Genealogy Chat

elizabeth

It sounds as if it is up to the vicar how the child was baptised. Sounds a bit unfair but it often wan't.

kathy

My gt grandfather (and gt grandmother!) had 3 children before they married in 1854

The first 2 were baptised with the mother's name.

Number 3 was presented for baptism with number 4 (born after the nuptials-just!)
The vicar baptised them both at the same time,number 3 with the mother's name and number 4
with the father;s name!!

He pointedly gives the date of birth of each in the margin!

They were all registered in the father's name.

I found an interesting record the other week for a many times great uncle - he was born 22 Oct 1815, baptised on 22 Nov 1815 and mum and dad got married the day he was christened. I've never seen that before.

Ann

i'm wondering too if the baptism registry Kathleen mentions is different to parish records or the same thing.
i would also be interested in looking at court records, but don't know where to start looking or how accessible they are

Kathleen, you mentioned the baptism registry. Where would I find this, please. I've got one of these annoying loose ends to clear up, too.

thank you for all your interesting replies. i was under the impression that a child could not be given the fathers name if he/she was illegitimate. at least i now know there were some exceptions to the rule

thanks again
shelly

Shelly, I found a Mark Nobes marriage about the right time on ancestry. I've sent you a message

It is also true that in the 1840s a child could be registered under the mother's surname, even though the father is named, if the parents weren't married.

One of my ancestors in the early 1800's had at least 5 children by different fathers. All were baptised in the fathers name. I checked the baptism registry and it says father reputed to be and gives the fathers names. I checked the court records for about that time and found that for each child there was a court record of the father being named and obviously made responsible for the keep of the child. Perhaps when it was clear who the father was it was possible to baptise in the fathers name.

Kathy

I've got an ancestor who seems to have been baptised and given her father's surname despite the fact that her parents didn't marry until a couple of months later.
The baptism is on the IGI in 1813 and I'm hoping to check it sometime because it also has her mother's surname as her middle name but slightly wrongly transcribed.

I think in country districts quite a lot of couples got around to marrying after the birth of the first child. I can think of others on my tree.

Sue

thank you for your replies.
sorry, I put the wrong date, it was 1865 not 1861.
No, I havent found it registered in BMD index.
I'm looking for Mark Nobes and Martha ?
Their daughter was Elizabeth, baptised in Guist Norfolk.
I've even tried variants of spellings.

shelly

Well I've got 2 base children baptised which give the father's name, on both the Mother's maiden name is shown.
It could be-
A) They lied & pretended they married
B) In the case os the 1821 the marriage isn't shown on the IGI if this is what you are using
C) On the 1861 you may have just not spotted the marriage.

Just to add to the confusion, it's common for Mother's maiden name to be shown on both Methodist & Scottish baptisums even when the parents were married.

Have you found the 1861 registered?

was it possible for parents in 1800's to have their child baptised with fathers surname, even if they were unwed?
I have twice come across a baptism in my tree with no trace of a marriage (one in 1821, the other in 1861). on both occasions, the mother's maiden name is not given

regards
shelly