Conundrum

[emanday]

I'm stuck!

I've been doing a bit of research on my son's girlfriend's family and found this puzzle.

Pancho Franklyn Purnell, born in Bristol c 1878, baptised 10 Sept 1878 - Parents given as William and Kezia (she was 51 at the time).

Joseph Purnell, born c 1878, baptised 10 Sept 1878 (same place) - Parents Joseph and Charlotte.

Joseph senior is William and Kezia's son.

Found wee Joseph's birth, no problem, but wee Pancho, according to the records on both Ancestry and Find My Past, was never born or died!

I'm sinking fast and the family are really curious about wee Pancho!

Any ideas?

[SarahND]

Hi Mary,
I'd want to see that baptism record in the original... maybe Ancestry garbled it in the transcription. Is there any likely candidate with the family in 1881?

All the best,
Sarah

[emanday]

Hi Sarah,

There's no-one with a name even coming close to that born around that time, within or without the family. Anyway, Find My Past aren't as guilty of mistranscriptions as Ancestry, so when they didn't have anything either, I knew there was a problem.

He never appears in any census with William & Kezia, or with anyone else for that matter.

He got baptised - nowt else - then POOF, he's gone

I wondered about a wayward daughter, but even if the only (age eligible & unmarried) daughter had an illegitimate son, there would surely still have been a registration?

Thinks - Maybe some wee scroat got into the church in 1878 and added this to the register, just to muck me about here in 2010

[trish1]

Hi Mary

The baptism registers were usually written up well after the event (often from scraps of paper containing the details) so your last thought may be on the right track. I have a child in a register from Staffordshire - listed to the grandparents (mother in 50s) when it was obvious from the name he belonged to the son (and his wife). The vicar probably checked the register for the parent names and selected the grandparents as they had lots of children!

Could it be a stillborn twin to the son's child? An immigrant belonging to a completely different family (but nothing in 1881 - 2 panchos! born 1821/1833 - from family search - a good transcript).

The ancestry baptisms such as this come from the BVRI transcribed from registers by the LDS - so it is most likely the transcription is correct. The actual film would provide the surrounding baptisms which may/maynot be anyways useful.

Trish

[Moray_Lass]

It may not help you but I have a mother christening both her children in 1854 - they were born in 1826(from memory) and 1828! So check around the page, any other odd ones. I put it down to a new Minister tidying up the parish or a push before 1855. So could Pancho be a late christening?

[Maisie]

I'm wondering too if this was a block booking for all the family members who had never been christened. IGI has Pancho's mother as "Eziah", and also have an Elizabeth Ann Purnell christened on 10 September 1878 at the same place with parents William and Eziah Purnell.

Elizabeth appears to be 10 in 1881 and living with a widowed "Keziah", older brother Walter and a sister called "Pamelia" who is 13. She couldn't be Pancho could she?

Maisie

[emanday]

Although this name runs through this family, this Kezia variously appears as Ezia, Keziah.

Pamelia is actually Ancestry's version of Pamela, born 1867.

Apart from Pancho, I have the births of all the other children to William & Kezia, as well as most of their marriages and most of their deaths.

I can see the only way to solve this is to have a look at the original entry, if that is possible. I do wish Ancestry had the baptism images.