Genealogy Chat

Looking at the spreadsheet, the baptism immediately before Alice Matthews Taylor baptised 13th June 1841 daur of John Taylor, Famer, and Harriet is dated
13th April (with a question mark, perhaps unclear?) The child is Francis John MATTHEWS, son of John Matthews, a clerk and Mary.

Perhaps it was the name Matthews and father called John that caused the transcriber to mix the two entries???

Incidently, I assume Alice's surname was from her mother, as Harriet Matthews, a spinster of Biddestone St Peter married John Knight 20 (minor) of Langley Burrell on 4th Aug 1831.

However it looks like it wasn't the first such Matthews-Knight marriage, as the Langley Burrell baptisms mention an Elizabeth Matthews Knight baptised 7th Dec 1817, daur of John Knight, yeoman and wife Elizabeth. I would surmise she was the daughter of John Knight, bachelor of Langley Burrell, who married Elizabeth Matthews, a spinster of Slaughterford on 6th Nov 1815.

Incidently baptisms for some of John and Harriet's previous children also describe John as a yeoman or carpenter, though later baptisms describe him as a farmer.

I`ve been lazy there and gone by the transcript on Ancestry. Actually looking at the record it could say Anything where it`s so badly faded so that all adds up apart from the fact the birth cert gives DOB as 16 May. Baptism record does say 14 Apr but again that is subscribed and there`s no image of the original so that`s probably wrong and the 13 June date is probably rite.
Thanks for all your help,

If you google, someone has a transcript of Langley Burrell baptisms on an excel spread sheet.

I did post earlier that I wondered if the month was a transcriber error.

On the spreadsheet Alice's baptism is recorded as 13th JUNE 1841.

Langley Burrell Baptisms 1802 - 1911 - ruthopc.synergytrust.org.uk

http://ruthopc.synergytrust.org.uk/page11.html

EDIT: I realise the second transcriber is just as likely to be wrong as the first, but a baptism date of 13th June for Alice Matthews Knight, daur of John Knight, Farmer, and Harriet, does tie in much better with both the birth cert and the 1841 census.

This may have been the transcript seen by the original poster?

England & Wales Christening Records, 1530-1906

Name: Alice Matthews Knight
Gender: Female
Christening Date: 13 Apr 1841
Christening Place: Langley Burrell, Wiltshire, England
Father's Name: John Knight
Mother's Name: Harriet

Just a thought to throw into the mix - the next child up has age recorded as 1, so could be nearly 2. Could it be there was child Alice born after that who became poorly and was baptised before dying. The baby might then have been named for her as was common back then.

No, probably not, there is a Hannah Young Knight , birth reg June Qtr 1840 Chippenham RD

Some extra children?
1851 England Census
: John Knight Age: 39 Estimated Birth Year: abt 1812
Relation: Head
Spouse's Name: Harriet Knight
Gender: M (Male) Where born: Langley Burrell, Wiltshire, England
Civil parish: Langley Burrell County/Island: Wiltshire
Country: England
Registration district: Chippenham Sub-registration district: Castle Combe
ED, institution, or vessel: 4a Household schedule number: 44 Piece: 1836 Folio: 613 Page Number: 13
John Knight 39
Harriet Knight 44
Sarah Ann Knight 18
Jacob Knight 17
Harriet Knight 16
Jeremiah Knight 14
Jane Knight 13
Hannah Knight 10
Alice Knight 9
Lucy Knight 8
John Knight 7
Rosamond Knight 4
Elizabeth Knight 3
Mary Knight 1
Source Citation: Class: HO107; Piece: 1836; Folio: 613; Page: 13; GSU roll: 220983.

Just checking, is this the family in 1841?
1841 England Census
John Knight
Age: 29 Estimated Birth Year: abt 1812
Gender: Male
Where born: Wiltshire, England
Civil parish: Langley Burrell Hundred: Chippenham
County/Island: Wiltshire Country: England
Registration district: Chippenham Sub-registration district: Chippenham
Piece: 1172 Book: 7 Folio: 24 Page Number: 3
John Knight 29
Harriet Knight 30
Elizabeth Knight 20
Jane Knight 3
Jacob Knight 6
Hannah Knight 1
N K 3weeks
Source Citation: Class: HO107; Piece: 1172; Book: 7; Civil Parish: Langley Burrell; County: Wiltshire; Enumeration District: 21; Folio: 24; Page: 3; Line: 12; GSU roll: 464194.

I agree with Stuart - 3 weeks is middle of May.

Have you seen the actual baptism record, or was it a transcript?

If the latter, transcriber may have had a blip?

Is this your family? If so I'm not convinced the -- -- says unknown, it is very faded. What it does say however is that the person is 3 weeks old, so that would make him/her born mid May if the census was taken 6 June

1841 census transcription details for: Langley Common, Langley Burrell

National Archive Reference:
RG number: HO107
Piece: 1172
Book/Folio: 7/24
Page: 3
Reg. District: Chippenham
Sub District: Chippenham
Parish: Langley Burrell
Enum. District:
Ecclesiastical District:
City/Municipal Borough:
Address: Langley Common, Langley Burrell
County: Wiltshire
Name Relation Sex Age Birth Year Occupation Where Born
KNIGHT, John M 29 1812 Wiltshire
KNIGHT, Harriet F 30 1811 Wiltshire
KNIGHT, Elizabeth F 20 1821 Wiltshire
KNIGHT, Jane F 3 1838 Wiltshire
KNIGHT, Jacob M 6 1835 Wiltshire
KNIGHT, Hannah F 1 1840 Wiltshire
-, - F 0 (3 weeks) 1841 Wiltshire
THOMPSON, Mary F 55 1786 Wiltshire
BARRINGTON, Mary F 18 1823 Wiltshire
WHALE, Sarah F 13 1828 Wiltshire
BOND, John M 14 1827 Wiltshire

If the birth was registered on 8th October it would be recorded centrally (GRO) as part of the October/ November/December Quarter's births, so that bit fits. Officially, from the 1870's, a birth can be registered up to 6 weeks after it occured so eg a mid November birth might actually be registered and recorded in the January/February/March quarter of the following year.

Thanks for the reply. She got a pretty distinctive name Alice Mathews Knight parents John and Harriet born in a village called Langley Burrell in Wiltshire so defiantly the rite person. I think they just got the date wrong when they registered the birth. Very odd about the census thou defiantly same family she down as U K age 3 weeks!

The 1841 census was supposed to reflect the night of 6 Jun. It's strange that if she had already baptised, her names is down as Not Known! Perhaps the enumerator had to rely on neighbours for the information?

There was no financial penalty for a late registration, or for not registering a birth until the mid 1870's. Dates and years especially for illiterate people weren't that important so hardly surprising if they got some things wrong.

Is it possible that you have managed to pick up the details of the 'wrong' baptism - someone with the same name?

Added - Not everyone was baptised, or have the records on line.

Hi I have an Ancestor with a very strange birth record. Her baptisim record shows her being baptised 14 apr 1841 her birth wasn`t registered till Dec quater 1841 and on getting the birth certificate gives the date of birth 16 May 1841 and registered 8 oct. Also in the 1841 census she isn`t named just down as NK (Not known) Any ideas as to what can explain this?
keith