Joseph Rawlinson bapt Mar 1808 Batley - COMPLETED

[Milliepede]

No I typed in John because BumbleB said it had been transcribed as John!

Click on the first result that comes up and it should show the whole page he is on.

I found him under March 13.

I just used the general search boxes not in any record set.

[Pheno]

'Joseph, son of William Rawlinson, Labourer, son of William by Elis'th his wife, daughter of John Fell.'

I am getting confused here:  Is this statement repeating itself in saying 'Joseph son of William Rawlinson' and then after stating that he was a labourer, repeating 'son of William by Elis'beth his wife'
or is it stating that the first William Rawlinson's father is also William Rawlinson? seeing as Elisabeth's father has been stated as John Fell.

Thanks both - I got to the image in the end but a very convoluted method - my options were not the same as yours BumbleB

Pheno

[BumbleB]

So:

Joseph is the son of William Rawlinson and his wife Elizabeth.

William Rawlinson is the son of William Rawlinson
Elizabeth is the daughter of John Fell

Oh the joys of a Dade-type register 

[Pheno]

Thanks BumbleB that's what I had begun to believe, but wasn't sure that I could expect two generations worth of family info in one register entry - haven't come across that before.

Now off to check this extra info against the baptism in 1812 of Samuel Rawden, ostensibly to the same couple, and if it matches I believe I can accept that the Joseph Rawlinson baptismal entry is that  for the chappie who is henceforth reccorded as Joseph Rawden.

Thanks to all for their help,  Pheno

PS Just checked Samuel's baptism and it confirms that the parents are William and Elizabeth and that their respective fathers' are William and John - but on this entry the surname is reccorded as Rawden.  Hooray - 2 generations further back in one fell swoop. Pheno

[BumbleB]

Yeh!!!!