Question

When old (C17th England) burial records refer to the deceased as 'son of' someone  was the deceased always a child? I think this is the case, but don't want to make incorrect assumptions...!

In a lot of the records I'm looking at a deceased person is described with their occupation, or a 'gentleman', or 'Mr' or 'Mrs' (denoting higher social status). So am I safe to assume that these records that just say 'son of' or 'daughter of' someone are definitely referring to a child?

Thank you.

Comments

Never say always.  But usually, yes.

---

I agree, but not always the only exception I can think of is if the Father had a great standing within the community or maybe because the individual was unmarried

Answer 1

99% of the time it is. I have been photographing tombstones at local cemeteries and see this a lot. Most died at a young age.

Other died at a young adult age before getting married. Need to look at the age to be sure if they are a child or not.

Answer 2

Often but not always. People could be referred to as children or even "infants" until they achieved their majority in the case of men, or married in the case of women. (I've seen this in Chancery deeds).

Also, if the parents of the deceased were posh or titled, they might get a mention even if the deceased was an adult.

Answer 3

I've done a lot of work on 17th Century Lincolnshire and my conclusion is: often, but not always.  But it always seems to mean that the father was still alive and present in the parish.  I have seen it applied to men in their thirties if the father is still there.  In a few cases I have wondered if the phrase was used to distinguish two men in the same area with the same name.

For women it seems to be that the signifier 'wife of' implies the husband is still alive.

Answer 4

I would think that it was a form of identification. The Father may be well known in the community but they may not remember the names of all the children regardless of age. (People had big families back then)  By introducing someone as Earl  , Son of William the Undertaker, You might be able to recognize who  you were being introduced to .

Answer 5

Thank you everyone for your answers. I think I've come to the conclusion that, as many people have said, 'usually but not always' is the way forward. Since I asked the question I've looked at a lot more original images of Parish Registers, and I'm finding that the context in which any one particular entry is found is actually the most helpful clue. Looking at how the priest or whoever made the record recorded all the deaths helps enormously. For instance, if you've got 'X, weaver', 'Y, Farmer', 'A, wife of B', 'Ann X', and then you get 'D, son of E', then it seems to be safe to assume the last one is a child. To make sure, I've been trying to match up probable child with a baptism... and it does turn out (mostly) that I can find a likely one in the preceding years. A lot of work, and impossible if you don't have sight of original docs, but worth the effort to be as sure as one can be!

Once again, thanks for your answers, folks!