The generation of George Alderson and Elizabeth Pounder is the farthest I can go back with certainty in the Alderson line. It gets more and more iffy as you go back further. I mistakenly thought I’d be able to trace down from the first Alderson arriving in the area around Muker as I had done with the Arrowsmith arriving to the area north and east of Harrogate.
The first Alderson family arrived in Muker about 1630-40, in nearby Grinton in 1688, in Keld by 1791, in Thwaite in 1798, and in Kisdon in 1853. But unfortunately, since each family had to name the boys George, William, Thomas, John, Edward, Joseph, Alexander, or James, the records quickly got confusing. I haven’t found evidence of a specific law requiring or limiting name choices for a boy, but there must have been one. By 1650, with this limited choice of names, there was already a James Alderson [b. 9 Jul 1650] and a James Alderson [b. 15 Jul 1647] born to two different fathers [Simon and William]. When the generation with James married, which James was it? It should have been possible to sort it out with enough information. So the problem has to do with what they considered relevant information about marriages and births.
Baptismal records
Sorting out the records is often hampered by issues of parentage. I don’t mean a spouse playing around on the side, although given the human nature, I’m sure that has happened a time or two. Rather, I mean that the parents associated with a birth are often a bit of a mystery! The English baptismal records always mentioned the name of the father, but often left out the mom, presumably because she played a supporting role too small to merit special attention!
The exception to this rule was when no father was to be found. The mother then got full credit, along with wording such as:
“Ann bastard daughter of Jane Pilkington, Great Preston”
or
“Illegittmat begotten upon the body of Ann Horrobin” …
On occasions where the father of an illegitimate child was well known, he got equal credit with mom. Given the infrequency of the father’s name, it appears that, if there was any doubt, he was given benefit of that doubt and spared unnecessary embarrassment.
“Baptism: 11 Jan 1784 Ellenbrook Chapel, Worsley, Lancashire, England, Mary Hurst – [Child] of James Arrowsmith & Sarah Hurst, Abode: Tyldesley, Notes: illegitimate”
Even death of the child couldn’t spare some parents from public comment.
“Burial: 20 Sep 1586 Cathedral, Manchester, Lancashire, England, Elizabeth, bastard to John Arrowsmith & Ele Beety”
Unfortunately, baptismal records from Yorkshire (the area of most interest to us) often fail to mention a mother. There appears to have been no standard format for recording information. In contrast, Lancashire records occasionally mentioned mom’s first name, and sometimes even her last name. They often gave the father’s occupation, a bit of information obviously more important than the mother’s name.
Given the absence of mothers from baptismal records, you often have to make a guess about the mom’s name. For example, I told you that the first Arrowsmith ancestor we know for sure was Richard [d. 1732], and that he had married Elizabeth Webster on 13 Dec 1729. I found many Richard Arrowsmiths in the same era. Presumably, our particular Richard had married Elizabeth Webster [b. Jan 28, 1701] because she was the only candidate who lived close (less than 20 mi away in Spofforth). The records show that other possible wives of men named “Richard Arrowsmith” were far away (sometimes hundreds of miles). In addition, sons Richard Jr and Thomas were born shortly after the wedding date noted above.
Marriage records
Records regarding marriage also have some novel aspects. The woman’s name was almost always accompanied by a descriptive word: “spinster” or “widow.” These were the only two possible descriptions of a woman at the time of marriage. Regardless of age, any woman who had not been married previously, was a “spinster.” But the most amazing records of all are the marriage records that only give the man’s name! It was routine in Muker from 1704-1718 [and very common up to 1760] to just give the husband’s name! Here’s a real example taken from the records:
“Name: Geo Alderson, Gender: Male, Marriage Date: 16 Nov 1716, Marriage Place: Muker, York,England”
In truth, the Irish were better than the English at acknowledging the relevance of women. The Irish marriage records I’ve seen always give the mom’s maiden name, as well as the father’s name. Likewise, typical Irish birth records [at least for Gorteenmore and Claremorris] always included not only the mother’s name, but also her maiden name…they act as though she had a significant enough role in marriage and birth to deserve mention. Novel concept…
Tomorrow, more about marriage…
Cleary Family History 
My comment to the next post, re: sacraments, may have relevance here. If marriage is just a contract (English Protestant version), then because a woman is subsumed utterly by a husband’s legal status (she becomes a feme covert, a woman covered, a legal non-entity), her name isn’t all that important. In contrast, if marriage is a sacrament, both husbands and wives names are important, as their souls are equal.
Interesting…it makes the irrelevance of women more understandable.
Sent from my iPhone
>
Or one might say invisibility….