#1
|
||||
|
||||
Rebecca Wiggins
Rebecca Wiggins
born about 1780 christened the child I know about at St Giles Cripplegate, London, England I guessed her dob from her son's christening date (in 1806, IGI batch C025779). The father was listed as Richard Payne. There IS a marriage in the right area (Southwark) for these names but it's much later (06.01.1820) There is a Rebecca Payne on the 1841 census HO107 b7 folio 56 p6 in St Olaves Union Workhouse aged 60 (born in county) There is also a burial for a Rebecca Payne 28.08.1847, aged 67, at Horsleydown St John, Southwark. Her son is here:http://www.genealogistsforum.co.uk/f...ght=john+payne
__________________
Sarah |
#2
|
||||
|
||||
The baptism for John is on Ancestry - the parents are helpfully indexed as Richd Rayne and Reba Wiggins! Richard's occ is 'turner'.
The Richard at the 1820 marriage IS a widower..............
__________________
Merry "Something has been filled in that I didn't know was blank" Matthew Broderick WDYTYA? March 2010 |
#3
|
||||
|
||||
... but he married another Rebecca Wiggins ???
I have very little brain at this time of night. .... most of the time actually. What do you think happened, Merry?
__________________
Sarah |
#4
|
||||
|
||||
?????? I am confused too!
I thought you were saying John Payne was born to unmarried parents in 1805/6 and there's a marriage of people with the right names for his parents in 1820. I meant if the marriage is for the same man marrying the mother of his baby then at least the marriage entry shows Richard Payne to be a widower which could explain the long time it took for him to marry Rebecca (ie he waited until his former wife had died).
__________________
Merry "Something has been filled in that I didn't know was blank" Matthew Broderick WDYTYA? March 2010 |
#5
|
||||
|
||||
Yes, that's what I was saying, lol!
I understand the widower reference now. I didn't realise that illegitimate children could be baptised though.
__________________
Sarah |
#6
|
||||
|
||||
I don't believe you!! What about all those threads there have been about how the vicar describes illegitimate children (at baptism)......illegitimate, b*stard, base born, natural child, love child etc etc
__________________
Merry "Something has been filled in that I didn't know was blank" Matthew Broderick WDYTYA? March 2010 |
#7
|
||||
|
||||
OK - I did know - obviously it's just my brain that's malfunctioning at ALL times of day & night!!
but didn't think both parents were named...
__________________
Sarah |
#8
|
||||
|
||||
I think that depends on the date and the vicar. Sometimes they say the father is 'reputed' and other times just give his name with no further comment. After the mid-1800s the number of fathers names given for illegitimate children drops dramatically. Was that when they church was no longer responsible for making sure these father's coughed up some maintenence?
__________________
Merry "Something has been filled in that I didn't know was blank" Matthew Broderick WDYTYA? March 2010 |
#9
|
||||
|
||||
I think it might also depend on whether the father acknowledged paternity or not. It looks likely that in this case he did.
|
#10
|
||||
|
||||
I think that's what threw me, Kate.
It's one thing naming the father but another actually giving the child the father's surname.
__________________
Sarah |
Tags |
to4g24 |
|
|