When something is wrong

[Phoenix]

Went to a talk this afternoon about a small place in Surrey. The colleague who gave it used all sorts of sources, but not Protestation Returns.

I knew records survived for East Surrey, so I checked the House of Lords website.

It included this entry:
https://archives.parliament.uk/colle...JO_10_1_105_63


[A previous description noted that this return had now identified as Abbotsbury in Dorset but there is nothing on the return to evidence this]


Well, I don't know what evidence they want, but it is signed by the vicar, Edward Osborne.


Who is the vicar of Abbotsbury in the 1640s?
https://theclergydatabase.org.uk/jsp...PersonID=55028


As really common names like Boatswain and Samways appear in both the parish registers and the return, I take it that this cannot be regarded as evidence.


Clearly, this record had been misfiled ages ago, but because I'm interested in Tandridge, the hundred under which it is filed, I had to check it out before dismissing it outright.

[kiterunner]

Sampson Labore baptised 25 Apr 1602 Abbotsbury = Sampson Labour on the image? Not many people of that name.

[Phoenix]

Indeed, thanks for spotting him, Kite.

They could just have easily said that while the part of the document recording the parish name is missing, internal evidence suggests that it is Abbotsbury. Clearly someone had done the hard work before us.

[Olde Crone]

Isn't it annoying.

I have a hobby tree which I have spent many years researching, using, wherever possible, the primary source. Hundreds of people have also "researched" this tree. Most of them have a made-up date for the birth of the gateway ancestor. Some, who have clearly copied each other, have a baptismal date, which is correct. Except, it ISN'T a baptismal date if you look at the church register, it is the date on which the child's father was reported and fined for non baptism (along with about 20 other children of nonconformist parents). If you look at the top of the page where these non baptisms are reported, it clearly says
"Born but not baptised".

Possibly it doesn't matter much in the great scheme of things, but it matters to me the nitpicker - and it adds weight to deciding who his grandparents were or were not.

OC

[Phoenix]

Just like the name collectors who didn't bother to read the marriage register that clearly states our ancestor was a widow at marriage (and if they read all the other entries, they would realise that her second husband probably wasn't the father of her twins!)

Meanwhile I've just found a tree where the guy's ancestor is killed in action in WW1. All very sad... except he was a retired butler in 1911, and would have been 77 when he supposedly died. Miraculously, he arose from the dead, and is still a retired butler in 1921.