Oh

[Asa]

I have an ancestor, John Marshall of Wood Bank near Penkridge in Staffordshire.

Here he is on census -

1851 piece 2016 folio 57 page 4 - aged 49 born Huntington, Staffs
1861 piece 1979 folio 54 page 15 - aged 58 born Huntington
1871 piece 2920 folio 48 page 3 - aged 67 born Huntington
1881 piece 2780 folio 47 page 2 - aged 78 born Huntington.

So fairly consistent. Huntington is in the parish of Cannock. According to the IGI, there is a John baptised there in 1801 and another in 1806, sons of Richard and Samuel respectively, but they both have attached burials.

However, there is another John baptised 30 Jun 1799 son of William and Mary (who both appear to be alive and well in 1841) and there is evidence to support this - there is a death entry for John Marshall Cannock district Mar qtr 1891 aged 91 and a matching entry in the probate list for John Marshall of Woodbank 1st March 1891.

Plus, in 1851, John has a brother Richard Marshall - gardener, married, 40 born Huntington - in the household. In 1841, Richard is a gardener in Leamington Priors, Warwickshire and is there again, with his own family in 1861 (piece 2223 folio 40 page 25) but now a baker and aged 55. And a matching baptism in 1806 Cannock, son of William and Mary. Then I found two other Marshall brothers from Huntington in Leamington Priors with matching baptisms as sons of William and Mary and one of them has my John's eldest daughter Mary as a servant in 1851.

I did this research years ago and am just going over a few things and notice in the NPC that probate is granted to one of the executors, Thomas Herbert builder of Tillington, "nephew". Looking at Thomas, he was born c1830 Great Haywood, Colwich, Staffs and baptised at Colwich, son of James and Jane and there is a marriage for James Herbert and Jane Marshall in 1827 in Cannock.

Jane dies before the 1851 census. In 1841 she appears as 35. The only baptism in the area for a Jane Marshall is in 1811 at Cannock - parents Richard and Jane. Eh?

[kiterunner]

Have you checked the actual Cannock PR's, Asa, or just on FamilySearch? Sometimes you can find a record in the PR's which is missing from FamilySearch.

[Asa]

No, I should ask someone to have a look shouldn't I. Do you think a missing or non baptism is the most likely? I feel too strongly I have the right John :-)

[kiterunner]

I don't know whether it's most likely, but certainly worth checking for.

[Phoenix]

We have never linked baptism and burials or births and deaths in this country.

If this shows on the IGI, it merely means someone helpfully assumed that a baptism and burial were related.

If it said "son of" on the baptism and burial, that was probably the case. On the other hand, I have baptism & burial on the same day for an individual with a very rare name, followed by another burial some considerable time later. I think what must have happened was that the register was written up annually, the vicar had no idea whether his rough note was baptism or burial, so entered in both places, just to be on the safe side!

Even the word infant is suspect. It usually means baby, but can mean child.

[kiterunner]

I have certainly come across parish register entries which link a baptism or birth with a burial, Phoenix. Also there are sometimes entries linked with each other, such as "son of the above", "widow of the above" etc which it's very difficult to explain fully when indexing or even when transcribing.

[Phoenix]

I agree there can be a great deal of helpful description in a burial entry (having just found a 1742 marriage on the basis of a burial in the 1790s!) but by 1800 the baptisms and burials are usually kept in separate parts of the register, even separate books in some cases but even if the burial entry said John Smith son of John Smith you can't assume it was a child. You do get "baptised and buried the same day" which is fine, but I'm suspicious of any linking the Mormons have done because it is a vanishingly rare practice.

And I'm suspicous of some of the Norfolk burials as the registers are full of the vicars' calculations of age - which are only fine if the the old man was actually baptised in the parish.

[kiterunner]

Yes, I often come across calculations in the PR's with one year subtracted from the other which I always assumed were calculations of age at death, but today I saw one that was 1724 - 1600 = 124! There was no burial in 1724 for someone age 124, needless to say. I wonder what that was all about.

[Asa]

Thanks Phoenix, I do realise the burials need checking but I have to say I rarely find any errors in the IGI - I have found omissions and of course omissions of detail but not often errors or erroneou assumptions.

I did look but on FMP but couldn't find a burial for Jane Marshall/ Herbert because her age might have helped. I feel very confident that I have enough evidence for the right John Marshall but I need to sort Jane out all the same.

1891 is far too late for 'nephew' being used for a vaguer relation I would have thought