Moderator Control Panel ]

Such a mess!!

A problem shared is a problem halved. Post your brick walls here and see whether you can offer advice to others

Such a mess!!

Postby mjcosj » Mon Dec 12, 2016 10:14 am

I am thoroughly confused regarding John and Frances Such. Thomas Such’s Christening record clearly show his mom and dad as being John Such and Frances (I think that it is is Browne) but I cannot find any record of a marriage between these two folk, or any corroborative evidence of their existence. I have seen other trees with the couple listed together but without any evidence. One record shows them as being born in the 1600’s a good 100 years prior to John Such’s birth
Can some kind person shed light on this difficulty please?
Thank you
mjcosj
Thomas Such
Baptism Date 22 Mar 1753
Baptism Place Birmingham, St Philip, Warwickshire, England
Father John Such
Mother Frances Such
Reference Number DRO 41
Archive Roll M188
mjcosj
 
Posts: 46
Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2016 11:56 am

Re: Such a mess!!

Postby carobradford » Mon Dec 12, 2016 10:51 am

Firstly, and perhaps most importantly, taking family history back to the middle of the 18th century is a considerable challenge unless the ancestors concerned were either wealthy enough to leave wills (a tiny minority), or had very distinctive names, or didn't stray from a small geographical area, and preferably all three. If you have confidently traced your family back to the Thomas SUCH baptised at St Philip on 22 March 1753 then you have done fantastically well.

I am not sure where the Browne comes in. The baptism register simply gives the date of baptism, the Christian name of the child and the forenames and surname of the parents. This was the standard format at the time - if you go further back you often don't even get the name of the mother - and it is rarely enough to draw confident conclusions from, in the absence of sound corroborative evidence. One significant fact is that there appear to be no other children of this couple baptised at the same church within 5 years either side of 1753. This could imply that Thomas was the first born and that one or both parents died soon afterwards or that the couple did not reside for long in the parish.

I hate to appear negative, but it is much more satisfying to accept that your research has reached a natural end than continue on the basis of guesswork. As the last piece of documentation that you have reached does not give you enough to accurately identify the individuals, I would recommend extending your research outwards rather than backwards, towards siblings of descendants of Thomas rather than his ancestors. There is always the possibility (though it is a small one) that a clue might emerge to take you further back. In the meantime, you will still have fun!
carobradford
 
Posts: 91
Joined: Thu Mar 03, 2016 1:54 pm

Re: Such a mess!!

Postby mjcosj » Mon Dec 12, 2016 1:51 pm

I am aware of the difficulties of research in the 1700's.
I dont give in easily and know that some of the members of this forum have greater skills than I do and so I am still hopeful that some kind person will be able to shine a light on the difficulty. Thanks for your reply.
mjcosj
mjcosj
 
Posts: 46
Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2016 11:56 am

Re: Such a mess!!

Postby junkers » Mon Dec 12, 2016 2:49 pm

Have you seen the baptism entry on paper/film as it may be that there is a transcription error. Have you also looked at the possibility they may be listed under another name, like Sutch. There are various records for individuals of the period (tax records) but where the parish registers survive they are the best. It is sometimes, where possible, to just go through the film or records and look for any other children or relatives around the period.
junkers
 
Posts: 935
Joined: Wed Feb 22, 2012 6:59 pm

Re: Such a mess!!

Postby mjcosj » Mon Dec 12, 2016 3:57 pm

Hi Junkers
I have a copy of the Church Record Entry which is quite clear, I have also seen the IGI entry but I am stuck at that point. Other records say that Frances is Frances Browne but I can find no evidence of a wedding or a birth for either parent. I have seen several entries in other tree's but they have no evidence to support them.
M
mjcosj
 
Posts: 46
Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2016 11:56 am

Re: Such a mess!!

Postby AdrianB38 » Mon Dec 12, 2016 11:47 pm

Pardon me for being pedantic but when there are problems, we need to be absolutely certain that we are all understanding everything and not missing something. So....
mjcosj wrote:... I have a copy of the Church Record Entry which is quite clear, ...

What do you mean "Church Record Entry"? Do you mean the baptism in the Parish Register for St. Philip? And what sort of a copy? Is it a transcript or a microfilm or a digital image of the register (which may, of course be an image of the microfilm but that's OK - apart from bad photos, there shouldn't be any data loss.) And if it is on-line, it would help to say where.

mjcosj wrote:... Other records say that Frances is Frances Browne ...

Which other records? Do you mean other people's trees? If you do, then of course your worry that
mjcosj wrote:... they have no evidence to support them. ...

is perfectly correct. Well done for thinking carefully there!

mjcosj wrote:... I can find no evidence of a wedding or a birth for either parent. ...

OK - this sounds like the crux of the matter. There are something like 5 possible explanations:

1. The 1753 parish register entry was transcribed incorrectly. If, as I suspect, you've seen an image of the original PR,then we can discard this explanation.

2. The 1753 parish register entry was written down incorrectly in the first place. This happens and can be a pig to deal with. Where is the error? (if there is one). This is reminiscent of my 3G GF Bate. There were 2 possibilities for his baptism - because he married after 1837, I knew his father's name. One didn't fit so he must have been the other. But there were all sorts of anomalies if it were the other. I realised that there was no marriage for the "other" baptism's parents and no other children for them. But there was another family in the parish which did have children, did get married and did have the right father's name. I therefore deduced that the original baptism was wrong.

I guess that the equivalent is to look for other Such families in the area and see what matches partly.

3. The couple may have married in the area (or have had other baptisms in the area) but those registers aren't online (if that's where you've been looking). The LDS Wiki for Warwickshire seems like a good place to start - see https://familysearch.org/wiki/en/Warwickshire,_England_Genealogy
also https://familysearch.org/wiki/en/A_Comprehensive_List_of_Birmingham_Parishes_and_Chapels
and https://familysearch.org/wiki/en/Birmingham_St_Martin,_Warwickshire_Genealogy
That last one has a table that is important for knowing where to look for parish register entries. It's all written by volunteers so may not be exactly current but, to take an example, Hall Green Chapel was founded in 1704 but appears to have no registers on-line. The crucial details may be there... Or not.

4. The couple may have married outside the area... I have no idea how much coverage the rest of Warwickshire has. They might even come from outside the county. Of course, then the problem is identifying them. Possibly an impossible task.

5. Frances may have been telling an untruth when she claimed to have been married. For some reason, I always imagine the mother's name to be correct, so she may have made up John. Looking for other evidence of Frances (or Fanny) Such is the thing to do there. She may also have come into Birmingham to avoid detection by her friends and other family.

And as is stated above, you need to cover off spelling variants of Such - e.g. Sutch or Suck (one I spotted). I have had a quick look in Ancestry without anything obvious standing out.
Adrian
AdrianB38
 
Posts: 2536
Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2010 4:07 pm

Re: Such a mess!!

Postby mjcosj » Tue Dec 13, 2016 9:13 am

Thank you Adrian.
After years of transcribing I am well aware of how easy it is to make a mistake. I know only too well that people who record details are fallible which is why my research at this point is a mess.
I have seen a photocopy of the church entry and the transcription on IGI is correct.
Since I can find no other children fro Frances and John in Brum I am concerned about their real details.
Two other trees list John and Frances but neither is worth a pinch of salt. It would appear that I have hit a real Brickwall and of course I may not be able to breach it which is why I asked for help.
I cannot find a marriage anywhere in England for these two people and so they may(as you say) not be married. The other possibility (as I have encountered in other family members) is that France informed the parson and that John does not exist.
Thank you for your suggestions, they are gratefully received.
Happy Christmas
mjcosj
mjcosj
 
Posts: 46
Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2016 11:56 am

Re: Such a mess!!

Postby Guy » Tue Dec 13, 2016 10:30 am

mjcosj wrote:I am thoroughly confused regarding John and Frances Such. Thomas Such’s Christening record clearly show his mom and dad as being John Such and Frances (I think that it is is Browne) but I cannot find any record of a marriage between these two folk, or any corroborative evidence of their existence. I have seen other trees with the couple listed together but without any evidence. One record shows them as being born in the 1600’s a good 100 years prior to John Such’s birth
Can some kind person shed light on this difficulty please?
Thank you
mjcosj


Like Adrian, I am unsure what you mean by “Church Record Entry”or “church entry”.
Do you mean a Parish Register entry or Bishop’s Transcript entry?

If you have been given or have seen a microfilm copy of the entry on the LDS site it is very possibly an entry from a Bishop’s Transcript rather than a Parish Register entry as they were given access to microfilm many Bishop’s Transcripts rather than original Parish Registers.

I am also puzzled what you mean by “being John Such and Frances (I think that it is is Browne)”.
If you are viewing a Parish Register or a Bishop’s Transcript the inclusion of a woman’s surname indicates the couple were not married. That being the case there would be no record of marriage in any register.

Cheers
Guy
As we have gained from the past, we owe the future a debt, which we pay by sharing today.
Guy
 
Posts: 372
Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2009 3:56 pm

Re: Such a mess!!

Postby mjcosj » Tue Dec 13, 2016 11:26 am

I have seen a "photocopy' of the church entry and, the transcription on IGI (corresponds).
The Browne cam from someone else's tree but is not evidenced. I used it to guess at the possible solution but it was only tentative. The names on the Bishops Transcripts are John and Frances. They are quite clear. I have tried to think of alternatives to the Frances name using different letters but it is hard to do. Since the entry is legible I have no other alternatives but to believe the entry is as was given to the Minister.
We continue to search.
mjcosj
mjcosj
 
Posts: 46
Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2016 11:56 am

Re: Such a mess!!

Postby ianbee » Tue Dec 13, 2016 1:23 pm

(Parish Register)
Birmingham St Philip
1753
Baptised March
Attachments
Baptism Thomas Such.jpg
Baptism Thomas Such.jpg (70.73 KiB) Viewed 2358 times
ianbee
 
Posts: 2292
Joined: Wed Jul 28, 2010 4:51 pm

Next

Return to General research queries


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests