The entry numbers in the two registers are pre-printed, so I'm probably >looking at originals, not bishop's transcripts (in the latter, the entry >numbers are _usually_ handwritten).
Bickford isn't that common a name, and the mother having two forenames -
and the "Abode" column matching - makes me _think_ both entries refer to
at least the same parents.
Thoughts?
William Charles Bickford (my #7729); Staffordshire, England.
Parents William Bickford and Emma Susan Edwards (married 1865-2-23,
Alsager, Cheshire [different county but just across the border from the >Staffordshire places below]).
Since this is relatively recent, they're on the proper pre-printed
baptism forms.
1874: Lapley, Stafford(shire):
Feb. 5th William William
Charles & Bickford Lapley Farmer
Emma
Su an
(there's a blob of something white, but I'm pretty sure it's Susan)
1875: Coven, Stafford(shire) [5.5 miles SE of Lapley; near Wolverhampton]: >Bap
20 William William
Sept. Charles & Bickford Lapley Farmer
Emma Susan
My first thought: William Charles died, and they re-used the name; not >uncommon, though it is a little uncommon to re-use _both_ names. BUT:
for the second (1875) one, the vicar has helpfully written "Born 21st
april 1873" in the left margin.
GRO only records ONE birth in the relevant years: 1873Q2 Penkridge, MMN >EDWARDS. (Penkridge, Staffordshire includes Brewood and Lapley; Brewood >includes Coven.)
The entry numbers in the two registers are pre-printed, so I'm probably >looking at originals, not bishop's transcripts (in the latter, the entry >numbers are _usually_ handwritten).
Bickford isn't that common a name, and the mother having two forenames -
and the "Abode" column matching - makes me _think_ both entries refer to
at least the same parents.
Thoughts?
On Mon, 20 Apr 2026 22:24:27 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver"
<G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:
The entry numbers in the two registers are pre-printed, so I'm probably
looking at originals, not bishop's transcripts (in the latter, the entry
numbers are _usually_ handwritten).
Bickford isn't that common a name, and the mother having two forenames -
and the "Abode" column matching - makes me _think_ both entries refer to
at least the same parents.
Thoughts?
It looks possible that they were baptised twice. Such things are rare
and irregular, but have been known to happen.
On Mon, 20 Apr 2026 22:24:27 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver"
<G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:
William Charles Bickford (my #7729); Staffordshire, England.The birth is not inevitably in the same area. My 2GGF was born in
Parents William Bickford and Emma Susan Edwards (married 1865-2-23,
Alsager, Cheshire [different county but just across the border from the
Staffordshire places below]).
Since this is relatively recent, they're on the proper pre-printed
baptism forms.
1874: Lapley, Stafford(shire):
Feb. 5th William William
Charles & Bickford Lapley Farmer
Emma
Su an
(there's a blob of something white, but I'm pretty sure it's Susan)
1875: Coven, Stafford(shire) [5.5 miles SE of Lapley; near Wolverhampton]: >> Bap
20 William William
Sept. Charles & Bickford Lapley Farmer
Emma Susan
My first thought: William Charles died, and they re-used the name; not
uncommon, though it is a little uncommon to re-use _both_ names. BUT:
for the second (1875) one, the vicar has helpfully written "Born 21st
april 1873" in the left margin.
GRO only records ONE birth in the relevant years: 1873Q2 Penkridge, MMN
EDWARDS. (Penkridge, Staffordshire includes Brewood and Lapley; Brewood
includes Coven.)
Derbyshire where the family had moved to but baptised "back home" in[]
Chester. The usual other place is with either of the grandparents'
homes. I also have others who have been baptised in both parents' home parishes.
The general lack of the mother's surname in English records means that
you only have the father's for cross-checking. I have found that if
the mother had a common first name that it was not unusual to be a
different couple where the husbands were cousins although in this case
I suspect it could be the same child with two parishes claiming him.
FWIW, one of them - the first one I think - is marked private. (But that still doesn't explain the gap.)
Two baptisms, either so both
families could participate, or "claims" from two parishes, seems to be
the most likely explanation - but the long interval (19 or 39 months)
between the two is surprising.
but the long interval (19 or 39 months) between the two is surprising.
On Wed, 22 Apr 2026 13:13:18 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver"
<G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:
but the long interval (19 or 39 months) between the two is surprising.
I wouldn't read too much into that. Some baptisms took place years
after the birth. (I've seen it where several children were baptised on
the same occasion, all different ages, too.)
On 22/04/2026 13:13, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
FWIW, one of them - the first one I think - is marked private. (But that
still doesn't explain the gap.)
Ah! That's a crucial point which relates directly to a possibility I
had mentioned in an e-mail, which is that it was not uncommon for sickly babies to be privately Baptised and if they survived - for them to be
publicly received into the Church at a later date. Usually some
distinguishing note is included in the Parish Register, indiating that
the Baptism was private or that the event was actually a public Reception.
On 2026/4/22 14:55:16, Jenny M Benson wrote:In my experience, the private baptism followed by being received into
On 22/04/2026 13:13, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
FWIW, one of them - the first one I think - is marked private. (But that >>> still doesn't explain the gap.)
Ah! That's a crucial point which relates directly to a possibility I
had mentioned in an e-mail, which is that it was not uncommon for sickly
babies to be privately Baptised and if they survived - for them to be
Doesn't _say_ anything about it having been sickly, though I have seen "private" often enough without any such indication ...
publicly received into the Church at a later date. Usually some
... and as you say, "received into the church" on a later date. It's _usually_ not _that_ long after, though - and in this case, neither is
shown as such a "received" - both appear to be full baptisms.
distinguishing note is included in the Parish Register, indiating that
the Baptism was private or that the event was actually a public Reception. >>
In my experience, the private baptism followed by being received into church, as Jenny suggests, is nearly always the correct explanation.
Some registers never state if baptisms are private; others always do.
You can only work it out by a detailed analysis of the register.
Steven
On 2026/4/23 12:16:37, Steven Gibbs wrote:
[]
In my experience, the private baptism followed by being received intoIn the case of my #7729 William Charles Bickford, however, the two
church, as Jenny suggests, is nearly always the correct explanation.
Some registers never state if baptisms are private; others always do.
You can only work it out by a detailed analysis of the register.
Steven
baptisms are on the proper preprinted forms, but many months apart, and
in two different locations: 1874-2-5 in Lapley - that one has Private
written under the name in the "By whom" column - and 1875-9-20 in Coven (that's the one that has born 1873-4-21 written in the left margin).
Coven is 5.5 miles SE of Lapley; near Wolverhampton; it's part of
Brewood. Both are in Staffordshire.
On 23/04/2026 13:12, J. P. Gilliver wrote:[]
In the case of my #7729 William Charles Bickford, however, the two
baptisms are on the proper preprinted forms, but many months apart, and
in two different locations: 1874-2-5 in Lapley - that one has Private
written under the name in the "By whom" column - and 1875-9-20 in Coven
(that's the one that has born 1873-4-21 written in the left margin).
Coven is 5.5 miles SE of Lapley; near Wolverhampton; it's part of
Brewood. Both are in Staffordshire.
I'm not seeing the problem. The child is born in 1873, privately
baptised in 1874, and received into the church at Coven in 1875. This
second entry is the same date that the next sibling was baptised at
Coven, so the two events were combined. Why Coven, not Lapley? Who
knows. Perhaps Lapley church was shut for repairs. Perhaps they'd fallen
out with the vicar. These things happened. They were back at Lapley for
the next child, however.
Steven
On 23/04/2026 03:27, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
On 2026/4/22 14:55:16, Jenny M Benson wrote:In my experience, the private baptism followed by being received into >church, as Jenny suggests, is nearly always the correct explanation.
On 22/04/2026 13:13, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
FWIW, one of them - the first one I think - is marked private. (But that >>>> still doesn't explain the gap.)
Ah! That's a crucial point which relates directly to a possibility I
had mentioned in an e-mail, which is that it was not uncommon for sickly >>> babies to be privately Baptised and if they survived - for them to be
Doesn't _say_ anything about it having been sickly, though I have seen
"private" often enough without any such indication ...
publicly received into the Church at a later date. Usually some
... and as you say, "received into the church" on a later date. It's
_usually_ not _that_ long after, though - and in this case, neither is
shown as such a "received" - both appear to be full baptisms.
distinguishing note is included in the Parish Register, indiating that
the Baptism was private or that the event was actually a public Reception. >>>
Some registers never state if baptisms are private; others always do.
You can only work it out by a detailed analysis of the register.
On 23/04/2026 13:12, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
On 2026/4/23 12:16:37, Steven Gibbs wrote:
[]
In my experience, the private baptism followed by being received intoIn the case of my #7729 William Charles Bickford, however, the two
church, as Jenny suggests, is nearly always the correct explanation.
Some registers never state if baptisms are private; others always do.
You can only work it out by a detailed analysis of the register.
Steven
baptisms are on the proper preprinted forms, but many months apart, and
in two different locations: 1874-2-5 in Lapley - that one has Private
written under the name in the "By whom" column - and 1875-9-20 in Coven
(that's the one that has born 1873-4-21 written in the left margin).
Coven is 5.5 miles SE of Lapley; near Wolverhampton; it's part of
Brewood. Both are in Staffordshire.
I'm not seeing the problem. The child is born in 1873, privately
baptised in 1874, and received into the church at Coven in 1875. This
second entry is the same date that the next sibling was baptised at
Coven, so the two events were combined. Why Coven, not Lapley? Who
knows. Perhaps Lapley church was shut for repairs. Perhaps they'd fallen
out with the vicar. These things happened. They were back at Lapley for
the next child, however.
| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 65 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 01:26:55 |
| Calls: | 862 |
| Files: | 1,311 |
| D/L today: |
10 files (20,373K bytes) |
| Messages: | 264,187 |