witnesses to a birth

[Janet in Yorkshire]

I've had a fantastic find amongst the familysearch images for Norfolk Society of Friends. A document for a Great Yarmouth birth on 22 Oct 1779 names 3 witnesses to the birth - William Downes, surgeon and then Margaret B and Sarah B. (Boulter was the surname of the baby and his parents.)
Margaret was the wife of father's brother - a lady married 14 yrs, but with no children.
There is no near B relative called Sarah :confused:

Would you expect Sarah to have been part of the Boulter extended family? Would you expect her to have been married?
(The family were in trade and unmarried daughters seem to have been brought up as "genteel," rather than having to go out and work for a living.)

Jay

[Merry]

I think I would expect her surname to be Boulter, given she didn't put her full surname. There's no way to say whether she might be married or single, though one might think they might not have thought it appropriate for a single genteel young lady to witness the birth - but it's hard to say whether she was just bringing hot water and towels!

Might she be the wife of some Boulter you haven't yet been able to marry off? The Quaker certs I have regularly seem to have people I can't quite identify witnessing births!

[Janet]

Nobody named Sally/Sallie in the family either? I was rather confused until I learned that in those days Sally was a variation of Sarah and completely interchangeable, so that "Sarah Jane" was actually my mom's "Auntie Sallie". Probably everybody but me knows this... :)

[Merry]

lol Janet!

Though interchangeable, I think Sally was not generally used in official records (GRO index 1837-1915 had 5,300 Sallys and 1.5 million Sarahs)

Reminds me of one of my grandfather's comments when told I was to be called Sarah rather than Amanda as my mother had originally chosen - "Never mind, we can always call her Sally". I never have been!!

[Janet]

Though interchangeable, I think Sally was not generally used in official records (GRO index 1837-1915 had 5,300 Sallys and 1.5 million Sarahs)

Those are interesting numbers, Merry. And that's exactly what I was thinking, that someone may have been known always as Sally in the family, and yet on an official record they would automatically put down Sarah.

[Merry]

Oh, I see what you mean! I was thinking Janet (the other one lol :rolleyes:) wouldn't have come across this lady as Sally because she is only looking at official records :d

[Janet in Yorkshire]

Thankyou for your interest - Both Margaret & Sarah were named as Boulter on the doc
So sorry, I copied directly from my rough notes, I knew I meant Boulter, but of course no one else would deduce that from my post!!

There are NO Sarah Boulters in the immediate family of the father (Joseph Boulter) who was one of 3 boys.
BUT, I do have some spare Boulters in the Gt Yarmouth area, who I've been longing to include in the family for about 20 yrs.
A James Boulter had a wife names Sarah - they'd had a son baptised in Yarmouth in July 1779.
I believe the above James also had a sister called Sarah, who would have still been unmarried in 1779. I thought perhaps it was more likely to have been the wife rather than the sister???
I can't prove there was any link between James & the other lot - I only THINK James's father and Joseph's father were half-brothers, making James and the baby's father first cousins.
(There was a will a generation further back, but maddeningly it only names the eldest boy and girl from a first marriage and then makes provision for eight children and the one his wife is expecting, but there are no names.)

Perhaps I'm trying to read too much into the witness doc :(

Jay

[Merry]

Are the spare Boulters also Quakers? If they are, then I would say it's extremely likely they were related. Generally Quaker communities were closeknit, so it wouldn't be at all surprising to have a (very) distant relative at a birth (or any event)

[Janet in Yorkshire]

Are the spare Boulters also Quakers? If they are, then I would say it's extremely likely they were related. Generally Quaker communities were closeknit, so it wouldn't be at all surprising to have a (very) distant relative at a birth (or any event)

Unfortunately not, Merry.
Joseph's father Daniel married into a Quaker family. It was the Quaker elder brother of Mrs Daniel who supported the family and saw to that it that his 3 Boulter nephews were set up in trades. This branch continued in the Quaker traditions until the 1820's.

Jay

[Merry]

I realise this is 40 years later, but who is this (BMD Registers)?

Boulter Sarah 1821 Burial Norfolk RG6_0558 Full Details Page Image

[Janet in Yorkshire]

Merry,

Is that Sarah Boulter, died Gt Yarmouth 20 Feb 1821?

If so, she was too young to be the witness I haven't got her date of birth, but her husband was born in 1790 and they married in 1813.

Jay

[Merry]

OK, So, if the other branch were not Quakers, but one of them was at the birth then I can't think of another reason than being related. I'm trying to think who I have witnessing births on my Q certs. From memory they are either other Qs (related or not), the Dr and a woman who was a long term family servant, but wasn't a Quaker. (perhaps Sarah was a servant in her Q relative's household? That is certainly a possibility)

I hope you can work out how Sarah fits in.

[Janet in Yorkshire]

Merry,
Many thanks for your time spent on my behalf.
I also really value your thoughts on this scenario.
(I've been looking for 20 years for documentation to confirm that 4 parallel nuclear families are all part of the same extended family. It's trying to get the balance right between saying "as yet,there's no evidence to confirm this" and
"this seems the most probable explanation as nothing has yet come to light to show ir couldn't be so." :confused:

Jay