• 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

Putting theory into practice

The Rhymer

The Rhymer

LostCousins Member
I believe that the burial of Elizabeth Keene on 27th May 1793 should be read as follows:

Elizabeth Keene (Infant)

The celebrant has simply joined the bracket to the name so that it looks like an downward stroke at the end of his fancy upward stroke on the 'e' and appears to be a cursive 'r'. However, as there is a bracket going begging after 'infant', there has to be one before that word.
 
Reading the article in the latest Newsletter, I looked at the burial record which Ancestry transcribed as Elizabeth Keener. On a second appraisal of this image, it appeared to me that the word 'Infant' was enclosed in parentheses, and the downstroke Peter is referring to was the left-hand parenthesis. If so, then there's no point in looking for 'flourishes' on final e's.
 
You could be right - hope so. I hadn't considered the possibility that 'Infant' was in parentheses (the superscripted 'th' of '27th' rather draws the eye).
 
peter said:
You could be right - hope so. I hadn't considered the possibility that 'Infant' was in parentheses (the superscripted 'th' of '27th' rather draws the eye).
Click to expand...

I agree with Bazza43. Before reading here I had decided that the downstroke is the left parenthesis around Infant. It complements the right parenthesis clearly seen following the word.

I must admit that I was drawn to this puzzle by the mention of Keene/r at Weybridge. In 1842 my 2g-grandfather's brother Charles Bringloe married Mary Ann(e) Keene at St John Smith Square in Westminster. In most censuses she gives her birthplace as Weybridge but is creative with her age, doubtless because it turns out that she was twelve years older than her husband. Baptised at Weybridge on 31 May 1801 she was the daughter of Samuel Keene (Jr) and Anne, and thus a younger sister to the Elizabeth baptised 1795 mentioned in the newsletter. From researching this family I can tell you that the registers of Weybridge St Peters have many Keene entries (and no Keeners), giving another way to sort out a query on name alternatives. BTW, that parish had an interesting congregation as can be seen (rabbit-hole warning) in this 29-page essay.
 
Once you realise that 'Infant' is meant to be in parentheses it seems obvious - when I was writing the article I was so focused on the spelling of the surname that I didn't notice them. Ancestry's register images were black-and-white scans from microfilm, so it was the first time I'd examined a high-resolution colour scan.

However it leaves us with an interesting conundrum. These days 'infant' is used, in normal English speech, to refer to young children from birth to, at most, 2 years old (the exception being the term 'infants', referring to a primary school for children aged 5 to 7 years).

Would a child who was more than 3 years old really have been described as an infant in 1793? If so, what is the upper limit?

It might be necessary to re-evaluate assumptions that we have made when looking at burial register entries in the past. Does anyone have other examples of infant burials where the child was indubitably 3 years old or more?

The derivation of the term is variously described online as 'babe in arms' or 'unable to speak'.
 
peter said:
Would a child who was more than 3 years old really have been described as an infant in 1793? If so, what is the upper limit?
Click to expand...
That’s one of those questions to which the correct answer is ‘maybe, maybe not’! It does vary from parish to parish, and I’ve seen children up to about 7 described as infants, though remembering where, so as to provide examples, eludes me at present. In strict legal terms ‘infant’ applies to anyone under the age of majority.

How are other child burials recorded in that register? Are ages generally given at that time, and if so, this may offer a clue as to how late a child might be described as an infant.
 
Pauline said:
In strict legal terms ‘infant’ applies to anyone under the age of majority.
Click to expand...
I found that too - hence the reference to 'normal English speech'. But I suspect that even in legal parlance 'child' would be the more usual term.

In some burial registers the term 'infant child of' is used which demonstrates that those clergy regarded 'infants' as a subset of 'children'.
Pauline said:
How are other child burials recorded in that register? Are ages generally given at that time, and if so, this may offer a clue as to how late a child might be described as an infant.
Click to expand...
Ages are not given. But perhaps someone would like to compare the infant burials against the baptism register?
 
The Rhymer said:
I believe that the burial of Elizabeth Keene on 27th May 1793 should be read as follows:

Elizabeth Keene (Infant)

The celebrant has simply joined the bracket to the name so that it looks like an downward stroke at the end of his fancy upward stroke on the 'e' and appears to be a cursive 'r'. However, as there is a bracket going begging after 'infant', there has to be one before that word.
Click to expand...
I have merged your post with a discussion that was in a different part of the forum - as you can see, others have come to the same conclusion.
 
peter said:
I have merged your post with a discussion that was in a different part of the forum - as you can see, others have come to the same conclusion.
Click to expand...

Thank you, Peter.

I searched for any previous replies and, not finding any, started a thread, but clearly didn't put it in the right place! But I'm glad to see I got it right: it just leapt out of the page at me, but then, I haven't been researching that name.
 
The Rhymer said:
clearly didn't put it in the right place!
Click to expand...
You did put your post in the right place - it was the existing discussion that was under Latest News rather than Latest Newsletter, something I should have noticed earlier.
 
peter said:
You did put your post in the right place - it was the existing discussion that was under Latest News rather than Latest Newsletter, something I should have noticed earlier.
Click to expand...
Can I make a suggestion? When I first saw the Keene/r dilemma I knew from my research in the Weybridge parish that it had to be Keene. But I didn't know where in the Forum to post. It wasn't until Bazza43 posted that I saw a place to add, right or wrong as it now seems. So, Peter, the suggestion. When you ask in the newsletter for people to post in the Forum, rather than write directly to you (completely understandable), could you point to where such posts should go. That might add to the liveliness/richness of the Forum. Otherwise there's the risk of people hanging back entirely, as I almost did, because of not knowing where discussion on the point was supposed to happen.
 
MeganN said:
could you point to where such posts should go
Click to expand...
It certainly ought to have been easier to find the Comments on the Latest Newsletter discussion area. Up to now it has been under Matters Arising, so not immediately obvious unless you moused over Matters Arising (which you can't do on a smartphone or tablet). I've now promoted it so that it appears in the main menu.
 
MeganN said:
Can I make a suggestion? When I first saw the Keene/r dilemma I knew from my research in the Weybridge parish that it had to be Keene. But I didn't know where in the Forum to post. It wasn't until Bazza43 posted that I saw a place to add, right or wrong as it now seems. So, Peter, the suggestion. When you ask in the newsletter for people to post in the Forum, rather than write directly to you (completely understandable), could you point to where such posts should go. That might add to the liveliness/richness of the Forum. Otherwise there's the risk of people hanging back entirely, as I almost did, because of not knowing where discussion on the point was supposed to happen.
Click to expand...

I concur entirely :)
 
peter said:
It certainly ought to have been easier to find the Comments on the Latest Newsletter discussion area.
Click to expand...
I think when I was searching for 'the right page' I found this, then lost it while I was trying to work out how to phrase my post (having satisfied myself no-one else had posted on it) I eventually found 'latest news' and thought perhaps this was what I'd seen before as 'latest newsletter.' Like 'The Rhymer' I concur entirely.
 
There may be circumstances in which I'll link to a specific area of the forum, but I won't be doing it when asking people to post comments relating to articles in the most recent newsletter. Now that Comments on the Latest Newsletter has been promoted to such a prominent position in the menu it's impossible to miss.
 
​
peter said:
There may be circumstances in which I'll link to a specific area of the forum, but I won't be doing it when asking people to post comments relating to articles in the most recent newsletter. Now that Comments on the Latest Newsletter has been promoted to such a prominent position in the menu it's impossible to miss.
Click to expand...
Fair enough. Thanks for the alteration. It's a good resolution.
 
MeganN said:
Thanks for the alteration. It's a good resolution.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure when you checked it out, but I've also rearranged some of the other forums, demoting those which are no longer current, and moving others towards to the top of the list.

Hopefully it will be easier for all members, old and new, to find their way around.
 
"Would a child who was more than 3 years old really have been described as an infant in 1793? If so, what is the upper limit?"


There is, or was, a memorial to my direct ancestor in the curchyard at Bacton, Norfolk.

"Sacred to the memory of William Cubitt a respectable Inhabitant of this parish who died 23 March 1824 aged 44 years leaving an affectionate wife & 6 infant children to deplore the loss of an indulgent husband & tender parent."

The oldest of these children, Ann, was aged 10 at William's death. I imagine someone was maximising the pathos, but calling a ten-year old an infant may well have been pushing it, even in 1824.
 
I've looked up "infant" in Dyche's Dictionary, which was intended for teaching - it was "peculiarly calculated for the use and improvement of such as are unacquainted with the learned languages". It first appeared in 1735, though my one is a 16th edition of 1777. This says:
INFANT (S.) In Common Speech, means a young child or one under seven years old; but in Law all under twenty-one years are so called.

Seven fits with the idea of stages of life being seven years long, which I've always understood lay behind Shakespeare's seven ages without knowing whose idea it was. It seems to come from the Greeks, but I doubt it was taken seriously later on except for the first three stages of infant, child, and youth (14-21). Even then the terms child and youth were not, by Dyche's day, applied strictly. And didn't it only apply to boys? Was there a female equivalent of "a youth"?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top