HARTWELL Daniel from Elford Born 1773 - error in records??

[babywombat]

I've posted about this before but a bit more research has thrown it all up in the air and now I'm really puzzled.

There are two Daniel Hartwells (Heartwell), one baptized in Harlaston in June 1816, son of John and Elizabeth and one baptized in Elford in September 1817, son of Daniel and Mary.  I had originally thought the Harlaston Daniel was mine, but there's a burial record in Harlaston for a Daniel Hartwell in June 1817 aged 11 months, which is before the second Daniel is born.  All of which leads me to conclude that it's Daniel, son of Daniel and Mary that's my ancestor.

Which brings me to my problem.  The only possible record I can see for Daniel senior is a child born in Elford in 1773.  BUT, there's a burial record mere weeks later for what looks like the same child.  There are banns for Daniel Hartwell and Mary Millington in 1814.

So I can't see Daniel senior being any other than the one born in 1773, which means the burial record can't be right.  Has anyone ever come across this before or do you have any other advice?

Thanks everyone!

Laura

[Ayashi]

Are the records complete for the time period? There could have been a christening for a second child whose entry isn't online/didn't survive.

I've had errors as well- I've got one ancestor apparently christened twice when in fact it seems the second christening was actually his younger brother Peter, but for some reason the wrong name was put down. I've got another christening where the name of the child above (her cousin) was written again instead of the child's actual name.

There's also the fact that he might not have been born/christened in the area. People did travel after all, and some of mine travelled some astonishing distances before coming back home again. Some were a lot older than expected- one of mine remarried when he was knocking 70 and had more children. "It's the only one I can see" is a piece of evidence that has never sat well with me, even if it turns out to be right.

I can see an 1841 census entry for a Daniel HEARTWELL (born bet 1772-1776) living in Elford with a John HEARTWELL and Mary HEARTWELL. Could this be your potential Daniel? This Daniel dies in 1844 aged 70 [1774].

If this Daniel is a child of the same parents, it might be a) the christening is missing b) the burial had the wrong child's name or c) outside chance, he wasn't christened.

If you are lucky enough to get hold of wills, that's often helpful.

[rosie99]

It may be easier for us to help if you can tell us about Daniel junior, where do you have him on census 1841 / 51 and who/where did he marry. 

 

[BumbleB]

On your other thread related to Daniel, I said that Daniel's will (1844) did not appear to have survived.  Wrong, it has survived.    Very short, he leaves everything to be divided between his two sons - John and Daniel.  William Kemp Bourne is the executor.  Daniel made his mark.

[babywombat]

Hi everyone,

The records are complete and are either on Ancestry or FindMyPast (I can't remember off the top of my head). I'll have to check where Daniel Jr was in 1841 but he married Caroline Barker and ended up in Birmingham.  I've come to the conclusion that the death record of a Daniel Hartwell in 1773 is most likely correct and my Daniel is a later child whose baptism record - for whatever reason - is missing.  There's a history of the parents naming later children after ones that have died and I think a missing baptism is more likely than an incorrect burial, especially as all their other children are accounted for after this date.  It also seems unlikely that one of 14 children was baptised somewhere else and there's nothing obvious in neighbouring parishes.  But happy to have your thoughts!

Laura

[Ayashi]

Stranger things have happened... it could be as simple as an overworked vicar who forgot one of the children he'd christened that day. Not all of them took the records too seriously either- there are some stories I've heard of the odd one who kept very lax records or even damaged or destroyed records themselves, such as lighting fires with them! I suppose from their point of view the most important part was the christening itself, never mind the paperwork.