Starting Sept. 5, 2014, will be making a big change. GenForum message boards, Family Tree Maker homepages, and the most popular articles will be preserved in a read-only format, while several other features will no longer be available, including member subscriptions and the Shop.
Learn more

Chat | Daily Search | My GenForum | Community Standards | Terms of Service
Jump to Forum
Home: Surnames: Kaye Family Genealogy Forum

Post FollowupReturn to Message ListingsPrint Message

Re: Joseph KAYE married Sarah HAIGH (1744) or Sarah EASTWOOD (1746)?
Posted by: Ian Goddard (ID *****9846) Date: October 26, 2008 at 15:51:45
In Reply to: Re: Joseph KAYE married Sarah HAIGH (1744) or Sarah EASTWOOD (1746)? by Judy McCoy of 326


I think Lane Chapel is too late for this period. The IGI batch C086101 runs from 1785. I think the key ting here is that none of the baptisms has a chapel listed against it. In the mid-1700s one would have had to have had a serious disagreement with the curate in Holmfirth to walk to Almondbury and back to have one's child baptised. Ditto from Lane in Austonley although that would have been a mile or too nearer, or Slaithwaite. Chapels of ease were called that for a very good reason.

I tried looking up Edmund's marriage, this being the most distinctive name amongst the children. There was a possible record in 1783 to Nancy Beaumont and an Edmund had a daughter, Nancy, baptised in 1784. If this is the right Edmund he lived in Kaye Lane, Almondbury when the child was baptised.

My guess is that it's some area around Almondbury village itself which was being colloquially referred to as Lane - there would be no shortage of candidates.

This business of Holmfirth becoming a parish in its own right in the C17th is based on a misunderstanding. It became a parochial chapel which means that it could bury the dead. There's a good account of the case being made at the time of the Commonwealth in Morehouse (Google under books for Morehouse and Kirkburton; there's full view of the book). The essence of the case is the difficulty of taking bodies to Kirkburton for burial especially in bad weather. It also details the provision made for burials. This status was granted and revoked after the Restoration. The Chapelry itself was gradually carved up to make a series of new parishes (Holmbridge, Upperthong and Hepworth) at least some of these (well, Holmbridge at least) before Holmfirth became a parish in its own right in 1858. BTW the chapel, strictly speaking was in Wooldale township in Kirkburton parish but was used by Almondbury. A'mbury had a similar relationship with Slaithwaite which was in Huddersfield parish.

Just to complicate things further at some point in the early 1800s the Holmfirth registers stopped being transcribed into the parish although they did survive as independent records from the mid 1700s. It means that there's a gap between the early 1800s and 1837 where Holmfirth C of E records aren't online. BTW it might be worth double checking the Holmfirth fiche at the LDS for your baptisms, just in case they really are Holmfirth but not noted as such in the PRs.

Having gone through the Almondbury books (presumable Taylor Ed) you'll have seen that some of the Almondbury rectors got into a tangle with transcriptions. There are a good deal of omisisons. (e.g. I have 4 generations of William Goddards in Upperthong as parents in baptisms and infant burials but no records of any of them being baptised. I also have the burial of a widow of a William but not of William himself nor of the marriage!)

BTW, what baptismal date do you have for Joseph? I can't find any in the HDFHS extracts where Lane is given as the abode.


Notify Administrator about this message?

Post FollowupReturn to Message ListingsPrint Message
Search this forum:

Search all of GenForum:

Proximity matching
Add this forum to My GenForum Link to GenForum
Add Forum
Home |  Help |  About Us |  Site Index |  Jobs |  PRIVACY |  Affiliate
© 2007 The Generations Network