LDS record transcriptions: Poulton le Sands and Adlington in Lancashire

[Steve Hayes]

I've been doing some research into families in Morecambe, Lancashire,
a town that was formed out of three villages of Poulton-le-Sands, Bare
and Torrisholme in 1902.

I've found quite a number of baptisms of these families recorded in
the LDS indexes as having taken place in Adlington as well as in
Poulton, on the same date. Google tells me that from Morcambe to
Adlington takes 50 min via the M6 and that they are 40,3 miles apart,
so it seems improbable that all these families would have their
children baptised in Morecambe (where they lived) and rush off to
Adlington to have them baptised again on the same day.

I'll make a note of this in FamilySearch, but thought a warning here
wouldn't go amiss. Someone seems to have misfiled a Poulton register
under Adlington.






--
Steve Hayes
Web: http://hayesgreene.wordpress.com/
http://hayesgreene.blogspot.com
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/afgen/

[Ian Goddard]

On 22/12/17 06:32, Steve Hayes wrote:
> I've been doing some research into families in Morecambe, Lancashire,
> a town that was formed out of three villages of Poulton-le-Sands, Bare
> and Torrisholme in 1902.
>
> I've found quite a number of baptisms of these families recorded in
> the LDS indexes as having taken place in Adlington as well as in
> Poulton, on the same date.

%><

>
> I'll make a note of this in FamilySearch, but thought a warning here
> wouldn't go amiss. Someone seems to have misfiled a Poulton register
> under Adlington.
>

It sounds as if this is an instance of someone transcribing a one
parish, in this case Adlington, and then continuing onto the next
without noticing and changing the standing data on their input screen.
I've seen it elsewhere and suspect the same thing might have lain behind
the report from a little while ago that English records were being
transcribed with entries in a Race field. There might be several other
parishes all joined into Adlington.

--
Hotmail is my spam bin. Real address is ianng
at austonley org uk

[Steve Hayes]

That seems likely. The LDS have filmed the registers of some parishes
more than once, and the indexers seem to have followed different
conventions. In this case the indexer of one filming has made the
errors the other one has not.

Another thing to look out for is that they don't seem to have
indexed/transcribed the "abode" field, but record the parish church as
the "residence" of the person baptised. Fortunately, in the case of
Lancashire, the Lancs Online Parishb Clerks have made a complete
transcription (not an index) of the records, which does give the
"abode" field, which of course gives the residence of the parents as
well if it was an infant being baptised.

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

In message <9k2r3d11amcd7f781...@4ax.com>, Steve Hayes
<haye...@telkomsa.net> writes:
[]

>transcription (not an index) of the records, which does give the
>"abode" field, which of course gives the residence of the parents as
>well if it was an infant being baptised.
>
>

I've generally assumed that too - but would be interested to know if
anyone's seen any evidence to counter the assumption that the abode
field applies to both parents. (Obviously in most cases they _would_
abide together, but I could imagine situations where this might not be
so - especially if [but not only this case) it's an illegitimate birth.)
I'm not sure what form the evidence would take - two different entries
in the abode column perhaps?
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

"... four Oscars, and two further nominations ... On these criteria, he's
Britain's most successful film director." Powell or Pressburger? no; Richard
Attenborough? no; Nick Park!

[Evertjan.]

"J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JP...@255soft.uk> wrote on 23 Dec 2017 in
soc.genealogy.britain:

> In message <9k2r3d11amcd7f781...@4ax.com>, Steve Hayes
> <haye...@telkomsa.net> writes:
> []
>>transcription (not an index) of the records, which does give the
>>"abode" field, which of course gives the residence of the parents as
>>well if it was an infant being baptised.
>>
>>
> I've generally assumed that too - but would be interested to know if
> anyone's seen any evidence to counter the assumption that the abode
> field applies to both parents. (Obviously in most cases they _would_
> abide together, but I could imagine situations where this might not be
> so - especially if [but not only this case) it's an illegitimate birth.)
> I'm not sure what form the evidence would take - two different entries
> in the abode column perhaps?

Wouldn'd an 'illegitimate' child legally only have a mother at birth?

--
Evertjan.
The Netherlands.
(Please change the x'es to dots in my emailaddress)

[Charles Ellson]

No, the father (if unrecorded) is merely unrecorded. All fathers would
have some kind of legal paternal obligation/connection to the child
starting from the moment of birth whether identified at that time or
not.

[Evertjan.]

Charles Ellson <ce1...@yahoo.ca> wrote on 23 Dec 2017 in
soc.genealogy.britain:

>>Wouldn'd an 'illegitimate' child legally only have a mother at birth?
>>
> No, the father (if unrecorded) is merely unrecorded. All fathers would
> have some kind of legal paternal obligation/connection to the child
> starting from the moment of birth whether identified at that time or
> not.

Well, my mistake, I should have said 'administrative', not 'legal'.

Methinks, you should not see the fathers name on such[!] an English [or
Scottish] birth-certificate?

[Charles Ellson]

On Sat, 23 Dec 2017 13:16:13 +0100, "Evertjan."
<exxjxw.h...@inter.nl.net> wrote:

>Charles Ellson <ce1...@yahoo.ca> wrote on 23 Dec 2017 in
>soc.genealogy.britain:
>
>>>Wouldn'd an 'illegitimate' child legally only have a mother at birth?
>>>
>> No, the father (if unrecorded) is merely unrecorded. All fathers would
>> have some kind of legal paternal obligation/connection to the child
>> starting from the moment of birth whether identified at that time or
>> not.
>
>Well, my mistake, I should have said 'administrative', not 'legal'.
>
>Methinks, you should not see the fathers name on such[!] an English [or
>Scottish] birth-certificate?
>

With an illegitimate child, the father's name will be recorded on the
birth registration if both parents attend together. That is for most
purposes conclusive proof of paternity until such time it might be
rebutted (e.g. a paternity test disproves the registered person being
the father). When a child is registered as the offspring of a married
mother there is until it is rebutted (sometimes at the time of
registration if an adulterous father co-registers) a legal presumption
that the wife's spouse is the father. The father's identity can also
be added if he supplies the mother with a statutary declaration of
parentage or a court action identifies him as the father; an unmarried
mother registering a birth cannot give the father's name at the time
of registration otherwise. In Scotland, records of marriage and death
can also include the name of a reputed father.

[Steve Hayes]

On Fri, 22 Dec 2017 23:38:02 +0000, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
<G6JP...@255soft.uk> wrote:

>In message <9k2r3d11amcd7f781...@4ax.com>, Steve Hayes
><haye...@telkomsa.net> writes:
>[]
>>transcription (not an index) of the records, which does give the
>>"abode" field, which of course gives the residence of the parents as
>>well if it was an infant being baptised.
>>
>>
>I've generally assumed that too - but would be interested to know if
>anyone's seen any evidence to counter the assumption that the abode
>field applies to both parents. (Obviously in most cases they _would_
>abide together, but I could imagine situations where this might not be
>so - especially if [but not only this case) it's an illegitimate birth.)
>I'm not sure what form the evidence would take - two different entries
>in the abode column perhaps?

I've seen different entries for each parent in the "Quality, Trade or
Profession" field, which generally translates to "Occupation" in most
genealogy programs.

[Steve Hayes]

On Sun, 24 Dec 2017 00:19:41 +0000, Charles Ellson <ce1...@yahoo.ca>
wrote:

In the case of baptism, as opposed to birth registers, the mother may
name the father, even if not married to him, or the incumbent may have
his own suspicions, perhaps qualified by some such word as "reputed".
In small rural parishes the "reputed" father may be quite well known
to many.

[Evertjan.]

Steve Hayes <haye...@telkomsa.net> wrote on 29 Dec 2017 in
soc.genealogy.britain:

"quite well known",
he being a "consumer" ["consumator"?] as in
"And he knew her not till she brought forth her firstborn son" ?
[Matthew 1:25]