I am a figment of my own imagination!

[The Rhymer]

Two of my 4 x great-grandparents, William Garland and Mary Keeton, were married in Metheringham, Lincolnshire, on 25 September 1806.

I have recently found out that the parents of Mary Keeton, whom I thought to be Charles Keeton and Mary, née Sewell, had the following children, all in Metheringham:

Matthew, baptised Jan 1771, died April 1771
Charles, baptised Jan 1774, died September 1775
Martha, baptised March 1781, died February 1789

and

Mary, baptised 16 Aug 1776, died April 1777.

"My" Mary is on the 1841 and 1851 Census, where she gives her date of birth as about 1776/7 and her birthplace as Metheringham, and she died, according to her death certificate, on 26 November 1858 in New Sleaford where both she and William are buried.

So do I really exist ... or not?

 

[Tim]

Well obviously you think you exist but have we ever seen you?

But I've found in many families when a child dies young that they often reuse the name, so maybe your Mary was born after 1777.

 

[peter]

Also consider the possibility that you have the wrong family. Cousins often chose the same name for their children

 

[The Rhymer]

Also consider the possibility that you have the wrong family. Cousins often chose the same name for their children

This has been considered and researched to death, with door-to-door measurements undertaken to verify if a different Mary Keeton, from somewhere else, could possibly claim Metheringham as her place of birth, but it wouldn't work! Liz Truss may have been outlived by a lettuce, but I'm not as green as I'm cabbage-looking!

 

[The Rhymer]

Well obviously you think you exist but have we ever seen you?

But I've found in many families when a child dies young that they often reuse the name, so maybe your Mary was born after 1777.

No, indeed, and there's not even a photo of me, just a question mark, which suits how I'm feeling very well at the moment I was the neglected spare; Mum & Dad took loads of photos of my elder sibling, but had had enough by the time I came along, just two years later. Should I have written a book, d'you think?

Given the dates of birth of the children who lived, even a little, I think that there must have also been miscarriages and/or still births in between. I did wonder if anyone has ever come across a family taking in - seeing as adoption didn't exist then - an abandoned baby and, to all extents and purposes, adopting it? Imagine the despair of the couple whose three children had died, being offered a baby girl to look after, and giving her the mother's name?

 

[The Rhymer]

I have had another search on FMP and found the following:

Mary Catton, baptised in Branston, on 11 Aug 1776 to James & Mara
Mary Catton, baptised in Scopwick, on 07 Aug 1775 to Thomas & Rebecca
Both villages are close to Metheringham.

The second one doesn't look likely as there was a whole family of them, unless the mother gave one up, but I prefer the first one as her christening took place on the same day (but not the year, thanks, folks) as my wedding!

But then, for an adoption, she wouldn't need the same or a similar name, would she?

 

[Pauline]

Another possibility is that the Mary Keeton buried in 1777 was not the one baptised the previous year. She was buried as an infant but the names of her parents were not recorded. It perhaps doesn’t seem a very likely possibility, but as you seem to have exhausted most of the others, there’s always a chance.

Also, parish registers do have errors or omissions, which can make life problematic for the modern day researcher.

 

[peter]

Also, parish registers do have errors or omissions, which can make life problematic for the modern day researcher.

And there were non-conformists....

 

[Pauline]

And there were non-conformists....

Yes, and two Mary Keetons born in Metheringham at around the same time might well provide the most likely explanation. The survival of non-conformist records from this date is not something that can be relied on.

 

[The Rhymer]

Another possibility is that the Mary Keeton buried in 1777 was not the one baptised the previous year. She was buried as an infant but the names of her parents were not recorded. It perhaps doesn’t seem a very likely possibility, but as you seem to have exhausted most of the others, there’s always a chance.

Unfortunately for me, the vicar/curate/minister entered burials like that. The four (living) children born to Charles & Mary Keeton had their parents named at baptism, but not when they were buried. He called any child, even a two-month-old like Matthew (their first), an infant.

I actually first thought that this was Mrs Charles Keeton's burial record as it was the only Mary Keeton dying in Metheringham. Then someone pointed out the dreadful truth

 

[The Rhymer]

I have looked up other Keeton families in Metheringham, but there aren't any recorded. Charles was born in Dorrington; he died in 1787, "a poor man", according to the minister. Mary came from Haconby and seems to have re-married, in 1790, in Metheringham, when she was 41. So that's why I couldn't find her burial record! She had a son the following year, who seems to have survived.

It's a pity that the minister didn't record the father's profession on the baptism record; it might have explained how Charles ended up poor, and maybe that the family didn't get enough to eat. But that's secondary to the main problem of who exactly was the Mary Keeton whom William Garland married?

 

[Pauline]

I have looked up other Keeton families in Metheringham, but there aren't any recorded

That's really the point. What you may be looking for is another Keeton family who had a child born or buried in Metheringham but don't appear in any of the records there (except perhaps that 1777 burial). This may be because of an omission in the register, or because they were not Church of England, for example.

 

[peter]

he died in 1787, "a poor man", according to the minister

Reflect on the date.....

 

[The Rhymer]

Reflect on the date.....

I have reflected, but all I see is the end of my nose.

A hint, please?

Like: have you realised you've got him dying before the birth of his last child. A big, very explicit, hint!

 

[peter]

According to this Masterclass between 1783-1794 Stamp Duty was imposed on parish register entries which resulted in some baptisms being delayed, or simply not recorded them in the register. You couldn't delay burials, but if the person was a said to be a pauper no Stamp Duty was payable.

 

[Pauline]

While not in any way disagreeing with Peter on the Stamp Duty issue, the "poor man" note on the 1787 burial doesn't seem to relate to this. A brief note in brackets with burial records pre-dates the introduction of this duty, and includes things like widow, farmer, a poor man, a Scotchman, baker, youth etc. The clerk also makes a distinction between "a poor man" and "a pauper" so whether, after 1783, both categories were exempt from the duty or only those described as paupers is unclear.

 

[The Rhymer]

The clerk also makes a distinction between "a poor man" and "a pauper" so whether, after 1783, both categories were exempt from the duty or only those described as paupers is unclear.

There are a lot of "poor" people being buried in Metheringham between 1700 and 1790 according to the minister, Robert Bell, more so than paupers from what I can glean.

 

[The Rhymer]

I have found the birth of another Mary Keeton, i.e. one spelt the same, in 1775 in Friskney (some 30 miles from Metheringham, by today's roads). She was baptised on 20 April 1775, and her parents were Richard and Elizabeth. She apparently married a Thomas Leake in Friskney on 25 March 1802.

BUT, she also died and was buried, in Friskney, on 10 January 1776, and that register says that her father was Richard.

What is it with these Keetons?

 

[peter]

I have found the birth of another Mary Keeton, i.e. one spelt the same

Spelling is irrelevant in the 18th century - most names were recorded as they were heard ie phonetically, but not necessarily as we know it.

The clerk also makes a distinction between "a poor man" and "a pauper"

I would imagine that a 'poor man' would be someone who was buried in an unmarked grave, usually with other unrelated individuals (possibly including still-borns). The number of headstones and other memorials in most parish graveyards is a small fraction of the number of people buried there.

 

[Pauline]

I would imagine that a 'poor man' would be someone who was buried in an unmarked grave

Possibly yes, but since a distinction was being made, I would imagine the description 'poor man ' might apply to a labourer on a low wage, whilst a 'pauper' was someone on parish relief.