Richard’s Genealogy
Notes
Matches 851 to 900 of 963
| # | Notes | Linked to |
|---|---|---|
| 851 | There is a second burial on 2 Oct 1774, but as the will was written on an unspecified day in Mar 1774, and wills were commonly made on the deathbed, the earlier date seems more likely. | Martell, Jeremiah (I3491)
|
| 852 | There is a second Thomas buried on 10 Jan 1638, but as probate was granted on 25 Sep 1638, the Aug date seems more plausible. | Bull, Thomas (I2707)
|
| 853 | There is another candidate baptism, on 9 May 1724 at Durley the illegitimate daughter of a Sarah Strugnell, as well as a less likely one on 14 May 1710 in Droxford, the daughter of Edward Strugnell. However, we know Thomas and Mary were in Curdridge as this is stated in some of their children's baptisms, and we know Peter and Sarah were too for the same reason. It therefore seems likely Sarah was the daughter of Peter and Mary. | Strugnell, Sarah (I4668)
|
| 854 | There is another possible baptism at Upham on 13 Jan 1716/7, daughter of a William Strugnell. However we know that Thomas and Mary Strugnell were from Curdridge as this is stated on two of their children's baptisms. We also know that John and Mary Booker were from Curdridge for the same reason. It therefore seem logical to suppose Mary is the daughter of Thomas and Mary. | Strugnell, Mary (I4691)
|
| 855 | There is clearly an error with either the baptism date or the burial date, as the burial is three days before the baptism, but there is no reason to doubt that James and Ann did have a child named Emma who died as a baby in 1873. | Moody, Emma (I258)
|
| 856 | There is no evidence that these children were ever baptised, and in the case of Henry and Alfred, they may not even have had their births registered. | Family F382
|
| 857 | At least one living or private individual is linked to this note - Details withheld. | Family F491
|
| 858 | There is no plausible baptism for John in Fawley or any of the neighbouring parishes. Probably he was born c1770, and there are enough gaps in the recorded children of Richard and Jane that he could well be an unrecorded child of them. But equally he may have moved into the area from further afield, or may be significantly older than this estimate. A 70-year-old John Willis from Calshot Lane was buried in 1822, putting his birth in 1852; if so he could still be a son of Richard and Jane, but could also be a brother of Richard. | Willis, John (I1752)
|
| 859 | There is no suitable baptism for John in Ringwood or in any other surviving parish register in Hampshire. However it's clear that Bull family is more complex than I've yet worked out. There's another John who had children 1649–70, who is probably the clothier who died in 1695. There's also a Thomas whose only recorded child was baptised in 1634, and a John in Beaulieu. Presumably these people all fit into the Bull family of Ringwood, but how is not clear. | Bull, John (I2737)
|
| 860 | There seems to have been two Williams in the 1740s and '50s — one married to Clemence Cable, the other to Jane Wort — both of whom had children at about the same time. Unfortunately most of the baptisms at Fawley at this time identify only the father, so it is difficult to decipher which children belong to which family. Several of the baptisms state "Exbury" by them, possibly meaning that the family lived in Exbury, or perhaps that the baptism took place there. This includes one baptism where the mother is identified as Jane. In another baptism, a William was described as of Ower (near Calshot), which closer to Fawley parish church than the chapel at Exbury. This is can only be Clemence's husband as it before the marriage to Jane Wort. A William of Rhimehall lists eight children in his 1785 will: James, Mary, Benjamin, Sarah, George, Charles, Nancy, Hannah. The latter four are the children of William and Sarah Hunt; that William was a widower when he married Sarah, and as Clemence had died but Jane was still living, he must previously have been Clemence's husband. The children named in the will are very similar to the list of surviving children that do not mention Exbury, and in the case of Benjamin, James and Mary, the mother is explicitly identified as Clemence, confirming the suggestion that he married first Clemence and then Sarah. The only non-Exbury baptisms that are not in William's will are John, Nelly, John and Charity. The first three were born before William and Jane's marriage, so unless he had a previous wife (for which there is no evidence), they must be William and Clemence's children; and the eldest, John, was born ten months after the wedding. Assuming Charity was baptised shortly after birth, she is too close in age to David in the Exbury family to be part of that family. In three cases, their absence from the will is easily explained: the first John, Nelly and Charity were all dead; possibly the second John was too. This leaves four Exbury baptisms as a separate family, the children of the other William and Jane. | Family F312
|
| 861 | There seems to have been two Williams in the 1740s and '50s — one married to Clemence Cable, the other to Jane Wort — both of whom had children at about the same time. Unfortunately most of the baptisms at Fawley at this time identify only the father, so it is difficult to decipher which children belong to which family. Several of the baptisms state "Exbury" by them, possibly meaning that the family lived in Exbury, or perhaps that the baptism took place there. This includes one baptism where the mother is identified as Jane. In another baptism, a William was described as of Ower (near Calshot), which closer to Fawley parish church than the chapel at Exbury. This is can only be Clemence's husband as it before the marriage to Jane Wort. A William of Rhimehall lists eight children in his 1785 will: James, Mary, Benjamin, Sarah, George, Charles, Nancy, Hannah. The latter four are the children of William and Sarah Hunt; that William was a widower when he married Sarah, and as Clemence had died but Jane was still living, he must previously have been Clemence's husband. The children named in the will are very similar to the list of surviving children that do not mention Exbury, and in the case of Benjamin, James and Mary, the mother is explicitly identified as Clemence, confirming the suggestion that he married first Clemence and then Sarah. The only non-Exbury baptisms that are not in William's will are John, Nelly, John and Charity. The first three were born before William and Jane's marriage, so unless he had a previous wife (for which there is no evidence), they must be William and Clemence's children; and the eldest, John, was born ten months after the wedding. Assuming Charity was baptised shortly after birth, she is too close in age to David in the Exbury family to be part of that family. In three cases, their absence from the will is easily explained: the first John, Nelly and Charity were all dead; possibly the second John was too. This leaves four Exbury baptisms in this family. | Family F313
|
| 862 | There was a second baptism recorded on 29 March. Presumably the first was a private baptism, followed by being received in church. | Grossmith, Mary (I5500)
|
| 863 | There was a second John having children in Bishop's Waltham at about the same time: that was the husband of Ann. That other John was on the 1841 and '51 censuses in Droxford, which tell us he was born in Wiltshire in about 1775, and so could not have been the 66-year-old man buried in Bishop's Waltham in 1834. That burial matches a baptism in Droxford in 1767, son of Jesse and Mary. Two of their later children were baptised in Bishop's Waltham, and that is where Jesse was probably buried, so it is reasonable his son lived there. The John buried in 1834 is very probably this John as Sarah was listed as widowed on the census. | Hellyer, John (I4647)
|
| 864 | There was another George and Harriet in Botley at the time. However the censuses make it clear which children belong to which family. | Family F1439
|
| 865 | There was another George and Harriet in Botley at the time. However the censuses make it clear which children belong to which family. | Family F1438
|
| 866 | There was seemingly another Thomas and Sarah Smith in Exbury, who were having children baptised in Fawley parish at the same time as this Thomas and Sarah. The three children attributed here to the other couple were all stated as being from Exbury in the register. Henry, Sarah, Jane and the second James were all baptised in Dibden and therefore are almost certainly the Hythe family; and Henry seems to have taken his father's occupation, being a butcher in Hythe. Elizabeth was living with her father in Hythe on the 1841 and '51 censuses, as was Jane in 1841. William, Elizabeth and the first James all identify the mother as née Martell, and as Elizabeth is known to be of the Hythe family, we can infer the rest were too. This just leaves the parentage of the Thomas baptised in 1806 unclear. However, as the Exbury family also had a son called Thomas (baptised 1802), and there's no indication he died young, it seems most likely the 1806 baptism is for the Hythe family. | Smith, Thomas (I3433)
|
| 867 | There were no Scoreys in Fawley before the 1770s, but there's a plausible baptism in Minstead on 3 Aug 1754, son of John & Rebecca. There's also a plausible marriage in Minstead in John Scorey and Mary Peirce on 15 Aug 1785, followed by a baptism of a son John there on 8 Jun 1786. However there are no plausible burials there for John and Mary, which suggests they left the area. | Scorey, John (I3407)
|
| 868 | There were presumably other children, as the 1571 will of Margaret's brother Richard mentions children in the plural, but does not name them. | Family F1016
|
| 869 | There were three baptisms of a Charles Thomas in about 1824 in Beaulieu. One died as an infant, leaving two possibilities for the man who married Eliza Bull. One is was the son son of James and Ann was baptised on 6 Nov 1825; the other was the son of Charles and Fanny was baptised on 16 Feb 1825. As discussed on his page, James and Ann's son moved to Jersey and married a Louisa Gunton. This means Eliza Bull's husband must be the son of Charles and Fanny. | Thomas, Charles (I2684)
|
| 870 | There were two Elizabeth Whites baptised in 1615 in Eling, and neither obviously died as an infant. | White, Elizabeth (I1558)
|
| 871 | There were two George and Rebecca Thomases in Lymington in the 1840s. The younger George is absent from the 1851 census, but we can infer he was the son of the elder George. This is because in 1871, Samuel and Ellen, two of the children of the younger George and Rebecca are living in Millbrook with their grandmother, Rebecca Newman. The grandmother is the widow of the elder George who remarried in 1852. | Thomas, George (I3240)
|
| 872 | There's a later child baptised in 1702 with the same name and this is the only suitable burial before 1702. | Bull, Mary (I2756)
|
| 873 | There's a later child baptised in 1710 with the same name and this is the only suitable burial before 1710. | Bull, Elizabeth (I2757)
|
| 874 | There's also a John, dau of John & Elizabeth, baptised 5 Jan 1775 at Mottisfont, who is probably part of this family, but with the mother's name misrecorded. | Family F834
|
| 875 | There's no conclusive evidence that Alicia Munday's maiden name was Scorey, but the circumstantial evidence makes it seem pretty likely. Alicia was a widow when she married Joseph Munday in Southampton, though I can find no suitable marriage of an Alicia with any surname to a man surnamed Roberts anywhere in Hampshire. However both the 1851 and 1861 censuses say Alicia Munday was born in Fawley with a birth 1795-1806 depending on source (1801-6 in the 1841 census, 1802-3 in the 1851 census, 1795-6 in the 1861 census, 1800-1 from her burial, and 1803-4 from the GRO death index). The only Alicia baptised in Fawley in this period is Alicia Scorey. On top of this, in 1861, Alicia Munday is widowed, living with her "sister" Harriet Munday, widow of Thomas Munday. Harriet is unquestionably a Scorey and sister of Alicia Scorey. Ordinarily this would put the matter beyond question, except that there is also a reasonable likelihood that Thomas Munday and Joseph Munday were brothers; if so, the description of a "sister" could refer to a sister-in-law. More likely, though, this is the marriage of two brothers to two sisters. | Scorey, Alicia (I3362)
|
| 876 | There's no direct evidence that Albert was the son of Thomas and Susannah Fallaize. However they seem to have been the only Fallaize family in West Ham district at the time, and the 1911 census indicates Thomas and Susannah had nine children of whom four had died. This can be explained if all the births in West Ham at the time were their children. | Fallaize, Albert (I1122)
|
| 877 | There's no direct evidence that Alice was a daughter of Stephen, but John Fierson's eldest son was left 20/- in the will of Stephen's son Thomas, and John's wife was Alice Lovell. | Lovell, Alice (I3920)
|
| 878 | There's no direct evidence that John was the son of Thomas and Susannah Fallaize. However they seem to have been the only Fallaize family in West Ham district at the time, and the 1911 census indicates Thomas and Susannah had nine children of whom four had died. This can be explained if all the births in West Ham at the time were their children. | Fallaize, John (I1127)
|
| 879 | There's no indication that Matthew was related to the other Whitfields in the Dorset, Hampshire, Wiltshire area. | Whitfield, Matthew (I1419)
|
| 880 | There's no sign that any of James and Hannah's children were baptised. | Family F232
|
| 881 | There's some doubt as to whether the James born in 1836, son of Robert & Rachel, is the same James that lived in Bray and later Cookham. In the 1861, 71 and 81 censuses, his birth place is listed, respectively, as Stanmore, Bray and Mouseford. Ancestry transcribe Stanmore as Stommer, Berks though there appears to be no such place; however the writing is barely legible. There is also no such place as Mouseford, but in this case there is no ambiguity in the handwriting; Moulsford is place in Berks with the closest spelling. Continuity in the names of the children demonstrate that the three families are the same. James' age in these, and his d reg, are consistent with the James in the 1841 census, and unless the 1841 James died in Wantage in 1857, there are no other plausible dates. If the oldest child, James S, is correctly identified, then James, the father, was 16 when he was born, and the mother 18; they were not married for a further 5 years. However perhaps the eldest two were illegitimate children of Mary, quite possibly by someone other than James. | Robey, James (I1514)
|
| 882 | They were probably married in the 1910s. The index entry for Elizabeth's will describes her as "Elizabeth Julia Neale, née Cronin, widow of Arnold Neale". Elizabeth's WWII identity card gives her address as 17 Regent Road, the same address that an Arnold Neale lived at on 5 Aug 1916 when he made a will which was proved 12 May 1927. The will does not mention a wife, and names just two sons: Frederick James and Arnold George (who had a daughter whose name was not given). These are the children of Arnold and Mary Ann Neal. Presumably Elizabeth was his second wife; possibly she had been married more before too. | Family F320
|
| 883 | This almost certainly assigns some of these children to the wrong family as there were two Wansbury families in West Tytherley at the same time, both with a father called John. Three children (William, Stephen and Thomas) explicitly described as sons of John junior (or similar) in the register, and are assigned to him. Robert and Anne were baptised less than six months apart, so almost certainly one is from John junior's family too, but there's no way of knowing which. Mary Smith's father John's will mentions five unnamed children of Mary and a child called John Wansbury, though it's unclear whether the five includes John. Moses may not have been born by the time of the will, or may be in the other family as Mary would have been 48 when he was born. Excluding Moses and one of Robert and Anne still leaves six children, and there's no evidence any had died by 1769. Probably this means one further child belongs in John junior's family. | Family F976
|
| 884 | This baptism gives no parents, but is at about the right time. | Lovell, Johane (I3910)
|
| 885 | This baptism makes Peter about 31 when he married, but it's the only baptism in the area and the baptisms of William last two children (Ann and James) both say William was of Curdridge, which is where Peter was from, according to the baptism of his eldest son, Peter. | Binstead, Peter (I4667)
|
| 886 | This could be Edmond Bull buried on 16 Aug 1632 at Ringwood, though it does not say "child of Christopher" as the register usually does for child burials; more likely that burial is of this Edmond's grandfather, though it could also be his uncle. | Bull, Edmond (I2714)
|
| 887 | This date of death is established by a process of elimination. There are several Henrys of the same age, making it hard to work out which death registration is his. Deaths in Q3 1914, Q1 1949 and Q4 1955 are all for people of the right age. The 1914 death can be ruled out as this Henry is on the 1939 register. The 1955 death can also be ruled out as it corresponds to a probate record making Millicent Barfoot, widow, his executrix; this in turn corresponds to Henry and Millicent Barfoot on the 1939 register, also in Hedge End. That leaves the 1949 death. | Barfoot, Henry (I4166)
|
| 888 | This Henry is about the same age as John and Jane's son Henry. On the 1871 census, one of the Henrys was living with his grandfather Henry, and working as an assistant market gardener. Both Henrys were his grandson, but we know this must be Eli's son because John's son was living with John, and working as a bricklayer's labourer. In later life, John's son continued working as a gardener while Henry's son continued working as a bricklayer. This helps disambiguate them. | Barfoot, Henry (I4407)
|
| 889 | This is a very crude estimate as we have little idea how many children John and Jean had, or when they married. | Dyble, John (I3284)
|
| 890 | This is a very crude estimate as we have little idea how many children John and Jean had, or when they married. | Jean (I3287)
|
| 891 | This is a very crude estimate as we have no idea how many children he had, nor when any of them were born other than John. | Scheu, Heinrich (I416)
|
| 892 | This is almost certainly a corruption of the surname Hosey, which was very common in Hythe a century later. | Ozey, Elizabeth (I1772)
|
| 893 | This is only found in the bishop's transcripts, as there is a gap in the parish register between May 1788 and Jan 1792. On the same day, the bishop's transcript has a George, son of George and Mary Whitfield, but it seems likely that George's father's name has been mistranscribed in the bishop's transcript as there is no recorded George and Mary. Almost certainly John and George were brothers, perhaps twins or maybe John was a few years old when baptised. | Whitfield, John (I1380)
|
| 894 | This is only found in the bishop's transcripts, as there is a gap in the parish register between May 1788 and Jan 1792. The parents are given as George and Mary Whitfield, but there is no evidence that there was such a couple, and there are many mistakes in the bishop's transcript for Damerham. On the same day, the bishop's transcript has a John, son of John and Mary Whitfield, and it seems likely these are George's real parents, and either George and John were twins or John was a few years old when baptised. | Whitfield, George (I1256)
|
| 895 | This is the George who settled in West Cowes. | Smith, George (I1707)
|
| 896 | This marriage is only known about from Alicia's surname when she married Joseph, which stated she was a widow. | Family F906
|
| 897 | This may be the Edmond who was buried at Ringwood on 16 Aug 1632, though that could have been his son or his infant grandson. | Bull, Edmond (I2703)
|
| 898 | At least one living or private individual is linked to this note - Details withheld. | Family F522
|
| 899 | This may be the wrong baptism, as the parents are not identified, but a baptism at around this date is necessary for him to be the eldest son. | Lovell, Thomas (I3885)
|
| 900 | This must be the burial of Aaron's son Charles as another child was named Charles a month later, though if so the age is likely wrong. | Willis, Charles (I1870)
|