Moderator Control Panel ]

Wrong sex on baptism record - Bennet Barnard Winterton 1792

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

Wrong sex on baptism record - Bennet Barnard Winterton 1792

Postby lauralem » Fri Apr 26, 2019 10:41 am

Hoping the hive mind can help me unriddle this...

I have a 5x great grandmother, Bennet Barnard, who was supposedly born in Winterton with East Somerton in Norfolk (not to be confused with Winterton in Lincolnshire) around 1795, according to census records. I have found a baptism record for a Bennet Barnard in this Parish from 1792, but it distinctly says 'Son of...'

I haven't found any other Bennet Barnards born in the country around that time - and as it's not a very common name (especially for a girl), could it be that they thought she was a boy when she was first born? (I guess it would also explain the name, which I understand is predominantly a boys name).

Any ideas???
lauralem
 
Posts: 5
Joined: Tue Apr 16, 2019 10:36 am

Re: Wrong sex on baptism record - Bennet Barnard Winterton 1

Postby MoVidger » Fri Apr 26, 2019 12:42 pm

On FreeReg there are three 1792 baptism records for her. Two with person sex for "male", and the third indicates "female". See below. Perhaps it was an early transcription error which was corrected shortly after?

County Norfolk
Place Winterton
Church name Holy Trinity and All Saints
Register type Transcript
Baptism date 17 Jun 1792
Person forename Bennet
Person sex F
Father forename Samuel
Mother forename Sarah
Father surname BARNARD
MoVidger
 
Posts: 691
Joined: Mon Aug 24, 2009 12:14 pm

Re: Wrong sex on baptism record - Bennet Barnard Winterton 1

Postby HardWork » Fri Apr 26, 2019 2:31 pm

I think you'd need to check the original record to be (hopefully) sure. I have found a not dissimilar confusion in my researches. The parish register of St. Mary's in Woodbridge, Suffolk lists a Hagar John WRIGHT as baptised in 1857, and a boy. Hagar is normally a girl's name in my experience. This comes from the Suffolk Family History Society parish register transcripts. The GRO also has the birth listed in their indexes as a male. However the 1861 census lists Hagar, living with parents, but as female. I've not managed to locate a marriage or death/burial nor any further mention of him/her in subsequent censuses, so the mystery continues for now.
HardWork
 
Posts: 21
Joined: Mon Feb 12, 2018 10:49 am

Re: Wrong sex on baptism record - Bennet Barnard Winterton 1

Postby lauralem » Fri Apr 26, 2019 4:25 pm

Thanks so much - I didn't know about FreeReg, and looks like they've had access to the original (which is the one that lists her as female), so it would seem the parish and archdeacon's records were erroneously transcribed. I was working from the Parish Record.

Mystery solved!
lauralem
 
Posts: 5
Joined: Tue Apr 16, 2019 10:36 am

Re: Wrong sex on baptism record - Bennet Barnard Winterton 1

Postby AdrianB38 » Fri Apr 26, 2019 4:32 pm

I have a distinct feeling that some enumerators would "correct" entries that they felt householders had got wrong because they hadn't understood the question. Personally, if 2 out of 3 say one thing and the 3rd is an enumerator potentially correcting stuff, I know what I'd believe - but you are right to be wary.

Sent from my Moto G6 Play using Who Do You Think You Are? Magazine Forum mobile app
Adrian
AdrianB38
 
Posts: 2536
Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2010 4:07 pm

Re: Wrong sex on baptism record - Bennet Barnard Winterton 1

Postby AdrianB38 » Fri Apr 26, 2019 4:44 pm

Sorry - just realized that the census entry is not the original query but an illustrative example. Nonetheless, as is suggested above, the odds are that the original entry is correct - "Surely Kim is a girl's name" isn't always true. Except when it is.

Sent from my Moto G6 Play using Who Do You Think You Are? Magazine Forum mobile app
Adrian
AdrianB38
 
Posts: 2536
Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2010 4:07 pm

Re: Wrong sex on baptism record - Bennet Barnard Winterton 1

Postby ianbee » Sat Apr 27, 2019 7:38 am

17 June 1792 private baptism
Parish Register
Bennet son of Samuel & Sarah Barnard
https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903 ... cat=464281

Archdeacon's transcript
Bennet son of Samuel & Sarah Barnard
https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903 ... cat=388023

Burial at Winterton, 23 October 1864
Bennett Amiss, age 73
https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903 ... cat=464281

New GRO death index
Dec 1864 Flegg 4b 29
Amos, Bennett
age 73
ianbee
 
Posts: 2289
Joined: Wed Jul 28, 2010 4:51 pm

Re: Wrong sex on baptism record - Bennet Barnard Winterton 1

Postby ianbee » Sat Apr 27, 2019 8:38 am

HardWork wrote:The parish register of St. Mary's in Woodbridge, Suffolk lists a Hagar John WRIGHT as baptised in 1857, and a boy. Hagar is normally a girl's name in my experience.

But John isn't!

1871
Hagar Wright, Niece, 13, born Suffolk Woobridge
https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:VFND-P82

Possible marriage?
Sep 1879 Strand 1b 995
Wood, James George
Wright, Hagar John

She may then be the Hagar Wood, born Woodbridge, living in Kent in 1891 and 1901, age 33 and 44.
In Canterbury in 1911, Hagar John Wood, 54, born Woodbridge
https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:XW6M-X8T

Possible death
March 1914 Canterbury 2a 1308
Wood, Hagar John
age 58
ianbee
 
Posts: 2289
Joined: Wed Jul 28, 2010 4:51 pm

Re: Wrong sex on baptism record - Bennet Barnard Winterton 1

Postby AdrianB38 » Sat Apr 27, 2019 10:03 am

I wonder if the "John" refers not to a boy's name but is from a surname? I have a 3 greats aunt, Emily George Bruce, whose paternal grandmother was Emily George.

Sent from my Moto G6 Play using Who Do You Think You Are? Magazine Forum mobile app
Adrian
AdrianB38
 
Posts: 2536
Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2010 4:07 pm

Re: Wrong sex on baptism record - Bennet Barnard Winterton 1

Postby HardWork » Tue Apr 30, 2019 12:00 pm

Lauralem - Sorry. Didn't mean to hijack your thread.

Thanks, Ianbee. So Hagar is a girl. I'll have to check the original parish register to check what that may say as to the sex of Hagar. The GRO looks to have it wrong though.

Adrian - Hagar's father's forename was John. I wonder if it is possible that the sex of the child couldn't be determined clearly at time of registration/baptism so the parents hedged their bets? I'm not aware of John as a surname in the family. Maybe John senior was just determined to have a child called John, though!
HardWork
 
Posts: 21
Joined: Mon Feb 12, 2018 10:49 am


Return to General research queries


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests