Who is Jane Young's mother? (1748)

[G6JPG (John)]

Jane Young is my 5th great grandmother.
Her baptism record (March 1748, just into) - All Saints, Loughborough (nice writing for once) says:
"26 Jane Daughter of Henry Young/Sen.r Bapr. 26". Unfortunately, this clerk doesn't seem to have been in the habit of recording mothers, just (and only sometimes) recording the father's occupation or "Junior/Senior" after a /.

Likely Leicestershire marriages for Henry Young (who was baptised in 1723) I have found [the ones in quotes are actually in the following year by modern parlance]:
"1708"-2-18 Loughborough, All Saints Sarah Groves (0 miles) [would have been too old]
"1717"-3-2 Loughborough, All Saints Anne Arnall or Arnold (0) "Henery" in some records, he 22
1744-9-22 Loughborough, All Saints Elizabeth Randon (0)
1746-12-27 Leicester, St. Martin's Alice Mortishaw <- (Leicester is 11.5 miles [~4h walk] from Loughborough, All Saints)
"1746"-1-9 Markfield Sarah ?ason (Markfield is 7.7 [~2¾h])

Leicestershire baptisms to Henry Young within 10 years either side of 1748 - all in Loughborough, All Saints, as it happens:
"1747"-1-30 John (to "Henry Young/Jun'r") (there's a record on next page - the same page as Jane's baptism below: "18 John Son of Henry Young/Jun'r Bur. 18" [in March "1747" so '8])
1748-3-26 Jane (#5113) (to "Henry Young/Sen'r")
"1749"-1-20 John (to "Henry Young/Felmonger")
1753-8-18 Alice <- (to "Henry Young/Felmonger")

So in "1747" (really 1748), 1748, "1749" (1750), and 1753. The "1747" one can't be the same mother as the 1748 one, as it's only two months earlier. So there are two Henry Youngs baptising children in Loughborough around then - and this is known to the clerk, as he calls them Jun'r and Sen'r. (Unfortunately we don't know which one is later referred to as "Felmonger", but that's not really important.)

Which marriage? A marriage in 1708 seems unlikely to still be giving birth in 1748. The 1717 one has too old a Henry. So that gives 1744, 1746, and "1746" (1747 in modern parlance).
1744: is in Loughborough (All Saints), same as Henry in 1723 and Jane in 1748. But 3½ years before Jane.
1746: 4 hours' walk away. 15 months before Jane's baptism.
1747: 2¾ hours away. 14 months before Jane.

I've gone for the 1744 one - the location makes sense - despite the long gap before a child's baptism. what do others think? Does anyone have better/different records?

I did notice there is a baptism of an Alice, which could well be named after her mother. So that one's tempting too - if it's the same Henry (we already know there are two of them).

 

[Stuart]

I've only had a quick look at this, so apologies in advance for any mistakes that I've let in. All records here come from FMP.

I don't understand why you say Henry senior was baptised in 1723. Surely that's Henry junior? There are two burials for Henry senior, in 1743 and 1748, and the 1743 one left a will. In that he refers to a daughter Jane Hackett; her marriage to John Hackett was in 1717 when she was 24 and her licence was signed by Henry Young (and others). That sets a basic time frame for his family. He also names a grandson as Henry, son of John. That looks like Henry junior, and I suggest the Henry senior who died in 1748 is your one.

The one who married in 1717 was born about 1695, like Jane, so he's a prime candidate, and there is a Henry son of Henry Younge b. 1693. If he was "promoted" to senior in 1743, he would be your Jane's father but he'd almost certainly need a new wife. He might also have died in January 1748 (OS), not long after the birth; he'd be about 55.

Ann, wife of Henry, died in November 1746. So that Henry could have remarried in January in Markfield. Very quick, but I've seen similar cases. I can't see an earlier burial that would do for Ann. One alternative would be that Ann was very young, say 17, when they married and had this child when nearly 50. Not impossible, but of low probability.

There was a John baptised to Henery in 1703, which could be the father of Henry junior (b. 1723). There is not really room for another generation, with or without a Henry in it. I suggest that once the second Henry senior had died, the label junior wasn't needed and his occupation of felmonger was used instead. The occupation felmonger is also given to groom in the 1746 Leicester marriage, so that sounds like the same guy. And in the 1723 Henry baptism, the father is John; if he's the John who marries Rebecca Mee in 1722 he is also a Felmonger and from Loughborough and age 20.

There are, of course, a lot more people called Young in Loughborough and around who might be involved. Trying to tie al the records you have found into one tidy narrative is perhaps a bit too tempting, but I hope helpful.

 

[G6JPG (John)]

Thanks - I was amazed someone replied, only five hours or so later, to a lengthy post, and one I wasn't sure I was putting in the right place - the only other threads I could see here were all from the same day in 2013!

When I said a Henry was baptised in 1723, I didn't mean to say that was specifically senior or junior - I've never liked those terms, as obviously junior can become senior! I was quite surprised to come across them in English records, as I had thought they were mainly a US thing. (I suppose the Americans must have got them from somewhere, and maybe it _was_ a common thing here some centuries ago!)

The Jane Young (daughter of Henry) who is my ancestor married a Mitchell (Thomas, in 1766-12 [banns 1766-11]); there are no Hacke* in my tree.

The Henry (father of Jane who was baptised in 1748) is the one I think was baptised in 1723 - that seems about right for having a child baptised in 1748; if so, he wasn't the one married in 1717 (or 1708). His wife (Jane's mother, anyway) I think is either Elizabeth Randon (married 1744-9-22 Loughborough), Alice Mortishaw (1746-12-27 Leicester), or Sarah ?ason ("1746"-1-9 [really 1747]). Of the three, I chose Elizabeth since that marriage was in Loughborough, where Henry had been baptised (1723) and where his daughter Jane was also baptised (1748). The only thing against it being her was the long gap - 3½ years - between the marriage and Jane's baptism; however, they could have been virtuous (or had difficulties), or there _might_ have been other children we haven't found. the other two marriages seem a long way from Loughborough - especially as Henry was _back_ there for Jane's baptism.

You say "Ann, wife of Henry, died in November 1746." If that's the 1717 marriage - which was an Anne - then it's not the droid, sorry Henry, I'm interested in.

The children baptised to Henry the Fel(l)monger - John 1749 (1750) and Alice 1753 - may or may not be younger siblings t Jane; I'm afraid by this stage I'm not recording siblings: I only listed them as children of Henry (Henries!) to try to guess when he married, but since it was clear that there were two Henries having children baptised then (because two of them were too close together), that wasn't a valid thing to do. (The John born in "1747"-1 - really 1748 - couldn't have been an older brother to Jane, as she was born only two months later. Only eight days after John was buried, in fact.)

Yes, I'm not trying to tie up _all_ the Youngs in that area at that time; normally, I would at least try, but in this case it's too tangled. (I am reminded of the case a few decades ago when I was tracing a tree for someone at work, and came to a village in Wales where everyone seemed to be called Jones: I had to apologise and say I couldn't follow that line any further! [I might have tried today, but I was less experienced - and there was less detail - then.])

So I'm really only trying to trace my own line(s) through this Young tangle. What I've tentatively gone for, at the moment, is: Jane, baptised 1748 Loughborough; her parents, Henry (baptised 1723 Loughborough) and Elizabeth Randon, married 1744 Loughborough. That Henry's parents John and Rebecca (née Mee), married in Shepshed 1722.
Elizabeth Randon's father John; Rebecca Mee's parents Richard Mee and Mary Redfan. So still to pursue the Mitchel(l), Green, Mee, Redfan, and Randon lines; at least some of those are rarer than Young! I've sort of stopped pursuing the Young line with (1723) Henry's father John (born about 1702); I may return, but probably not until I've got back a bit of enthusiasm for the Young line (tangle!).

Thanks again for your speedy response, and insights! (My data is mostly from FMP too at the moment.)

John

 

[Stuart]

First, it was my theory in that post that I was saying might be "trying to tie all the records ... into one tidy narrative", not yours - I was using "you" for any of us. Sorry for the confusion over that.

I started from the circumstances that lead to the labels senior and junior being used. That most often applies to a father and son, or at least to two adults of different generations. So I don't think Henry senior in 1748 could possibly be only 25 - there has to be a Henry junior of about that age for the label to make sense.

But what about the Henry senior who died less than five year earlier? Presumably while he was alive his son was Henry junior, but the labels may not have been used by another register keeper while he was having children. It was looking at the 1743 will that suggested three generations of Henries were actually recorded. Jane and the Hackett marriage was just a very helpful aid to dating the first two Henries.

If Henry senior no. 2 was married in 1717, there are two births soon after that fit, then no more. John then has five children after 1722. So if this Henry of about 50 suddenly has another child, it looks very much like he must have remarried. But you'll have to look at the logic of what I suggested to see if it makes sense to you. Note that it still leads to the same Young ancestors as before, just one generation sooner.

 

[G6JPG (John)]

The John Young who was baptised on "1747"-1-30 and buried "1747"-3-18 was definitely son of "Henry Young/Jun'r", and (my) Jane who was baptised 8 days after that burial (1748-3-26) was definitely to "Henry Young/Sen'r", as all three entries are on the same double-page spread and the writing is quite clear. So in that March, I'm only interested in the Henry that was at that point referred to as senior.
I take your point about, if there are three Henrys (Henries?), it just brings things forward one click.

(Three Henries is quite a large inductance!)

 

[Stuart]

Since one of this family made a will, it must be worth looking for any wills others of them made - they are so very useful. I can see no Leicestershire Young wills in TNA (Canterbury) nor, surprisingly, in Family Search. FMP has one more in this date range, for Sarah in 1745. That refers to her sons Richard and Francis, sons-in-law John and Henry, and daughter-in-law Jane Hackett (now a widow). So she must be the second wife of the Henry of the 1743 will, i.e. Sarah Groves, with those two children born soon after the 1708 marriage.

Later, Richard Young's will of 1778 (though he died in 1782) says he is a felmonger - suggestive! He mentions his daughter Mary Rason or Raven, and that marriage can be found in Loughborough in 1761. A baptism of Mary Young in 1741 in Loughborough names her father as Richard. Richard and Mary's marriage was in 1738 and there is a bond, which has a lot to say about Richard (felmonger, of Loughborough, 27) and Mary Brownhill (of Weston upon Trent, 26). So he is the son Richard in Sarah's will, and was born in 1710 - and was the half-brother Henry senior no. 2 (b. 1695).

I can't see anything else that helps us, but that does confirm some of my guesses and provides cross-links to buttress the narrative.

 

[G6JPG (John)]

I must get more into wills! Obviously contain a lot of information. Sadly the ones you've found seem to be all the other Youngs than the ones who are my direct line (i. e. Jane and her ancestors), but the general principle is there: I must look at wills more!