PDA

View Full Version : Rebecca Wiggins


lozaras
13-01-12, 17:45
Rebecca Wiggins

born about 1780

christened the child I know about at St Giles Cripplegate, London, England

I guessed her dob from her son's christening date (in 1806, IGI batch C025779). The father was listed as Richard Payne. There IS a marriage in the right area (Southwark) for these names but it's much later (06.01.1820)

There is a Rebecca Payne on the 1841 census HO107 b7 folio 56 p6 in St Olaves Union Workhouse aged 60 (born in county)

There is also a burial for a Rebecca Payne 28.08.1847, aged 67, at Horsleydown St John, Southwark.

Her son is here:http://www.genealogistsforum.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?t=10034&highlight=john+payne

Merry
13-01-12, 21:51
The baptism for John is on Ancestry - the parents are helpfully indexed as Richd Rayne and Reba Wiggins! Richard's occ is 'turner'.

The Richard at the 1820 marriage IS a widower..............

lozaras
13-01-12, 22:05
... but he married another Rebecca Wiggins ???

I have very little brain at this time of night.

.... most of the time actually.

What do you think happened, Merry?

Merry
13-01-12, 22:25
?????? I am confused too!

I thought you were saying John Payne was born to unmarried parents in 1805/6 and there's a marriage of people with the right names for his parents in 1820.

I meant if the marriage is for the same man marrying the mother of his baby then at least the marriage entry shows Richard Payne to be a widower which could explain the long time it took for him to marry Rebecca (ie he waited until his former wife had died).

:D

lozaras
14-01-12, 08:12
Yes, that's what I was saying, lol!

I understand the widower reference now. I didn't realise that illegitimate children could be baptised though.:confused:

Merry
14-01-12, 08:38
I don't believe you!! What about all those threads there have been about how the vicar describes illegitimate children (at baptism)......illegitimate, b*stard, base born, natural child, love child etc etc :)

lozaras
14-01-12, 12:16
OK - I did know :o - obviously it's just my brain that's malfunctioning at ALL times of day & night!!
but didn't think both parents were named...

Merry
14-01-12, 12:26
I think that depends on the date and the vicar. Sometimes they say the father is 'reputed' and other times just give his name with no further comment. After the mid-1800s the number of fathers names given for illegitimate children drops dramatically. Was that when they church was no longer responsible for making sure these father's coughed up some maintenence?

kiterunner
14-01-12, 19:02
I think it might also depend on whether the father acknowledged paternity or not. It looks likely that in this case he did.

lozaras
14-01-12, 20:23
I think that's what threw me, Kate.
It's one thing naming the father but another actually giving the child the father's surname.

ElizabethHerts
25-05-12, 18:08
Sarah, have you seen this census entry?

1841 Census
PAYNE, Rebecca
ST OLAVE UNION, Surrey
HO107 piece 1087 folio 7/56 page 6

lozaras
26-05-12, 08:43
Yes, thanks Elizabeth. It was in my first post ;)