Multiple Baptisms and Christening dates on one person?
I have a relative died in 1855 Worcestershire England: Issue is that over time there has been 34 sources added: they really do appear to be all his but some of the children have like 3 Christening & also Baptism dates: What do I do? Ideas?
Side Bar: I do think that some of these are not children but rather they are grand-children so I will need to fix that up.
My Nightmare thought is that there are two or three different families
Thomas & Sarah in that area around the same time with kids names the same ?
Children of Thomas Walker LBW5-44Y
답변들
-
For your first question, it is actually not uncommon for English children to have multiple baptism/christening dates. Often, when an infant was born sickly or weak, it was given an "emergency" baptism at home just in case it passed away before it could be "properly" baptized. If the infant recovered, it would often subsequently be given a second, proper christening at church. So if you find two christening/baptism dates for what looks like the same child (same name and parents, same location), both of those dates could very well be valid for a single individual.
I'm looking at the sources for Thomas's children right now. It looks like Lucy, Thomas, and Sarah all check out. All of William's baptism dates match except for the last record which says 23 May, not 10 May. That record is also for a William Walker who was born in Blakesley, Northamptonshire, which is about 100 km from Shoreditch.
That being said, if Thomas and Sarah Walker were married in Kidderminster, Worcestershire, it strikes me as a bit unusual that they would be living in Northamptonshire or London. Not impossible, but unusual, as most people did not move around much in those days, especially once they started having families.
I would try and see if you can find any information on where Thomas lived later in life, which would help you determine where he was likely living when his children were born, and thus which children in this list are likely not his. Right now, the only source he has for himself is his marriage record. Depending on how long he lived, he may have appeared in the 1851 census, or maybe Sarah would have even if Thomas had passed away before that. For now, I would say that any children born in Kidderminster are most likely his, but the rest will require further evidence.
As far as wondering if any of these children are actually grandchildren, it is possible that some of the youngest ones may be children of some of the oldest ones; there is enough of a time gap. The Ann Walker born in 1880 definitely can't be Thomas's and Sarah's child, as Ann was born when Sarah was 89.
And regarding your nightmare thought, well, that tends to be one of the quirks of English genealogy, I'm afraid. Many families re-used the same names for their children through the generations, sometimes making it very difficult to establish proper family relationships, especially if relatives lived in the same town as each other. Sometimes you've just got to give it your best guess.
0 -
Thank you Teresa so much. Those are all thoughts I had as well. Which left me overwhelmed with where to start to fix it all.
Do I start maybe with my closest living relative on that line and work back from there? I am afraid that I think that is how I came across this nightmare LOL
0 -
You're welcome! I don't blame you for feeling overwhelmed.
Yes, that is exactly what I was going to recommend. Focus on your direct line of descent first, and then start branching out to aunts and uncles and their descendants. And just take things one family at a time. Some families are pretty straightforward, while some, such as Thomas Walker's, are much more convoluted and will take quite a bit of time and research to straighten out.
If you need any further help, please feel free to reach out to us here at England Genealogy Research! We're here to help!
0 -
It would be very common for there to be multiple people with the same names, even couples with the same names having children of the same names - the names Thomas and Sarah being just ripe for this kind of problem. Sometimes families used naming patterns for their children so you could see cousins with the exact same name, born about the same time.
I see that you have performed a number of merges, probably because the system prompted you with possible duplicates. Be really careful with this, you are smarter than a computer program and if something doesn't seem right with the program suggestion, don't take it!
One way to divide out the right families is to look at the occupation of the father when the child is baptized. Most of the time this requires that you see the actual parish register image where it should be noted in the time period that these children were baptized. Unfortunately, it looks like it could be a problem for you right now because the images aren't available unless you have access to a family history center.
Also, you have to be really careful to pay attention to the place. For example, I notice that you have in the sources William Walker baptized on 10 May 1819 at St Leonard's, Shoreditch, London, England, United Kingdom and William Walker baptized on 23 May 1819 at Blakesley, Northamptonshire, England, United Kingdom. Probably not the same person. This can happen as a result of a merge where you don't notice that the events happened at a completely different place.
Your idea to start with your closest relative is a good one. Make sure you have that person well-documented as to time and place, then work back from there. People alive after 1837 in England are a lot easier to work with, so if you have someone in that category, it would help!
0 -
For children born in England post 1837, you can search the General Record Office birth registration indexes and usually see the mother’s maiden name.
This tool in combination with census and parish registers is wonderful to help sort out which mother belongs to which child (and to which husband)
The search is free.
https://www.gro.gov.uk/gro/content/certificates/Login.asp
0 -
I realize this doesn’t help with the children of LBW5-44Y because of their birth years
0 -
Hi Danielle
I have just checked out the sources section of the ID (for Thomas Walker) that you have provided. Most of the sources should be detached from there, and I wonder why you added them in the first place. Perhaps you did not and it is your name that appears against another user's work. This typically happens when you merge two IDs.
However, you do appear to have merged the IDs for two totally unrelated individuals named Ann Walker - one born in 1822 and the other in 1880. This has also caused the warning notice ("Birth after mother's child-bearing years") to appear on her page, as well as those of her parents.
I can accept much of the work "accredited" to your name might have originally been undertaken by other users - otherwise, why would you add sources that relate to places in different parts of England, just because a "Thomas Walker" is mentioned?
I have been in similar situations to yours and have found myself spending two or three days sorting out all the errors. I do not envy you your task and it might be best to ask for direct help from someone you know who has greater experience than yourself.
In short, most of the sources attached to Thomas (and possibly other family members) need to be detached and at least that one merge (mentioned above) needs to be reversed.
I wonder if these relationship errors (particularly relating to sources) have come about as a result of FamilySearch "hints", under "Research Help". I have found most of those suggested on the IDs I am working on need to be dismissed immediately, as the algorithm used is so loose that the suggestions (of matches, duplicates, etc.) are often ridiculous.
Just take your time, get help if possible, but please try to sort something out here, as a totally inexperienced user coming across these records will be completely baffled as to what is going on here!
0 -
Thank you for your response
0 -
Thank you Paul for the response. Yes I think that I did a lot of the merging and not looking at stuff closely. Over the years I did this and that. But now that I am a Family History student I am noticing a lot of my errors. It is a learning process.
0