Thread: General Info Request

I wasn't sure where to post this, so I will try here.



Could someone perhaps answer a couple of general questions concerning geneaology records for me?



1. What does it mean when a death record says 'buried in woollen'?



2. Was every birth supposed to be registered? i.e. was it a law? Did poor people simply not bother?



3. Was every marriage registered? or did people simply start living together back then (i.e. late 1700-early 1800's) especially if they were poor?



4. Did everyone have to belong to a church, to have their births, deaths, etc. recorded, or did some 'not bother'?



I am trying to do some family research in the Foleshill/Longford, Warwickshire area, and they have some marvellous online records, but I am not coming up with too many hits. Considering that some may have been poor, I was just wondering if there were reasons that could account for the lack of registrations or records, other than lack of on-line availability.



Just sort of looking for some broad brushstroke understandings to sort of get my research oriented in the right direction. Sort of has more to do with general customs of the times and of the culture, and I am not familiar with them at all.



If anyone has any input, would be much appreciated, especially if anyone knows what this 'buried in woollen' thing is all about.



Deborah

In answer to question 1

The Act of Parliament passed in Charles II's time (to bolster the English wool trade) required every man, woman and child that died to be buried in woolen. At first the names of two witnesses were required to be entered after the notice of the burial in the parish register.

Buried in woollen refers to the Burial in Woollen Acts in 1667 & 1678. Attempt to help the wool trade and required all bodies unless they died of the plague should be buried in wool. The law was generally ignored in the late 1770s and was eventually repealed

Gillian

Question 2.



After Sept 1837 all births were meant to be registered.

1538 - Parish registers started - the first standard system for recording baptisms.



1649-1660 a fee of one shilling discouraged a lot from registering.



1660 - Back to free system but not enforced so many were unrecorded or recorded late



1694 - a tax reimposed so again poor not registering or in their own homes



1753 -The marriage could now only take place in licensed buildings which were churches or chapels belonging to the Church of England. Only the marriages of Jews and Quakers were exempt. Roman Catholics and Nonconformists still had to register in an Anglican parish for the marriage to be legal.



Between 1783 and 1794 a stamp duty was imposed and poorer families failed to always register.

Starlight, Gilliam, Bigdon,



Thank you all of you so much for your help and information. Seems there is so much more to know concerning genealogy other than finding names.



Thank you once again for all your help. Much appreciated.



Deborah

If you are having difficulty finding names remember children were not always christened in the parish they were born (particularly eldest children were often christened in maternal grandparents church). Also don't forget to check nonconformist records

Gillian

Thanks Gillian.That bit of information has helped explain why I am finding some bits of information in other parishes. I thought they were other family lines, but now I will go back and look at them again.



Thank you very much.



Deborah

Quote 3. Was every marriage registered? or did people simply start living together back then (i.e. late 1700-early 1800's) especially if they were poor?



4. Did everyone have to belong to a church, to have their births, deaths, etc. recorded, or did some 'not bother'?



Hello,



One thing that is very often forgotten or not known by family historians is how powerful and stringent the Poor Law Administration was, right from Elizabethan times. Very, very few children were not baptised, despite the various taxes levied at times. This was not just for religious reasons, but because if relief needed to be sought in times of hardship, then one had to prove where one's place of settlement was. Usually that was one's place of birth but you still needed a baptismal record to prove it.



People did not live together in the way that is accepted today for very long, particularly in places where they were known, and in most cases, you couldn't simply "move on" without a Settlement certificate, even if you managed to get employment. The Poor Law administrators would have been on the couple's backs in no time, for financial rather than necessarily religious reasons. The local rate payers would not have condoned possibly having to pay to maintain ******* children or a man/woman/couple from another village, and in some instances it has also been recorded that couple's were refused permission to marry because the administrators could not agree as to which village they should be "settled" in.

Basically, yes, everyone had to belong to a church. You would not get employment and therefore a roof over your head if you did not, although obviously in some cases a lot of simple lip service was given. Vagrancy was illegal as was being out after dark without a good reason, (curfew) so you would have ended up in the poor house of the place for which you had a Settlement certificate.



Regards

Victoria

Victoria,



Thank you!!! You have helped my understanding greatly. I have often wondered at some of these ways and customs. It's one thing to read about them, and another to try to connect them as affecting your own family and how they lived.



You have been very helpful. I thank you very much.



Deborah