Thank you all for the information.

Yes, having scant information about a Wife burial, or only a Father on a Baptism record is a great nuisance, especially when that Baptism is uncertain, or your proven Ancestor's birth location is not absolutely 100% clear.

Is a pity Rose's proposals which went much further, were not implemented. It would likely have got me out of a hole, or deeper in time.

I noticed in the pdf the author saying that they wanted Dissenters [Nonconformists] also to be included in any reform.

Dissenters were not Church of England, so records of some of their Births / Baptisms were never kept, or missing before this period.

Mark

[coombs]

I think it is a case of it can vary from parish to parish. This lady I was talking to said that she thought women were seen as second class citizens in those days, hence why PR's sometimes listed just father's name. I am not so sure about her opinion.

Luckily I have ancestors from Co Durham which can list a father's name of the parents or place of origin of the parents. It proved my Scottish ancestor in Bishop Auckland in the late 1790s.

[nanny jan]

I think that only the father was recorded in baptisms to help, if necessary, prove ancestry for inheritance.....family farms etc.   

[louisa maud]

"This lady I was talking to said that she thought women were seen as second class citizens in those days"

Read on 1911 census " husbands slave" not sure who filled it in or whether is was meant to be a joke, it made me laugh but I wonder if there was some truth in it, in which case, how sad

Louisa Maud