#21
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
Last edited by southukgibbs; 04-08-23 at 23:47. |
#22
|
||||
|
||||
But it was said earlier in the thread that the William who was born in 1807, son of John, was the one who died in 1808. Or are there two Johns having children at the same time?
|
#23
|
||||
|
||||
If you can't get to the archives to look at the Hungerford parish registers, they are also available to view on FamilySearch but you have to go to a FamilySearch Centre or affiliated library to access them.
|
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
The marriage document states: Married on 22.10.1832 William Gibbs b.Hungerford, Mary Smith b.Hungerford. Witnesses John Bird,*Mary harris (Georges Wife)*Jane Smith (Mary's sister) The fact that Mary harris and Jane smith are listed as witnesses pretty much seals the deal for me that this is Georges brother. Along with the fact that he was also born in Hungerford, was a tailor (like George) and also doesn't have baptism record. In regards to John, I'm not sure. I guess all i have to go with at this point is there was a John Gibbs living close by at the same time to William, potentially down the road, who was also a tailor. However in the 1851 census there were 54 tailors in Hungerford, so they wernt short of them! According to Hungerford virtual museum 'Tanning at one time was a flourishing Berkshire industry, largely due to natural supply of oak trees. At Hungerford the tanning business was of sufficient importance for the Hocktide Court to appoint "searchers and seekers" annually. The "searchers and seekers" were official snoops whose duty it was to see that none but properly 'tanned leather appeared for sale.' I was in contact with Berkshire record office back in 2020 and they did a search for me, for a fee, which showed no results. From a search it seems that they hold the parish records Last edited by southukgibbs; 05-08-23 at 21:53. |
#25
|
||||
|
||||
Yes, I realise that your William is not the one who died in 1808. I was just trying to point out that that William's father was called John.
|
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Thanks, yes you're right. I guess thinking about it, even if my William was born say just under a year later from John and Ann they probably wouldn't have named him William again after their first child died so young, or was that something that was done. If not then, yes, i guess it helps me narrow it down a bit, as doubtful that there were 2 john and Anns, something I'll look at
|
#27
|
|||
|
|||
It was very common in my family at least, to name the next child after the one who had died. I read somewhere that it was a superstition, to fool the devil, who would think he had already taken that child.
OC |
#28
|
||||
|
||||
Of William Brown and Elizabeth Bullock's fifteen children, two were called Daniel, two called Elizabeth and SIX called William.
While it is very rare to have two living children with the same name, it's quite common to try for a surviving child with a family name.
__________________
The chestnuts cast their flambeaux |
#29
|
||||
|
||||
One of my families had 14 children - ten survived to adulthood. The four that didn't were all called Thomas (after their father). Two of those were baptised within a few weeks of the death of an earlier Thomas. You would think by the time you had named three babies Thomas and they had all died whilst the rest of your children were survivors, you might give up on the name for your very last child? They didn't though and he died aged 4.
__________________
Merry "Something has been filled in that I didn't know was blank" Matthew Broderick WDYTYA? March 2010 |
#30
|
||||
|
||||
I've got two brothers on my tree both registered as Frederick between 1901 and 1911. I spent ages looking for a death of the first one until the 1911 census was released and showed they were both still living and neither was called Frederick by that date!
__________________
Merry "Something has been filled in that I didn't know was blank" Matthew Broderick WDYTYA? March 2010 |
|
|