Burial listings

[PNHAVERS]

Hello.
There's something that I've been wondering for a while now.
I'm currently back into the early 18th century with my family research.
In a Parish Burial listing,  if the name of the parents is also given  (ie  Robert, 29th September 1743 -  son of Robert and Mary),  does this generally mean that the deceased person died relatively young?
Would they have bothered to add the names of the parents if the deceased was an adult?

If this is often the case, it would slightly help in the tracing of people.

Thanking anyone that replies to my probably silly question!

[Davedrave]

In my experience it seems to be that such records do usually seem to relate to children but I’m not sure how safe it is to rely on it too strongly in the absence of any other evidence. On the other hand I’m reasonably certain that some burial records I have which don’t say “son (daughter) of” are child burials.

Dave

[PNHAVERS]

Thankyou Davedrave.
I feel the same about not relying on it as fact.  But still interesting to hear your thoughts (that it is not a completely daft assumption)!

Paul

[PNHAVERS]

Actually .... one other question whilst I'm on here!
If only ONE parent is mentioned with a burial listing, (ie  Sarah,  daughter of John), can i possibly guess that the father, John, was still alive, but the mother not???
Again, I know it is not totally reliable, but a reasonable chance?  Lol

Paul

[Bee]

Actually .... one other question whilst I'm on here!
If only ONE parent is mentioned with a burial listing, (ie  Sarah,  daughter of John), can i possibly guess that the father, John, was still alive, but the mother not???
Again, I know it is not totally reliable, but a reasonable chance?  Lol

Paul

Going back in time baptisms only gave the name of the father even when the mother was alive, so is it reasonable to assume that burials would only give son/daughter of father.

[Davedrave]

I think that if only the father is mentioned in the record it is probably not safe to assume that the mother has died. I’m basing my hunch on the fact that so many earlier records only mention the father in baptism records.

Dave

p.s. My post crossed with previous post

[PNHAVERS]

Thanks Bee and Davedrave.
I guess that theory is probably out of the window then!!  Lol

[Jebber]

It is quite common for only the father to be named in early baptisms, it doesn’t signify that the mother was deceased. Women were of no importance, they were regarded as possessions of the husband, they had no rights over the children, even their clothes belonged to the husband.

[PNHAVERS]

Thankyou Jebber for your kind help.
The only reason I perhaps felt that the parents' listing/non-listing (in my particular burial records) might be relevant .......... is because within the same family, the same village, and indeed the same church, (and within 3 yrs of each other),  one burial gives both parents, and the other only gives one parent.

But I accept this is probably a bad assumption.

Thankyou,  Paul