Brilliant Roy, you have the correct SALES family and of course Mary JACKSON. Thanks very much for the other info and particularly the illegitimate information. I hadn't thought of this and just assumed normal marriages with the probability of a Marriage connection SALES to BEECH. Should have thought of a reputed father connection. Much appreciated. Dennis -----Original Message----- From: roy.stockdill@btinternet.com Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2013 12:32 PM To: derbysgen@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [DBY] Letter B - Beech - Sales From: "Dennis Fflavell" <dennis@fflavell.freeserve.co.uk> > Am trying to find a marriage connection for BEECH and SALES. Pre > middle 19th century. > > BEACH is the middle name with SALES the surname and am guessing that > there is a previous BEECH marriage connection to SALES.> WILLIAM BEECH SALES, b Chesterfield RD March qtr 1845, m Chesterfield RD Dec qtr 1864, d Sheffield RD Dec qtr 1908 aged 63. His is the only entry that appears to fit your description at FreeBMD. FreeBMD has no marriage for BEECH-SALES or variants, therefore either his mother was not a Beech, the marriage was before 1837 or the connection is in an earlier generation, probably grandparents. The only William Sales b 1845 found in the 1851 entry that fits is William aged 6, scholar, b at Handley, living at West Handley, Staveley, with father also William Sales, two older siblings and grandmother Sarah Jackson, unmarried, aged 62. William senior is described as Sarah's son-in-law, thus I presume his wife (who was not present in 1851 though William is described as married) must have been a Jackson. FreeBMD has the potential marriage of William Sales to Mary Jackson at Chesterfield Rd in the Dec qtr of 1837 and this would appear to tie in with the first child, Christopher, b 1838. The marriage is confirmed at FamilySearch on 2 Oct 1837 at Dronfield of William Sales to Mary Jackson. Have I got the right scenario? If so, clearly, we need to look farther back and the 1851 census entry showing Sarah Jackson as unmarried indicates that Mary was illegitimate, so probably any Beech-Sales marriage would have been on William's line. However, I note that in the IGI marriage entry William's parentage is shown only as Mary Sales with no father shown which would suggest he was illegitimate too. Hmmm.....I begin to see the problem! My best suggestion is that William Sales snr was illegitimate but knew that his father was a Beech or Beach. Let's not forget that single women who gave birth to an illegitimate child very often gave a clue to the putative father by giving the child the father's surname as a middle name. Could this be the solution??? If it is the case, I fear you may never be able to find out where the name Beach/Beech came from unless you can find that Mary Sales took the father to court for maintenance. Have you looked at Poor Law/court records for the area? -- Roy Stockdill Genealogical researcher, writer & lecturer Famous family trees blog: http://blog.findmypast.co.uk/tag/roy-stockdill/ "There is only one thing in the world worse than being talked about, and that is not being talked about." OSCAR WILDE ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to DERBYSGEN-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message ----- No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2013.0.2904 / Virus Database: 2641/6165 - Release Date: 03/11/13