Genealogy Chat

Top tip - using the Genes Reunited community

Welcome to the Genes Reunited community boards!

  • The Genes Reunited community is made up of millions of people with similar interests. Discover your family history and make life long friends along the way.
  • You will find a close knit but welcoming group of keen genealogists all prepared to offer advice and help to new members.
  • And it's not all serious business. The boards are often a place to relax and be entertained by all kinds of subjects.
  • The Genes community will go out of their way to help you, so don’t be shy about asking for help.

Boards

Quick Search

Single word search

Tools

Findmypast DNA Banner

Icons

  • New posts
  • No new posts
  • Thread closed
  • Stickied, new posts
  • Stickied, no new posts

Infant son buried

Login to Add Reply Watch This
ProfilePosted byOptionsPost Date

Right said Fred

Right said Fred Report 13 Jun 2008 15:32

Thank you for your replies everyone. Seems it was another son then.

Fred

KathleenBell

KathleenBell Report 11 Jun 2008 23:47

I would say that the infant was a child under 1 year old. The fact that no name was given suggests that the child was very young and had not been named by the parents, nor had he been christened.

Kath. x

Jayne

Jayne Report 11 Jun 2008 23:47

Oh right, seems a bit sad not to be classed as a child over the age of three though, don't you think. Does that mean that their age isn't recorded in parish records? As you may gather I haven't yet needed to look up a child's death in parish records and am just trying to learn all I can. Jayne

robertpplane

robertpplane Report 11 Jun 2008 23:42

Their name

Jayne

Jayne Report 11 Jun 2008 23:35

I'm probably being stupid Robert, but what were they called over three if it wasn't child?
Jayne

robertpplane

robertpplane Report 11 Jun 2008 23:28

Infant was under 12 months, child was 13 months to 3 years

Gwyn in Kent

Gwyn in Kent Report 11 Jun 2008 23:03

In this context I would class a child under 2 or 3 years an infant, so the burial could easily be the child baptised in 1736.
I don't think a child would necessarily have to have been baptised to be in the burial register, but without a Christening they would be buried in a certain section of the graveyard.
I don't think the record you quote would be for a stillborn child.

Gwyn

Right said Fred

Right said Fred Report 11 Jun 2008 22:33

I have seen in the parish registers a case where the following was said:

Nov 12th 1738 (blank space left) son of James and Eliz. Oakey was buried an infant.

Now, my questions are: Do you think that because there was no name that he was only a tiny baby?
Could it be that it was their son who was christened in the same place in Sep 1736 (would he be classed as an infant?)
Would a child who had not been christened (I cannot find another child christened other than the one in 1736) appear in the burial registers.
Infant son suggests to me that it was not a still birth.

Any thoughts are very welcome

Thanks