Broken into the 1500s, I think, I hope

[Findem]

Thanks to Family search I believe I have found an ancestor Jane Gal(l)oway baptised 1 Apr 1599 at Ware Hertfordshire, Jane Galloway is one of nine children born 1581 to 1599.

Jane’s parents are I believe Thomas Galoway and Mary Branche who married 6 Aug 1681 at Ware, details from Family Search, extracted batch # M0730414.

Jane Galloway married William Wilkinson 20 April 1634 at Ware, no children baptised there (I checked F S & FMP) but 5 children of a William Wilkinson were baptised 1635 to 1648 at Sawbridgeworth Herts which is only 12 miles away, 9 miles as the Crow flies. One of William’s children, Dorathy, married my ancestor Simon Franklin.

Jane Galoway had a brother named George and so did Dorathy Wilkinson.

Problems.
The children baptised at Ware 1581 to 1599 on Family Search have neither a father’s or mother’s name attached therefore it’s not 100% possible to link them to Thomas Galoway and his wife Mary Branche. However I couldn't find another marriage as suitable in Ancestry, F S, Free Reg and FMP, others considered were eliminated by a combination of reasons such as children's baptisms, time, distance etc.

A similar problem exists with the children of William Wilkinson, the 5 children he baptised at Sawbridgeworth had only Their father’s name, William, attached to their baptism entries. So again it’s difficult to link those five children to the William Wilkinson and Jane Galloway couple with 100% certainty.

I do wonder if the lack of either parent name regarding the 9 Ware children is down to the parish registers or Family Search. In my personal experience of parish registers at least one parent is named, except perhaps the odd one or two entries which I suspect is down to the person recording in the PRs rather the normal practice of the church involved.

I’d be grateful for any comments, for or against, or suggestions, don't hesitate to shoot me down, I'll probably dislike you forever but don't let that stop you.

I do have a Searles line that goes back to 1420 and with unverified possibles going back to 1319 but personally I only took the line back to the 1600s.

 

[Ma-dotcom]

Re the Baptisms with only Father's name entered, I found quite a few of these in Sussex, Findem. Often maybe because the Father was a Gent or just a bit spesh & the mother didn't warrant a mention.
I also saw very early Baptisms with no parent named. I guess the baptism was what mattered.

Could those without either parent have been brought along by some one other than the Parents? or maybe the Vicar was doing a round of outer parishes & did job lots. It may have been the style or lack of page area.
Pity FMP only starts in 1560s, at least Parents were named then.

 

[Findem]

Could those without either parent have been brought along by some one other than the Parents? or maybe the Vicar was doing a round of outer parishes & did job lots.

I don't think it would have been a case of being brought along by someone other than the parents because there were several families where the was no parents names attached, perhaps just the normal practice in that parish at the time, or perhaps the Vicar thought it wasn't important. Sometime just after 1600 the father's name started to be given.

I have noted in quite a number of parishes in various counties that at one time it was common practice to show only the father's name, not exactly sure why, probably because it was very much a man's world back then.

 

[Daft Bat]

I have noted in quite a number of parishes in various counties that at one time it was common practice to show only the father's name, not exactly sure why, probably because it was very much a man's world back then.

It was. Women were regarded as the property of men and therefore were rarely mentioned by name. The mother's name often only appeared if the child was a bastard. For example, one of my ancestors' entries: Mary Ann, daughter of Sarah, a single woman. However, by the 17th century, the mother's name had started to appear more.

 

[Findem]

Thanks to Family search I believe I have found an ancestor Jane Gal(l)oway baptised 1 Apr 1599 at Ware Hertfordshire, Jane Galloway is one of nine children born 1581 to 1599.

Jane’s parents are I believe Thomas Galoway and Mary Branche who married 6 Aug 1681 at Ware, details from Family Search, extracted batch # M0730414.

I have since determined that one of the nine children baptised 1581 to 1599, Thomas bap 28 Apr 1588, has a note added to the entry "son of Thomas", which I think sufficiently ties the children in with the marriage of Thomas Galoway to Mary Branche in 1581. The baptisms appear to be a transcription on FMP so I'm thinking that perhaps there will be a similar note attached to the other children in the actual PRs for Ware, hopefully to Jane.

On another forum site I have asked for a lookup in the Ware Baptism Register to see if Jane's entry has a father's name attached, after seeing someone else got a lookup in Ware registers, I think I might be in with a chance. Time will tell.

A search on Hertfordshire Archives and Library Services (HALS) site came up with exactly the same details for the marriage of Thomas Galoway and Mary Branche as those on Family Search, so I think I can take that as verification of that marriage.

 

[Findem]

You know the name Galoway is intriguing me, so I think I need to see if I can find out it's English origins. I not only have Galoway ancestors in Herts but also it seems in Essex and being what appears to be a Scots surname I'm wondering "how come?".

In Essex my earliest known Galley ancestor is Thomas Galloway born circa 1739 somewhere, he and his wife Mary Clark married in 1764 in Great Leighs Essex, Where they raised 7 known children all baptised with the surname Galley.

However their first grandchild, Rebecca bap 1789 in Great Leighs, had the surname spelled Galloway, her 6 siblings all had Galley.

Incidentally the my Aussie daughter in law had a Grandmother of Scots origin whose maiden name was, yes you've guessed, Galloway.

I am aware that there is an area in Scotland known as Galloway and that there is a Galloway Tartan.

I'd almost guarantee that searches I make on the name Gal(l)oway will all refer me back to Scotland but I'll give it a go.

 

[Findem]

Well it looks as though I'm not going far with this line of research, most sources of course see the name Gal(l)oway as relating to the area of Scotland known as Galloway. One site however did mention that most counties in England have Gal(l)oway families, another mentioned that prior to the 8th century Galloway was Anglian (part of England). So perhaps t do have a tad of Scots blood, perhaps not.

I suppose in the days of Robert the Bruce when Lords in Scotland also held lands in England, as did the Bruce family in Essex, some Galloway servants might have been brought down to England and stayed.

 

[AnnB]

Well, there are certainly Galloways in Essex to this day. I don't know why this stuck in my mind (maybe because I liked Galloway's Cough Syrup when I was a child) or maybe because we used to know people who lived in Theydon Mount - anyway take a look at
http://www.
gallowayfarms.org/Galloway_Farms/About_Us.html
Won't help you with your quest, but interesting nevertheless

Ann

 

[Findem]

Thanks for that Ann, very interesting.

I've had Galloway's Cough Syrup many times when young, although I'd forgotten it till you mentioned it.

 

[Huncamunca]

The children baptised at Ware 1581 to 1599 on Family Search have neither a father’s or mother’s name . . .
I do wonder if the lack of either parent name regarding the 9 Ware children is down to the parish registers or Family Search.

You can see images of Hertfordshire parish registers on Findmypast (which I am doing at the moment thanks to the special offer Sis told us about, £1 for a month's sub!).

I looked at a few sample pages of the Ware baptism registers. In the 17th century pages I looked at, some entries gave both parents' names and some only father's name.

Going back to the 1500s, the entry I chose from the results list took me not to the original register but to a later semi-alphabetical transcript. The parents' names aren't given at all in the earlier entries in this book. It also includes 17th century entries, and these do give the father's name (and sometimes the mother's) so I would guess the earlier entries do reflect whatever was in the original register.

I can't see the original register for the 1500s on FMP. Perhaps it hasn't survived? Or just hasn't been digitised for some reason.

 

[Findem]

Thanks for checking Huncamunca, I wondered if the reason the transcripts are used is because either the original register for that period is in Latin or because the handwriting if difficult to interpret, or a combination of both reasons.

Family Search have the same 9 children and I'm thinking theirs, having an extracted batch #, might be from the original registers, they also show a child Richarde Galoway baptised 4 Sep 1583 who FMP don't show. Although if the family search entries are from the original registers why doesn't it show "son of Thomas" against the entry for child Thomas Galoway.

If as the Ware transcripts appear to suggest Thomas is the only child out of the 9 to have mention of a parent name, it beggars the question why only him.

I'm just hoping that the post on another site I mentioned bears fruit and someone takes pity on me and looks up Jane at least.