sibling (or half-sibling) marriage (Malpas, Cheshire, 16xx)?

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
Malpas is a small village in Cheshire, England, near to the border with
Wales: https://goo.gl/maps/QL7Fs9uJWuXdUrYf8 (Cuddington is a hamlet 0.9
miles [19 minutes' walk] from Malpas).
All the below are from Malpas parish records, of which I have images. My
best attempts at transcription. The strange characters (actually look a
bit like a 3 in the script) are I think a thorn (pronounced "th").
"Randall Meredith & Margarett Meredith
of Cudington married ffebruary 2 1635"
"Randle the sonne of Owen merediþ
of wichough baptized the XXþ dayo of
februario:1621"
("wichough" is very much a guess.)
"Margret the bast/ begotten daughter ofmargret
Daniell ato Emersono of Kiddington, and
of Owen meredeþ, baptised the XXX day
of August:1623."
("ato" _could_ be "also", and the character after "Emerson" is far from
certain.)
(Note that at that period years ran from April to March, so February
1635 and 1621 were arguably what we'd now call February 1636 and 1622.)
Also looks like Marg*ret* was a bastard, whereas Rand*l* looks like
normally baptised (wife's [i. e. mother's] name not normally given in
the normal baptism records in Malpas at that time), so they would only
have been half-siblngs (common father).
They would have been 14 and 13 at marriage.
What do you think?
(Ran* is my 9th great grandfather, and Marg* might also be my ancestor.)

When I was very new to family history research I found the marriage of 2
people who I subsequently "found out were brother and sister" but
further research with a better understanding of the need for
proof/evidence showed that there were, in fact, 2 brothers who drew on a
very restricted list when naming their children and the couple concerned
were cousins, not brother and sister!

Not saying that this necessarily applies to your couple, of course.

--
Jenny M Benson
http://jennygenes.blogspot.co.uk/

Charles Ellson

2019-07-20 16:37:57 UTC

On Sat, 20 Jul 2019 12:36:53 +0100, Jenny M Benson

Wych Hough ?
See current address The Hough, Wych Road.

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
"Margret the bast/ begotten daughter ofmargret
Daniell ato Emersono of Kiddington, and
of Owen meredeþ, baptised the XXX day
of August:1623."
("ato" _could_ be "also", and the character after "Emerson" is far from
certain.)
(Note that at that period years ran from April to March, so February
1635 and 1621 were arguably what we'd now call February 1636 and 1622.)
Also looks like Marg*ret* was a bastard, whereas Rand*l* looks like
normally baptised (wife's [i. e. mother's] name not normally given in
the normal baptism records in Malpas at that time), so they would only
have been half-siblngs (common father).
They would have been 14 and 13 at marriage.
What do you think?
(Ran* is my 9th great grandfather, and Marg* might also be my ancestor.)

When I was very new to family history research I found the marriage of 2
people who I subsequently "found out were brother and sister" but
further research with a better understanding of the need for
proof/evidence showed that there were, in fact, 2 brothers who drew on a
very restricted list when naming their children and the couple concerned
were cousins, not brother and sister!
Not saying that this necessarily applies to your couple, of course.

Some of the parish records around those parts seem to have missed a
lot of people so that quite a few children don't seem to have a
matching parents' marriage or a baptism entry. Yours isn't the only
family with a limited choice of names.

J. P. Gilliver (John)

2019-07-21 01:55:02 UTC

Post by Charles Ellson
On Sat, 20 Jul 2019 12:36:53 +0100, Jenny M Benson

Wych Hough ?
See current address The Hough, Wych Road.

Thanks for that. Sounds very plausible; I've copied your above two lines
into my notes for where Owen was on that date. The original handwriting
could be anything! (Do you have ancestry around there and then? If so,
love to exchange details. I'm A260355 on GEDmatch - equally keen if
_anyone_ here has a good match to that!)

I agree, proof/evidence is very sparse in this area/time. It's certainly
possible that there might have been two Owen Meredeth/Meredith in the
village, having children around the same time; I haven't found them, but
then we're talking around 400 years ago, and records may well be lost
(or worse, never have been created). Doesn't help that mothers aren't
shown for most baptisms. Malpas/Cud[d]ington _is_ pretty small, though,
even now.

The restricted list is certainly true - there are three Randles in a
row, one of whom is a second attempt (the first died and the name was
re-used immediately).

Post by Jenny M Benson
Not saying that this necessarily applies to your couple, of course.

I'll keep my records showing they are (at least half) siblings for now,
with most of the facts assigned a quality of 1 (questionable) or 0
(unreliable) [BK's quality ratings go up through 2 (secondary or fairly
reliable) to 3 (primary or very reliable)]. Though I actually suspect I
_have_ got it wrong. I've left myself lots of notes.

It's a pity that, AFAIK, Ancestry's online trees - and those at other
places, like rootsweb - don't have a facility for the owner to show a
quality rating for each "fact". Without that, I rarely look at other
people's trees (I haven't for the above two, for example).

Post by Charles Ellson
Some of the parish records around those parts seem to have missed a
lot of people so that quite a few children don't seem to have a
matching parents' marriage or a baptism entry. Yours isn't the only
family with a limited choice of names.

Plus of course it's very close to the Welsh border; doing research
online does tend to make one concentrate on only one set of records,
whereas in practice I imagine some of the trees straddle. I might have
to visit the area sometime (-:

--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)***@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Anything you add for security will slow the computer but it shouldn't be
significant or prolonged. Security software is to protect the computer, not
the primary use of the computer.
- VanguardLH in alt.windows7.general, 2018-1-28

Charles Ellson

2019-07-21 08:19:18 UTC

On Sun, 21 Jul 2019 02:55:02 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"

Post by Charles Ellson
On Sat, 20 Jul 2019 12:36:53 +0100, Jenny M Benson

Wych Hough ?
See current address The Hough, Wych Road.

Late 1700s to early 1800s before they (Ellson/Elson) moved to Chester
leaving other cousins behind.

Some of the churches in the area had subsidiary chapels (St Chad in
the case of Malpas) whose records were sometimes bulked up and
subsequently misindexed by third parties as occurring in the following
year. Others had their own registers which haven't always been
transcribed or properly indexed/associated with their parent church.
In a few cases you will have the same person recorded four times in
the register and the Bishop's Transcript under both the chapel and the
parent church; not all done at the same time with four lots of
possible errors/variations and later variable transcription.

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
Doesn't help that mothers aren't
shown for most baptisms. Malpas/Cud[d]ington _is_ pretty small, though,
even now.
The restricted list is certainly true - there are three Randles in a
row, one of whom is a second attempt (the first died and the name was
re-used immediately).

Fairly common around there, mucking things up when the first child's
burial hasn't been recorded or it has but the age and name aren't
written.

Post by Jenny M Benson
Not saying that this necessarily applies to your couple, of course.

I'll keep my records showing they are (at least half) siblings for now,
with most of the facts assigned a quality of 1 (questionable) or 0
(unreliable) [BK's quality ratings go up through 2 (secondary or fairly
reliable) to 3 (primary or very reliable)]. Though I actually suspect I
_have_ got it wrong. I've left myself lots of notes.
It's a pity that, AFAIK, Ancestry's online trees - and those at other
places, like rootsweb - don't have a facility for the owner to show a
quality rating for each "fact". Without that, I rarely look at other
people's trees (I haven't for the above two, for example).

IIRC Malpas churchyard has been grassed over with surviving headstones
stacked against the perimeter wall. :-(

Chris Pitt Lewis

2019-07-21 11:15:19 UTC

Post by Charles Ellson
On Sat, 20 Jul 2019 12:36:53 +0100, Jenny M Benson

The letter you have transcribed as "o" at the end of day and Febr.... is
probably an "e" - the two letters can look very alike in some 17th
century hands.

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
("wichough" is very much a guess.)

Wych Hough ?
See current address The Hough, Wych Road.

Could "ato" be "als", i.e. "alias"? So the mother has two alternative
surnames: "Daniell alias Emersone". This is not an uncommon phenomenon
at this period. There are several possible reasons - familysearch has a
useful discussion here:
https://www.familysearch.org/wiki/en/Use_of_Aliases_-_an_Overview

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
(Note that at that period years ran from April to March, so February
1635 and 1621 were arguably what we'd now call February 1636 and 1622.)
Also looks like Marg*ret* was a bastard, whereas Rand*l* looks like
normally baptised (wife's [i. e. mother's] name not normally given in
the normal baptism records in Malpas at that time), so they would only
have been half-siblngs (common father).
They would have been 14 and 13 at marriage.
What do you think?

Marriage at those ages would have been legal in 1636, though not common.
But a half sibling was within the forbidden degrees of relationship and
it seems vanishingly unlikely that they could have married in the parish
where both were born and where their relationship was presumably well
known. Marriage of first or more distant cousins, however, was perfectly
legal.

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
(Ran* is my 9th great grandfather, and Marg* might also be my ancestor.)

When I was very new to family history research I found the marriage of 2
people who I subsequently "found out were brother and sister" but
further research with a better understanding of the need for
proof/evidence showed that there were, in fact, 2 brothers who drew on a
very restricted list when naming their children and the couple concerned
were cousins, not brother and sister!
Not saying that this necessarily applies to your couple, of course.

As well as the (unprovable?) possibility of missing records, you need to
search much more widely and look at the registers of nearby parishes.
Also consider if there are other records, such as wills or manorial
records, which might help to reconstruct the family. I would probably
start by looking for a will for Owen Meredith.

--
Chris Pitt Lewis

J. P. Gilliver (John)

2019-07-21 15:45:10 UTC

Post by Charles Ellson
On Sat, 20 Jul 2019 12:36:53 +0100, Jenny M Benson

[]

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
"Randle the sonne of Owen merediþ
of wichough baptized the XXþ dayo of
februario:1621"

The letter you have transcribed as "o" at the end of day and Febr....
is probably an "e" - the two letters can look very alike in some 17th
century hands.

That would make a lot of sense.
[]

Could "ato" be "als", i.e. "alias"? So the mother has two alternative
surnames: "Daniell alias Emersone". This is not an uncommon phenomenon
at this period. There are several possible reasons - familysearch has a
https://www.familysearch.org/wiki/en/Use_of_Aliases_-_an_Overview

It could well; another transcriber has indeed transcribed it as such. (I
would post the image, but AIUI my contract with the provider prevents me
doing so and this particular provider are quite diligent at pursuing
offenders.)
[]

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
They would have been 14 and 13 at marriage.
What do you think?

Marriage at those ages would have been legal in 1636, though not

Yes - I usually use as a rule of thumb 14 for males and 12 for females,
that being what it was changed from (as late as 1929).

Post by Chris Pitt Lewis
common. But a half sibling was within the forbidden degrees of
relationship and it seems vanishingly unlikely that they could have
married in the parish where both were born and where their relationship
was presumably well known. Marriage of first or more distant cousins,
however, was perfectly legal.

OK.
[]

Post by Chris Pitt Lewis
As well as the (unprovable?) possibility of missing records, you need
to search much more widely and look at the registers of nearby
parishes. Also consider if there are other records, such as wills or
manorial records, which might help to reconstruct the family. I would
probably start by looking for a will for Owen Meredith.

Sounds good. Not sure where I'd start looking, but maybe I will. (So
many other lines, though [as well as life in general!], and I've got
back a lot further on this one than most others!)

--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)***@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

User Error: Replace user, hit any key to continue.

Ian Goddard

2019-07-21 17:05:07 UTC

On the whole my reaction would be that assuming the vicar knew his flock
he wasn't going to let siblings or half-siblings marry.

It's very likely that Owen was well established as a family name and
used in many branches and generations. It makes sorting them out very
difficult.

It's also possible that brothers were given the same name. It could
happen if the godfathers were given free reign, probably not so much at
that period but I've come across a record of /twins/ being given the
same name.
"10,090. Richard sone of Mr. Richard Horsf:dl bapt xxviith day
10,091. Ricard sone of the said Mr. Richard Horsfall and the
latter borne beinge twindles bapt same day."

From Collins, Kirkburton PRs vol 1. April 1644.

Ian

J. P. Gilliver (John)

2019-07-21 18:37:40 UTC

Post by Ian Goddard
On the whole my reaction would be that assuming the vicar knew his
flock he wasn't going to let siblings or half-siblings marry.

Mine too. I'll revisit that line again sometime, maybe using different
sources (currently using mainly FMP, with some Ancestry - and on FMP,
parish registers; I'll have another look with maybe the bishop's
transcripts, or wills if they have any, or maybe familysearch).

Post by Ian Goddard
It's very likely that Owen was well established as a family name and
used in many branches and generations. It makes sorting them out very
difficult.

Could be. When I let FMP's search have "variants", it also brings up
John as an alternative to Owen, though I think that's unlikely in this
case as there seem to be both in the family and fairly well
distinguished.

Post by Ian Goddard
It's also possible that brothers were given the same name. It could
happen if the godfathers were given free reign, probably not so much at
that period but I've come across a record of /twins/ being given the
same name.
"10,090. Richard sone of Mr. Richard Horsf:dl bapt xxviith day
10,091. Ricard sone of the said Mr. Richard Horsfall and the
latter borne beinge twindles bapt same day."

Some people are a glutton for punishment! Unless it really was Ricard
and Richard, though even that would be confusing.

Post by Ian Goddard
From Collins, Kirkburton PRs vol 1. April 1644.
Ian

John

--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)***@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

"You realise, Fraser, that what happened between us can never repeat itself.
Unless, of course, the exact same circumstances were to repeat themselves." "By
exact same circumstances, sir, you mean: we would have to be aboard a train
loaded with unconscious Mounties, that had been taken over by terrorists, and
were heading for a nuclear catastrophe?" "Exactly." "Understood."

Chris Pitt Lewis

2019-07-21 20:12:11 UTC

Post by Ian Goddard
It's very likely that Owen was well established as a family name and
used in many branches and generations. It makes sorting them out very
difficult.

John and Owen are certainly different names and not likely to be
confused on the Welsh border. The usual Latin translation of Owen/Owain
was Audoenus, or sometimes Eugenius, so you should also search for those.

--
Chris Pitt Lewis

J. P. Gilliver (John)

2019-07-22 00:14:01 UTC

In message <qh2gur$cdf$***@dont-email.me>, Chris Pitt Lewis
<***@cjpl.co.uk> writes:
[]

Post by Chris Pitt Lewis
John and Owen are certainly different names and not likely to be
confused on the Welsh border. The usual Latin translation of Owen/Owain
was Audoenus, or sometimes Eugenius, so you should also search for those.

Thanks. I _was_ a little surprised when FMP suggested they were
alternatives.

--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)***@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

And Jonathan Harker would never have sent all those letters to his beloved
Mina from Transylvania, he'd have texted her instead. "Stuck in weird castle w
guy w big teeth. Missing u. xxxx (-:" - Alison Graham, RT 2015/11/7-13

Ian Goddard

2019-07-21 23:21:07 UTC