Hot answers tagged

10

Yes, it is fair to infer that Mary and Sarah were twins. The indexes were compiled quarterly, meaning that children born over nine months apart should appear in different quarters. If one was registered late then they often are entered in the index in the correct quarter as well, with a reference in the margin such as "see Dec '37". The fact that both of ...


8

To answer the question about baptising sickly children - yes, absolutely. The Church of England has an abbreviated form of the Order (i.e service) of Baptism to be used in homes etc. in such circumstances. Such baptisms are generally known as Private baptisms and may be marked with a letter P in the register. Remember that there were once those who were ...


3

Looking over the question and your tree on Ancestry, one fact jumped out at me. When you look at the profile of Mary's husband, the John Juden b. 1804, you have only one record type -- the marriage banns for the 15 Jan 1825 marriage of John and Mary in Thorpe, and the various Baptism/Christening records of the children which you've noted in your question. ...


2

It's true that she never married the father of WBR Watson - indeed she had to chase him for child maintenance! There are a range of 'bastardy' documents in the Sussex archives (search at the keep) where the local parish authorities had an arrest warrant made out to detain Bourn Russell so he would pay for the upkeep of the young WBRW. Doesn't sound too ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible