Baptism name/Civil reg name different?

[Mal]

I just thought of something when I was replying to the naming patterns question....

My father's civil registration name and baptismal name are not exactly the same, in my family baptismal names tended to include sundry old relatives and saints etc, inevitably too long to be on a birth certificate. I also know that my maternal grandmother who was of Irish Catholic stock had an additional "saint's" name not on her birth certificate. I was wondering how this might affect our research, I know for a fact that my dad's driving license (original) stated his baptismal name because as late as the 1960's you could use your baptism certificate as a proof of identity.... imagine the havoc when he had to renew it for the photocard one.

Getting back to the point, I was wondering- seeing as we deal with a lot of baptism dates and names how this might alter things? For example my William Davies b1799-ish may have been baptised John William, or Henry William or some other combination throwing us off the sent. He appears to be married as William Davies and therefore we may presume that this was indeed his baptismal name... but he does leave a gap.

Does anyone else know of "odd" naming traditions and/or differences such as these? I presume that my family were not the only family who had such tradtions.

[tonymitch]

Roman Catholics often attach an other 'Christian' name following Confirmation. For example...I had an uncle Francis Joseph Keegan who received the name 'Patrick' at his confirmation. His official names on census' (should the plural for census be censusii?) would bear no resemblace to the name he was known by ..... Paddy Keegan.

Also...names in RC families can be a little deceptive. Maria can be a man (Carl Maria von Weber the composer) and I knew two Nuns...Sister Patrick and Mother Joseph. I must admit that the last example usually only applies to 'Religious' who choose their own name. I assume that their baptism names would be the ones on the certificates.

Tony M

[Cornish Terrier]

I think this is going to be more of an issue from 1837 onwards given the implementation of Birth Registration.

Prior to this the only record (except maybe in a Family Bible) would be for the baptism of a child where the date of birth might often be included.

Given there was no requirement to 'register the birth' we would be only guessing that a child 'might' have had a slight name change between birth and baptism.

Certainly possible that there was a decision to name a child 'John' and then for reasons unknown decide on 'John William' when it came to the bapism.

Remember also that some children were baptised within days of birth whilst others may not have been baptised until in their teens.

Only guess work I am afraid.

[Mal]

I certainly agree with the post-1837 comment... Pre-1837 Baptismal names ought to be the names used, there again without the "officialdom" of driving licenses, passports and all the baggage of civil registration who knows what aliases and pseudonyms people used. The problem for us is, as you say, it often comes down to "educated" guesswork!

[Cornish Terrier]

There you go! - "educated" guesswork!

Maybe that's the problem.

Perhaps we should think about using some "uneducated" guessork and see what happens. ;D

[Mal]

How would you define that then?

[Cornish Terrier]

Anything that sounds absolutely stupid to everyone else! ;D

And sometimes it really does work.

[Mal]

Will give it a go..... !

William Davies son of George III....! LOL!!!