The MALVERN mystery of 1792 in Newent (General)

by jackmalvern, Friday, January 30, 2009, 13:45 (5848 days ago) @ ChrisW

Thank you for the reply.
I have seen this record, and I think there is an error in it. (I know, I know. It sounds like I'm rejecting facts to fit my narrative, but bear with me.)

This is the only record in which Charles MALVERN (b1747) is linked to Mary. There is no marriage record for them, and no baptisms for any further children by them. If they had had a child out of wedlock, it would be odd for the father to be named, and indeed for the child to have his father's name.

There is, however, a marriage record for Charles MALVERN being married to Sarah in 1779 (five years after the baptism of this baby Charles), and two baptism records naming Charles and Sarah as parents shortly afterward (of John and Thomas). On top of that, I have the will of Charles (b1747) stating that his wife is Sarah and that his children are John, Charles and Thomas (in that order). And Charles senior and Sarah are buried in the same grave.

So, was Charles married to Mary and Mary died? If so, there is no burial record for her. Indeed, there is no burial record for a Mary MALVERN until 1840.

Could it be that there were two Charles MALVERNs of the same generation in Newent? I doubt it. MALVERN is not that common a name, and I can find no records in Gloucestershire or beyond for any other Charles MALVERNs of that generation. It seems unlikely that a Charles MALVERN from another county would arrive in Newent, already married, have a child and then disappear again.

So how do I explain the baptism record of Charles from 1774? I think that the father's name has been mistranscribed or recorded incorrectly. There was another MALVERN family in Newent at the time headed by Samuel, Charles senior's brother. Samuel had married Mary a year earlier, according to marriage records. (I don't know about your ancestors, but mine almost always had their first child a year after marriage. Possibly they were all shotgun weddings. Or they were just gagging for it after a life of celibacy.)

Samuel was a shoemaker. Charles was a brushmaker. The father's occupation on that baptism record is listed as shoemaker.

I posit that the baptism record should have the father's name as Samuel, and that the person who made or transcribed the record put the child's name in twice by mistake.

Even if you reject this theory, the 1861 census says that my ancestor Charles was born in Newent in 1792. The birth year is corroborated by the 1841 census and by his gravestone in Cheltenham. Did he get his birthplace wrong? I don't know why he would.

So the question stands: is the reason that there is no record for a Charles MALVERN being born in Newent in 1792 because he was baptised as Joseph and had his name changed when Uncle Charles adopted him from poverty-stricken Samuel?

Does anyone know of any other adoptions in the late 18th century that follow such a scenario?

Jack