Genealogists' Forum - We have branches everywhere!



Go Back   Genealogists' Forum - We have branches everywhere! > Research > Research Questions

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old 11-08-20, 19:03
Phoenix's Avatar
Phoenix Phoenix is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 6,616
Default

Births Sep 1846 (>99%)

Palmer Thomas William Palmer Bethnal Gn 2 54 Scan available -
Wingfield Thomas William Palmer Bethnal Green 2 54
Wingfield Thomas William Tolmer Bethnal Green 2 _4
__________________
The chestnuts cast their flambeaux
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 11-08-20, 19:09
kiterunner's Avatar
kiterunner kiterunner is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Nottingham
Posts: 25,270
Default

Thomas William Palmer's birth was registered Jul-Sep 1846 Bethnal Green and indexed under both surnames - Palmer and Wingfield. The GRO site just lists him under Palmer and shows MMN as - .
__________________
KiteRunner

Family History News updated 29th Feb
Findmypast 1871 census update
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 11-08-20, 19:31
maggie_4_7
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Ahh it is her then

Oh never saw the Wingfield one, only looking on GRO and looked for it on Ancestry to post here.

Good because I ordered the PDF.

Thank you everyone, hopefully he didn't die but as he isn't on 1861 but he would be 15 and quite likely a servant somewhere.

I had better look for a death.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 11-08-20, 19:33
maggie_4_7
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kiterunner View Post
Thomas William Palmer's birth was registered Jul-Sep 1846 Bethnal Green and indexed under both surnames - Palmer and Wingfield. The GRO site just lists him under Palmer and shows MMN as - .
Would that mean Frederick was with Sarah when Thomas was registered?
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 11-08-20, 19:38
kiterunner's Avatar
kiterunner kiterunner is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Nottingham
Posts: 25,270
Default

It would after 1875 but maybe not in 1846.
__________________
KiteRunner

Family History News updated 29th Feb
Findmypast 1871 census update
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 12-08-20, 07:13
maggie_4_7
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Phoenix View Post
I've looked at all Louisa Janes, born 1851-1853 Shoreditch and could not find any with Wingfield as maiden name (or Palmer)
Thank you, neither could I. Perhaps she didn't register Louisa. Couldn't find any baptisms for any of them.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 12-08-20, 07:14
maggie_4_7
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kiterunner View Post
It would after 1875 but maybe not in 1846.
So for Emma Anne's registration if she was on her own she wouldn't have to prove she was married?
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 12-08-20, 07:41
Phoenix's Avatar
Phoenix Phoenix is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 6,616
Default

No. My ancestor registered her baby under the (reputed) father's surname in 1840. The registrar accepted this.

The rector knew perfectly well that she was on her own - as the reputed father married another girl he had got into trouble - so the baptism was under the mother's surname.

Registrars had to cover such a wide area that they appear to have known very little of the lives of those who came to register events. Even where they asked questions, they appear not to have checked the answers.
__________________
The chestnuts cast their flambeaux
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 12-08-20, 10:09
maggie_4_7
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Phoenix View Post
No. My ancestor registered her baby under the (reputed) father's surname in 1840. The registrar accepted this.

The rector knew perfectly well that she was on her own - as the reputed father married another girl he had got into trouble - so the baptism was under the mother's surname.

Registrars had to cover such a wide area that they appear to have known very little of the lives of those who came to register events. Even where they asked questions, they appear not to have checked the answers.
Well my grt grt grandmother Emma Wingfield registered her first child my grt grandmother Martha Louisa as a Wingfield because she hadn't married the father William Sayer, which did later on, but she put the father down as William Wingfield to really confuse everyone probably learnt it from her older sister Sarah
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 12-08-20, 10:21
Phoenix's Avatar
Phoenix Phoenix is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 6,616
Default

When BM's great aunt went to register her illegitimate baby, the question of who the dad was completely threw her. She'd already used her own surname, so she named her brother as the father


We assume that this was a panicked attempt to appear respectable, rather than acknowledging a case of incest
__________________
The chestnuts cast their flambeaux
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 11:56.


Hosted by Photon IT

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7 PL3
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.