Opinions, please!

[ElizabethHerts]

The ongoing saga of OH's Dawsons from Lincolnshire.

William Dawson and Letticia Morris married on
19th March 1728 at Bloxholm, Lincolnshire.
He was from Walcott and she was from Hanworth.

They lived at Billinghay for nearly 10 years.

Chlidren found:
Edward baptised 12 Mar 1728 Billinghay
Edward the Son of Willm and Letitia Dawson March 12th
William baptised 9 Mar 1729 Billinghay
William the Son of William and Letitia Dawson March 9th
buried 22 Jun 1730 Billinghay
Laetitia baptised 17 Jun 1732 Billinghay
Leatitia ye Daur of William and Laetitia Dawson Jun 17th
Mary baptised 27 Dec 1733 Billinghay
Mary ye Dr of William and Laetitia Dawson Decr ye 27

Then I found:
Elizabeth baptised 8 Feb 1734 Billingay
Dr William and Elizabeth Dawson
Elinor baptised 28 Mar 1735 Billinghay
Elinor Dr of William and Elinor Dawson Mar 28th

I always knew they lived in Threckingham, I didn't know where they lived before until yesterday.
Here are the children I had baptisms etc. for at Threckingham:

Elizabeth baptised 1 Dec 1737 Threekingham
Ann baptised 28 Apr 1739 Threekingham
John baptised 15 Mar 1741/42 Threekingham
buried 7 Jun 1741 Threekingham
Richard baptised 23 Jun 1742 Threekingham
buried 1 Aug 1742 Threekingham

William Dawson died in 1752. I have his will and here is a link:

http://www.willtranscriptions.co.uk/surnames/d-e-f/dawson_william_d81.htm

In his will he mentions :
his wife
his brother in law (Morris)
his children: Edward, Elinor, Elizabeth and Ann

There is no baptism for Elinor in Threckingham.


Could Elinor, daughter of William and Elinor baptised in 1735 at Billinghay be William and Letitia's daughter? In other words, did the vicar make a mistake with the mother's name.

Similarly, is the earlier Elizabeth also their daughter? (I'd have to find a burial, as the second Elizabeth is born in 1737.)

I do have some extra information which helps:

Elizabeth Dawson married as follows:

County Lincolnshire
Place Threekingham
Church St. Peters
RegisterNumber 10
MarriageDate 28 Apr 1763
GroomForename Jarvis
GroomSurname RICHARDSON
GroomParish Timberland
GroomCondition Bachelor
BrideForename Elizabeth
BrideSurname DAWSON
BrideParish Threekingham
BrideCondition Widower
BrideOccupation Single Woman
WitnessOneForename Edward
WitnessOneSurname DAWSON
WitnessTwoForename David
WitnessTwoSurname WALKER
Notes Married By Banns By John Towers Vicar. Jarvis Also Listed As Jervase.
FileNumber 6362

Edward Dawson is her brother. I have his family and will.

Note the second witness.

There is this marriage:

Year: 1753
Groom Forenames: David
Groom Surname: WALKER
Groom's parish: From elsewhere
Groom's condition: Single
Bride Forenames: Eleanore
Bride Surname: DAWSON
Bride's parish: From elsewhere
Bride's condition: Single
Place of marriage: Lincoln St Paul
Diocese: Lincoln
Country: England

Can I claim this Elinor/Eleanor(e)?

[ElizabethHerts]

There is a tree for Eleanor and David Walker online:

http://wc.rootsweb.ancestry.com/cgi-bin/igm.cgi?op=REG&db=linclinks&id=I138887

The name of Eleanor and David Walker's first child is Letitia.

So she could have been named after her grandmother, Letitia Dawson. (I'm hoping!)

[ElizabethHerts]

I'm hoping this is William's family, in which case his parents are Richard and Susanna.

William called his last child Richard.

This tree has William born c. 1694, which is about right.

[Phoenix]

I doubt if you'll know the name of the vicar at that time, but I would be looking for shaky handwriting or different handwriting.

I have quite a few examples where a detail is wrong (father's name, mother's name, burial when they mean baptism:eek:) So many entries are clearly written up neatly long after the event, when some vital information has been forgotten.

[Merry]

Well, I wish I had a £ for every time I have seen a vicar give a baptised child the wrong mother's name (why is it always the woman they get wrong?!!).

I refuse to believe that my Richard Buck wasn't always married to the same woman, despite him apparently switching from Elizabeth to Mary when the wind changed, yet still being married to the original wife when he died (will) and yet claiming all the children as his in his will too!

All you can do is try your best to see if you can make Eleanor belong to someone else and if you can't, give in and accept her as yours! (or your OH's!)

[ElizabethHerts]

Phoenix and Merry, thanks for your input.

These situations are tantalising, aren't they? I'm not sure about Elizabeth, but I feel sure that Elinor must be ours.

The vicar apparently seems to be giving the mother the same name as the baby in these two cases -
child Elizabeth mother Elizabeth
child Elinor mother Elinor

I have found a baptism for William Dawson of ? September 1794 at Billinghay.
I really want to claim him!

[Phoenix]

I once read a high falutin' article, arguing for common law marriages on the basis that Xerxes Smith had children by first Sarah, then Mary, without a trace of Sarah dying or Mary marrying.

Well, it might have happened. More likely, Sairey was misheard by the vicar.

Letitia was probably known as Letty (heard as Lizzy or Betty by the vicar?)

Have to say, Merry, that my Edmunds (probably known as Ned) often appear as Edward.

[ElizabethHerts]

Apart from William and Letitia, and then "William and Elizabeth" and "William and Elinor", I haven't seen any more Dawsons being baptised in this time period at Billinghay.

I know I often write the wrong thing when I know perfectly well what I want to write!

[tenterfieldjulie]

Oh Elizabeth me too. I look back and think where did that come from!!

[Kit]

Apart from William and Letitia, and then "William and Elizabeth" and "William and Elinor", I haven't seen any more Dawsons being baptised in this time period at Billinghay.

That was going to be my question. If there aren't any Dawson's besides what you mentioned in the time frame they are probably yours. Remember women weren't important.

I've been going through the Cornwall registers and occassionally there is an entry that the minister has written in at a later date and noted it was misssed out and it isn't just one parish. They clearly don't baptise the child and then immediately write it in the book. They baptise and then write it in after church, or whenever.