• Only registered members can see all the forums - if you've received an invitation to join (it'll be on your My Summary page) please register NOW!

  • If you're looking for the LostCousins site please click the logo in the top left corner - these forums are for existing LostCousins members only.
  • This is the LostCousins Forum. If you were looking for the LostCousins website simply click the logo at the top left.
  • It's easier than ever before to check your entries from the 1881 Census - more details here

In Search of Stanley

It does look like 'Bastard' was inserted in afterwards,
Now that wily old Peter has put the baptism record in the newsletter I can see what he's talking about.

Look at the handwriting, the B for Bastard is the same as the B for Bolton in the abode for the two previous entries.

I'm inclined to think it was inserted at the time the entry was made, once the curate realised the situation.
 
Now that wily old Peter has put the baptism record in the newsletter I can see what he's talking about.

Look at the handwriting, the B for Bastard is the same as the B for Bolton in the abode for the two previous entries.

I'm inclined to think it was inserted at the time the entry was made, once the curate realised the situation.
Bear in mind that baptism registers aren't written up at the time of the baptism.
 
Bear in mind that baptism registers aren't written up at the time of the baptism.
I don't think that mattered in the context of my thread.

for what it's worth I've been doing some research into baptisms, or should i say confirming what i had found out many years ago:
According to The Book of Common Prayer (1559), it was recommended that infants should be baptized on the next Sunday or holy day following their birth, to allow the greatest number of people to witness the sacrament. (The spelling of baptised is not mine, I have copied exactly what i saw).

When looking through a baptism register, you’ll sometimes see a note saying that the child was privately baptised. This means the child wasn’t baptised at Sunday service, usually because it was thought too weak to survive until then.

My own observation:
The date that the baptism occurred i.e. 19 Feb 1841 was a Friday. It was not a holiday.
Does the mystery deepen??
 
I'd already spotted that 19th February 1841 was a Friday, but when I looked through the register for Denbigh I found other public baptisms which weren't on a Sunday, eg Wednesday 23/12/1840 at the top of the same page, Wednesday 10/3/1841 and Wednesday 7/4/1841 on the next page.

The practice of baptising children on the next Sunday or holy day after their birth died out long before the 19th century - see the article in my next newsletter. But since there was 6 day working, Sunday would usually be the only day of the week when the father of a child could be present.
 
Something I hadn't considered before is that Henry Morton Stanley didn't have children - which could possibly indicate that he was the product of incest (since the children of close relatives are more likely to be infertile). If so, all the more reason to muddy the waters.
 
I've been in touch with Denbighshire Archives, who kindly sent me colour scans of the parish register page and the relevant Bishop's Transcript. I can't post them here, but suffice it to say that seeing the register in colour doesn't provide any further information.

The Bishop's Transcript contains the same information, which confirms that any changes made to the register were done in 1841. It also confirms the surname of the father as Rowland, not Rowlands.
 
As John was baptised in early 1841 his birth could have been registered in late 1840. There is a birth record for a John Parry registered in Q4 1840, St Asaph, volume 27, page 202. In the GRO index there is no mothers name given however in find my past it gives the mother's maiden as Parry. Could this be the correct record. Though I had assumed FMP were getting the mother's maiden names from the GRO records so how they got this one i do not know.
I ordered the PDF so that we could completely exclude this entry form consideration: the parents were John Parry and Susannah Amos.
 
I ordered the PDF so that we could completely exclude this entry form consideration: the parents were John Parry and Susannah Amos.
And curiosity got the better of me regarding the John Roberts Parry birth registered in late 1841, so despite what I said earlier, I ordered the PDF which came today. We can exclude that one too, as the birth was in Abergele in October 1841, parents John Parry (stonemason) and Sarah Roberts.
 
Back
Top