Hi, I am interested in information on the surnames, JAQUES,ROBINSON,JOYNER, FROGSON, HART,MIDDLEDITCH, NEWSOME,MOUNTAIN after about 1850. Paticularly Butterfield JAQUES born 1827,Barton, Lincs,or Thorne, who married Harriet ROBINSON of Barnsley,and his father Timothy, John FROGSON,born Nottinghamshire c1826 who married an Anne WIBBERLEY of Nottinghamshire c 1828 but later moved to Barnsley/Sheffield area. Also Mary Elizabeth HART (MIDDLEDITCH) who married , Charlie NEWSOME, of Worsborough Common, and later John Henry MOUNTAIN of South Yorks. I dont know where the name MIDDLEDITCH fits in, unless it was a surname from her mothers remarriage? Thank you Sally

An interesting link: something that may help save the unique information so often squandered on neglected and abused gravestones: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/7024672.stm Richard Turner

I have been interested in the marriages of Catherine of Aragon to Athur and Henry (VIII) Henry used Leviticus as the basis of his claim that his marriage to C.of A. was invalid, yet Deuteronomy seems to require him to take his brother's wife and raise up heirs by her.

I have been sent some info for a john lowe died 1858? quaker cemetery woodhouse but it only says 1858? A47 Table 3 same date for eliz`th lowe and mary lowe his sisters. Just different tables. Can someone help with the entry info so i can find out more. This is taken from the earlier quaker burials in woodhouse book. I have four more buried there but have more info but would love to know what they died of. thanks marea in tassie --------------------------------- Sick of deleting your inbox? Yahoo!7 Mail has free unlimited storage. Get it now.

Hi No Mention has been made recently of the wonderful site on Sheffield in mostly the C19. There are many things to read on the site and there is BMD register with many names for Holy Trinity Parish. Wicker, for 1907. There are many useful articles on Sheffield. There is the complete story of the Sheffield City Battalion in the first World War and all sorts of wonderful things to help with Sheffield Research. A site not to be missed. http://history.youle.info/ Regards JUDY ELKINGTON [W.R.Yorkshire, England] www.elkingtonfamily.com [email protected] www.one-name.org/profiles/elkington.html

Dear All, With regard to the current discussion on marriages: unless they were from a small village the clergy in the 17th & 18th Centuries would not know for certain if people presenting themselves for marriage lived in their Parish (this is still the case!). The system depends on a large degree of trust, and is therefore open to abuse. Banns were and are read for three consecutive Sundays and are valid for three months. In theory they give opportunity and time for questions over the marriage to be raised and investigated. In 21 years as a Vicar no-one has raised any objections, although it turns out I have officiated at a bigamous wedding --- but that's another story!! As for the same signature in the Cathedral registers: this would be the Parish Clerk who was a combination of Verger and Lay-reader and Church Secretary, and not always literate themselves. Chris Reaney (S.Wales)

Hello List, I inadvertently sent this email directly to Chris Reaney, for which I apologize; instead of to the Sheffield List... I am therefore re-submitting my reply to the List. > Dear List, > Thankyou very much for an expert opinion. I believe that what you say > is true, and the voice of reason. And I bow to superior knowledge. The only > thing I would add is that I do not believe that we can or should today, make > judgements on our Ancestors. The fact is that we do not have enough > information to rule something 'illegal'. It is making a judgement that > cannot be made from this time frame, we can not ever know the full truth of > the matter. Such statments can hurt those who have Ancestors who did not fit > into the exact interpretation of Civil Law...I judge no-one unless I walk in > their shoes... I prefer to think that they were following a more ancient > Law... ... The most we can say is that the rules were interpreted > differently, than written. I also believe that there were grey areas in > interpretation of Civil Law at the time, especially in Sheffield, for the > reasons stated before.. > . I am happy also for the information that it would have been the > Parish Clerk who signed Church documents...I made mention of the fact that > my Ancestor who married her brother in Law after the death of her 1st > husband, did so with the full knowledge and consent of not only her own > brother who was a Dissenting Vicar, but it is known from writings by the > Family Historian, (in 1848-52) that this same Vicar was associated with most > if not all of the Vicars in Sheffield...there was no question of deceit., or > of the Vicar of St. Peters' not knowing my 3Xs Great Aunt's background, as > the family were prominent in Sheffield Society... curiously, although the > Minister of Lee Croft Chapel for many years, Rev. Francis Dixon had himself > buried in St. Peters' Cathedral Churchyard. We still have not figured out > the reason for this. Kindest regards, Josephine. > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Chris Reaney" <[email protected]> > To: <[email protected]> > Sent: Saturday, September 29, 2007 5:07 AM > Subject: [SHEFF] Marriages > > > > Dear All, > > > > With regard to the current discussion on marriages: unless they were > > from a small village the clergy in the 17th & 18th Centuries would not > > know for certain if people presenting themselves for marriage lived in > > their Parish (this is still the case!). The system depends on a large > > degree of trust, and is therefore open to abuse. Banns were and are > > read for three consecutive Sundays and are valid for three months. In > > theory they give opportunity and time for questions over the marriage to > > be raised and investigated. In 21 years as a Vicar no-one has raised > > any objections, although it turns out I have officiated at a bigamous > > wedding --- but that's another story!! > > > > As for the same signature in the Cathedral registers: this would be the > > Parish Clerk who was a combination of Verger and Lay-reader and Church > > Secretary, and not always literate themselves. > > > > Chris Reaney (S.Wales) > > > > ------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > >

Hi Josephine and list. >Re your re-interpretation of an interpretation of forbidden Marriage>Laws and the fact that these Laws originated in 1560 and remained unchanged>until the 20th Century... It is not my interpretation......the table of kindrid and affinity is printed in the back of every book of common prayer. >The statement 'they were likely from>different Parishes' was unlikely to make any difference, because this is why>they read Banns in both Parishes, in order that such a situation was>unlikely to occur. >Also someone who knew the couple's history was required>to go with them to attend the Marriage...i.e. witnesses... You only have to look at Sheffield St Peters marriages to know that this did not happen,as the same two people sign as witnesses in numerous marriages,and people could not afford to pay for the Banns to be read in both parishes that is why they gave ficticious addresses. They only had to testify that they had lived in the parish for 3 weeks to be married in that parish. It was only after 1823 that banns had to be read in both the bride's and groom's parishes, and before 1753 (Hardwickes Act) there's generally no recording of banns having been read. Angela _________________________________________________________________ The next generation of MSN Hotmail has arrived - Windows Live Hotmail http://www.newhotmail.co.uk

Hello List and Angela, Here is my short answer... As I mentioned the Biblical Law and the Civil Law were at variance... the Dissenters were actually not in sync. with the Church of England... ergo 'Dissenters'... they were at times punished excessively for this. I have no doubt that you are right re the Kindred Tables and the book of Common Prayer...I can still quote it verbatim... incidently, my mother dragged us every sunday to the Church of England and my sisters and myself attended Cof E schools... My elder sister was also exposed to Catholicism early on as there were no Cof E schools in the vicinity. I have also studied Ancient and Modern Jewish History at University... Where we differ is that the interpretation of the Law was not homogeneous... wide variance. I do have to wonder where and by whom the 'Laws' were decided upon. Biblical Law for the most part took precedence 'Morally' over the Civil Law... I suppose it was decided by conscience in the end as to who was right...it didn't mean that the Marriages didn't occur or that they were ruled 'illegal' this did not happen... I wouldn't think that anyone had a definitive answer to this problem... All I know is that there were a lot of Vicars in the Dixon and extended families, mostly Dissenters... As for the Banns not being read, I have very early examples, which would prove this was not so......I again suppose that it depends on the angle from which one is approaching this. The Marriage of my 4Xs Great Grandmother was recorded in 1764, after Banns, and I have many other certificates which show that their Marriages were after Banns. I also think that we are digressing away from the subject which I am referring to in my earlier email, time frame of late 1700's through the early 1800's. My 3Xs Great Grandfather was married in Rotherham in 1807 and the Marriage cert was signed by the Bride's brother, a friend of the Groom and a Church Warden... Having said this I have evidence that Marriages and Births were being' recorded' in both Hampsthwaite and Sheffield simultaneously as early as 1606. From that time until 1643, the records were duplicated and appear at St. Peter's Cathedral and in Hampsthwaite. This practice seemed to end in the year 1643, when the entries started to appear only in Sheffield... It is unwise to generalize by saying that "one only has to look at St Peters' Cathedral Marriages to know that this did not happen" , this in reference to the fact that I said that it was required that someone who knew the couple sign as a witness to the Marriage. I stand by this statement, although there were of course exceptions. I would agree that not everyone could afford to Pay Fees etc, and I don't doubt that there was finagling re fictitious addresses etc...as we know the question "if there is anyone here who knows of any reason why these two should not be wed", could hardly be asked of a stranger? I also concur on the fact that a Church Warden or some other person often Officiated as a witness. I think it is misleading though that you do not mention that the reason why a Church Official stood in was because a Marriage required more than one witness. There was still usually a member of the family present to witness a Marriage or a friend as well as a Church appointed witness... I doubt that the Church Warden or other official was the only witness in the majority of cases as you infer... I suppose I come from a different experience of what constituted normality as far as Marriage Services (requirements) went. While the Laws Governing Banns may have been instituted on paper in 1823 (I have to check this fact as it is surprising to me). My experience is that Banns were being read long before that time, as evidenced by documents in my possession. I cannot argue re the legality of reading of Banns before 1753 at this time...I do have one example of a 21- 6- 1736 Marriage which was granted by License to be accomplished in a choice of 3 locations. This Licence was granted on the 1st June 1736... the Marriage was after Banns on the date stated... however as previously stated notations of B.M.D.s in two places concurrently was occurring as early as 1606. Kindest regards, Josephine. ----- Original Message ----- From: "A. Treweek" <[email protected]> To: "list sheffield" <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, September 28, 2007 2:10 PM Subject: [SHEFF] (no subject) > > > Hi Josephine and list. > > >Re your re-interpretation of an interpretation of forbidden Marriage>Laws and the fact that these Laws originated in 1560 and remained unchanged>until the 20th Century... > It is not my interpretation......the table of kindrid and affinity is printed in the back of every book of common prayer. > > >The statement 'they were likely from>different Parishes' was unlikely to make any difference, because this is why>they read Banns in both Parishes, in order that such a situation was>unlikely to occur. > > >Also someone who knew the couple's history was required>to go with them to attend the Marriage...i.e. witnesses... > You only have to look at Sheffield St Peters marriages to know that this did not happen,as the same two people sign as witnesses in numerous marriages,and people could not afford to pay for the Banns to be read in both parishes that is why they gave ficticious addresses. They only had to testify that they had lived in the parish for 3 weeks to be married in that parish. > It was only after 1823 that banns had to be read in both the bride's and groom's parishes, and before 1753 (Hardwickes Act) there's generally no recording of banns having been read. > Angela > _________________________________________________________________ > The next generation of MSN Hotmail has arrived - Windows Live Hotmail > http://www.newhotmail.co.uk > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message >

This entry might be some use to someone: William MARSH of Sheffield & Deborah TATTERSHALL of Alfreton the Banns having been thrice Published Certifyd were married June 30th 1748 Sorry I don't have any other information was just trawling through looking for my own names. Hilary Jackson http://www.hilarymaryjackson.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk Researching JACKSON, LEES, PRICE, CHORLTON, BLOOR(E), ABBOTTS, POULSON - All Staffordshire origins; HALLAM, HARDY, (H)ORRIDGE, BARROWCLIFFE, DUTTON, SHAW, CUPIT, SKEVINGTON - DBY & NTT origins; HICKLING, PEWTRALL (various spellings) - LEI origins; GASH, TOMLINSON, DAWSON, DIXON - LIN origins; BRAITHWAITE, MICKLETHWAITE, WATSON, NETTLETON; YKS origins; VAUGHAN - Dronfield/Sheffield/Thorpe Hesley; McPHADEN/McFADEN - Scotland/Sheffield/West Melton Still searching for the baptism of my Great Grandfather of Robert BRAITHWAITE who was born 1824 in Hartwith, Yorkshire And anyone who has ancestors who went to Kilnhurst National School/Kilnhurst St Thomas CofE School 1888-1921 Why not check the Members Interests on the Rotherham Family History Society website - http://www.rotherhamfhs.co.uk/ Rotherham FHS Message Board: http://boards.ancestry.com/mbexec?htx=board&r=rw&p=topics.organizations.rotherhamfhs For the Sheffield 1841 census index and Parish Records online. http://sheff-indexers.thewholeshebang.org/index.html Proud to help with the FREECEN 1861 transcriptions for Lincolnshire http://freecen.rootsweb.com ___________________________________________________________ Want ideas for reducing your carbon footprint? Visit Yahoo! For Good http://uk.promotions.yahoo.com/forgood/environment.html

Hi Josephine Please give my congratulations to your sister for working her way through that tangle! I have just realised what a "simple" family I have after all. Take care - Ann (Oakerthorpe, Derbyshire) ----- Original Message ----- From: "Josephine Laxton" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, September 28, 2007 3:25 AM Subject: Re: [SHEFF] Re request by Dianne Bray > Hello List and Dianne, > Subject: Re request by Dianne Bray to the Sheffield List 24th Sep 2007 > Dianne asked about the possibility of a stepson marrying his step mother > after the death of his father...on the 1861 census Ellen married to her > first husband, had her age as 28... by the time of the 1871 census as the > wife of the younger Samuel Bray, her 3rd husband, her age is listed as > 36... so not too far out... this all revolves around one woman named > originally Ellen Holmes, who married 3 times...see below... > > > To answer your question as to whether a son could marry his step mother, > the short answer is yes there would be no impediment as they were not > related. It would likely have been frowned on however...it was in fact not > that uncommon... > > a search was done for these people and it was found that one 'Ellen > Holmes' was possibly 18 years old when she married her first husband... > 1st husband of Ellen Holmes= John Needham. Sep qua. 1853 vol 9c page 224 > Sheffield. By him she had three children > Joseph son age 3, born 1858 Mary dau age 3 born 1858...Ellen born 1862 > after her father John Needham died, see next line... > > A death search confirmed that John Needham died Sep qua 1862 vol 9c page > 224 Sheffield... > > 2nd husband of Ellen Needham nee` Holmes = Samuel Bray widower, (1st wife > of this Samuel was Mary Kenyon... he married her 26 Feb 1838 in Tideswell > Derbyshire). > Samuel Bray the elder, married for his second wife Ellen Needham nee` > Holmes Sep qua. 1867 vol 9c p 566. Ellen would have been age 24 years, > when she re-married. > > 3rd husband of Ellen Bray was her stepson, Samuel Bray, (son of the above > Samuel by his first wife, Mary Bray nee` Kenyon) Samuel Bray Jr. Married > his stepmother Ellen Bray in the Mar. qua. 1870 vol 9c p. 449 > Sheffield...oh what a tangled web...!!! It is not known what happened to > the sister of Samuel Bray Jr. Mary Ann Bray she was 18 on the 1861 census. > Samuel was 16...Ellen Bray would have been age 27years when she married > her 3rd husband...which tallies with her age on the 1871 census... > To support this: > > found on the 1861 census > John Needham hd age 26 > Ellen Needham wife age 28 > Joseph son age3 > Mary dau age 3 > (3rd child dau. Ellen was not on this census as she was not born until > after her father died in 1862)... > > also on the 1861 census (seperate entry) was found > > Samuel Bray hd age 57 Drayman > Mary Bray (nee` Kenyon) wife age 55 > Mary Ann Bray dau age 18 > Samuel Bray son age 16 > > As you said that "on the marriage cert for his son, he gave his father as > Samuel Bray, drayman deceased" > I looked for the deaths of the younger Samuel's parents with this result: > > Bray Mary Sheff vol 9c page 288 June 1/4, 1866 age 61 > > Bray Samuel Sheff vol 9c page 288 June 1/4 1868 age 57 > > The marriage of Samuel Bray to his second wife, Ellen Needham nee Holmes` > was Sept 1/4 1867, vol 9c page 566 so Samuel only lived a year after > marrying his second wife... > > This led to the marriage of Samuel Bray (jnr) son of the above Samuel) > which took place as noted above. > Samuel Bray to Ellen Bray Mar 1/4 1870 vol 9c, page 449 sheffield > > > On the 1871 census we find > the younger Samuel son of the elder Samuel now married to his stepmother, > her name by now would have been Ellen (Holmes maiden name) Needham, Bray > by this time...ultimately Ellen (Holmes) Needham, Bray, Bray. The son > Samuel age 5 months, listed on the 1871 census was the son of the younger > Samuel Bray ... > Samuel Bray hd age 27 Brewers Lab. > Ellen wife age 36 > Ellen Needham (Bray) dau age 9 > Samuel Bray son age 5 months. > > It is not known what happened to Ellen's first two children by her 1st > husband... namely Joseph and Mary. > The Elder Samuel did on the 1851 census put his place of birth as > Tideswell, Yorks, and his wife Mary as born Bradwell, Yorks. both of these > places were in Derbyshire I believe. on the 1841 census they were shown as > out of County. Their ages were all over the place and Samuel could have > been born anywhere between 1805 and 1815! > > He and Mary Kenyon were married 26th Feb. 1838 in Tideswell Derby. This > is an extract from the IGI Batch # M058015, but as the date was after > civil registration there should be a marriage cert available. > > Kindest regards Josephine, Ontario Canada... p.s. I take no credit for > any of this information, as it was my sister Cynthia who managed to put > all this together...p.s Dianne, if you want further censuses or other > information, please contact me off list, unless everyone on the list has > an interest??? > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message >

Hello Angela, and the List... Re your re-interpretation of an interpretation of forbidden Marriage Laws and the fact that these Laws originated in 1560 and remained unchanged until the 20th Century... It should be noted that the original Laws which the 1560 Civil Laws were based on were laid out in the Old Testament, 'Leviticus' and 'Deuteronomy' which as far as I know goes back well over 5,000 years, if we take into account that they were originally taken from Hebrew Scripture and transposed into English and Latin... Leviticus Chapter 18 does say that the Lord spake unto Moses (King James' version) translated from the Hebrew... "Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy father's wife"... "And the man who lieth with his father's wife hath uncovered his father's nakedness." At no point does it mention the 'WIDOW' of the father...it may seem to be splitting hairs, but the interpretation of the Laws based on Leviticus and Deuteronomy, is relevant in understanding not only Civil Law, but Biblical Law... I suspect that sometimes there was a conflict between the two.....if one reads further this point will be made more clear... I have an example which I mentioned before re the vagaries of intermarriage... I do not profess to be an expert on the subject only note that these Marriages did take place 'Legally', were not contested or disproved, and not as may be supposed without knowledge by the Ministers that these events were occurring...or indeed that these events did not take place in some underhanded manner. The statement 'they were likely from different Parishes' was unlikely to make any difference, because this is why they read Banns in both Parishes, in order that such a situation was unlikely to occur. Also someone who knew the couple's history was required to go with them to attend the Marriage...i.e. witnesses... The specific instance which I have mentioned before is as follows. Hannah Dixon my 3Xs Great Aunt, married firstly 1) William Hughes 11 Feb 1798 Cathedral of St. Peters Sheffield IGI Batch # M007752 Source Call No.#0919328 Printout call no. 69090645. He died very soon after their Marriage... According to the Family Historian a cousin of Hannah Dixon, "William Hughes was a Silver Polisher- Elizabeth Dixon was very young when she was first married- William was a very worthy man- she afterwards married William's brother: 2) Francis Hughes, by whom she had a numerous and respectable family... IGI Batch no. M007752 Source call no. 0919328 Printout call no. 6909645. St Peter's Church Sheffield.29 Feb 1714. from the account of Charles Dixon Historian. It should also be mentioned that Hannah Dixon's brother Rev. Francis Dixon was a strict Dissenting Minister of Lee Croft Chapel, for many years, and he must have been aware of his sister's Marriages at the Cathedral.... It is unlikely that he would not have intervened if he thought that there was even a hint of impropriety...both Francis and Hannah were probably influenced by the following... It is written in Leviticus that "And if a man shall take his brother's wife, it is an unclean thing, " Bear in mind that this would be if the brother was still alive"...I say this, because, from Deuteronomy Chapter 25, Verse 5."If Bretheren dwell together and one of them shall die and have no child, the wife of the dead shall not marry without unto a stranger: Her husband's brother shall go in unto her and take her to him to wife and perform the duty of an husband's brother unto her. Verse 6). gives a reason for this: And it shall be that the firstborn which she beareth shall succeed in the name of his brother which is dead, that his name be not put out of Israel.(This is exactly what happened in the case of Hannah Dixon, her first child was named for her dead husband, 'William'.) Verse 7)And if the man like not to take his brother's wife, then let his brother's wife go up to the gate unto the elders and say, my husband's brother refuseth to raise up unto his brother a name in Israel, he will not perforn the duty of my husband's brother. Verse 8) Then the elders of his city shall call him, and speak unto him: and if he stand to it, and say I like not to take her; Verse 9) Then shall his brother's wife come unto him in the presence of the elders, and loose his shoe from off his foot and spit in his face, and shall answer and say, So shall it be done unto that man that will not build up his brother's house. verse 10) And his name shall be called in Israel., The house of him that hath his shoe loosed... It is very likely that the Old Testament was consulted on such matters as re-marriage, especially in the Dissenting families... in fact if we are to believe the Bible (where the Civil Laws were enacted from) then it is obvious that it was expected that a man would marry the wife of his dead brother, if the dead man had no children... over the years the intent has been either misunderstood, interpreted wrongly, or perverted...it is also to be noted that the rule only applied if there were no children from the first Marriage As a lot of people in Sheffield and surrounding areas were Dissenters, it is likely that they took their Bibles very seriously, especially the Old Testament... there are other examples of intermarriage between step sons and step wives written about with no negative judgement placed upon them either, probably for the same reason... the son would have perpetuated his father's line when there were no children from his father's Marriage...this leads me to believe that there was a broad interpretation across the spectrum in the interpretation of the Civil Law, when in fact it conflicted with Biblical Law... .I would also suspect that Ministers used their discretion in such matters... it is known that the Dissenters, were Baptized and buried at Chapel and only married in the Cof E, because it was the only 'lawfully' (civil law) recognized way to Marry. I do wonder how many of the people who married in St. Peter's were from Dissenting backgrounds... our family certainly was. Kindest regards, Josephine, Ontario, Canada... ----- Original Message ----- From: "A. Treweek" <[email protected]> To: "list sheffield" <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, September 28, 2007 2:09 AM Subject: [SHEFF] Bray Family > Hi Dianne. > > A man could NOT legally marry his step-mother. > > >From the rules of Kindred and Affinity this was not possible, although that is not to say it did not happen, especially if they were living away from their birthplaces. > > see: http://www.genetic-genealogy.co.uk/Toc115570145.html > Kind Regards. > Angela. Eckington U.K. > _________________________________________________________________ > Get free emoticon packs and customisation from Windows Live. > http://www.pimpmylive.co.uk > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message >

Hello List This Exhibition is on this Saturday 29th September at St Saviours Church Hall, Mortomley Lane, High Green, Sheffield at 10am - 5pm Then again on Saturday13th 11am -5pm and Sunday 14th October 10.30am – 4pm at Gatty Hall, Priory Road, Ecclesfield, Sheffield. Last time I went to this exhibition I found lots of local photos and written information which the archive photocopied for me and posted on for a very modest fee. There was also a lot of social history information on these areas and surrounding villages and books relating to these and other local places, I believe there is to be a new book launched on these days cost £4.00 by Joan and Mel Jones . I live in Worcester but grew up in the areas this exhibition covers and they even had the history and photos of the Inn I grew up in and photos of my Grandparents. Diana >From Worcester. (no connection with Chapeltown and High Green Archive) No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.488 / Virus Database: 269.13.31/1031 - Release Date: 26/09/2007 12:12

Hi Dianne. A man could NOT legally marry his step-mother. >From the rules of Kindred and Affinity this was not possible, although that is not to say it did not happen, especially if they were living away from their birthplaces. see: http://www.genetic-genealogy.co.uk/Toc115570145.html Kind Regards. Angela. Eckington U.K. _________________________________________________________________ Get free emoticon packs and customisation from Windows Live. http://www.pimpmylive.co.uk

Hello List and Dianne, Subject: Re request by Dianne Bray to the Sheffield List 24th Sep 2007 Dianne asked about the possibility of a stepson marrying his step mother after the death of his father...on the 1861 census Ellen married to her first husband, had her age as 28... by the time of the 1871 census as the wife of the younger Samuel Bray, her 3rd husband, her age is listed as 36... so not too far out... this all revolves around one woman named originally Ellen Holmes, who married 3 times...see below... To answer your question as to whether a son could marry his step mother, the short answer is yes there would be no impediment as they were not related. It would likely have been frowned on however...it was in fact not that uncommon... a search was done for these people and it was found that one 'Ellen Holmes' was possibly 18 years old when she married her first husband... 1st husband of Ellen Holmes= John Needham. Sep qua. 1853 vol 9c page 224 Sheffield. By him she had three children Joseph son age 3, born 1858 Mary dau age 3 born 1858...Ellen born 1862 after her father John Needham died, see next line... A death search confirmed that John Needham died Sep qua 1862 vol 9c page 224 Sheffield... 2nd husband of Ellen Needham nee` Holmes = Samuel Bray widower, (1st wife of this Samuel was Mary Kenyon... he married her 26 Feb 1838 in Tideswell Derbyshire). Samuel Bray the elder, married for his second wife Ellen Needham nee` Holmes Sep qua. 1867 vol 9c p 566. Ellen would have been age 24 years, when she re-married. 3rd husband of Ellen Bray was her stepson, Samuel Bray, (son of the above Samuel by his first wife, Mary Bray nee` Kenyon) Samuel Bray Jr. Married his stepmother Ellen Bray in the Mar. qua. 1870 vol 9c p. 449 Sheffield...oh what a tangled web...!!! It is not known what happened to the sister of Samuel Bray Jr. Mary Ann Bray she was 18 on the 1861 census. Samuel was 16...Ellen Bray would have been age 27years when she married her 3rd husband...which tallies with her age on the 1871 census... To support this: found on the 1861 census John Needham hd age 26 Ellen Needham wife age 28 Joseph son age3 Mary dau age 3 (3rd child dau. Ellen was not on this census as she was not born until after her father died in 1862)... also on the 1861 census (seperate entry) was found Samuel Bray hd age 57 Drayman Mary Bray (nee` Kenyon) wife age 55 Mary Ann Bray dau age 18 Samuel Bray son age 16 As you said that "on the marriage cert for his son, he gave his father as Samuel Bray, drayman deceased" I looked for the deaths of the younger Samuel's parents with this result: Bray Mary Sheff vol 9c page 288 June 1/4, 1866 age 61 Bray Samuel Sheff vol 9c page 288 June 1/4 1868 age 57 The marriage of Samuel Bray to his second wife, Ellen Needham nee Holmes` was Sept 1/4 1867, vol 9c page 566 so Samuel only lived a year after marrying his second wife... This led to the marriage of Samuel Bray (jnr) son of the above Samuel) which took place as noted above. Samuel Bray to Ellen Bray Mar 1/4 1870 vol 9c, page 449 sheffield On the 1871 census we find the younger Samuel son of the elder Samuel now married to his stepmother, her name by now would have been Ellen (Holmes maiden name) Needham, Bray by this time...ultimately Ellen (Holmes) Needham, Bray, Bray. The son Samuel age 5 months, listed on the 1871 census was the son of the younger Samuel Bray ... Samuel Bray hd age 27 Brewers Lab. Ellen wife age 36 Ellen Needham (Bray) dau age 9 Samuel Bray son age 5 months. It is not known what happened to Ellen's first two children by her 1st husband... namely Joseph and Mary. The Elder Samuel did on the 1851 census put his place of birth as Tideswell, Yorks, and his wife Mary as born Bradwell, Yorks. both of these places were in Derbyshire I believe. on the 1841 census they were shown as out of County. Their ages were all over the place and Samuel could have been born anywhere between 1805 and 1815! He and Mary Kenyon were married 26th Feb. 1838 in Tideswell Derby. This is an extract from the IGI Batch # M058015, but as the date was after civil registration there should be a marriage cert available. Kindest regards Josephine, Ontario Canada... p.s. I take no credit for any of this information, as it was my sister Cynthia who managed to put all this together...p.s Dianne, if you want further censuses or other information, please contact me off list, unless everyone on the list has an interest???

Hi Carol, St Silas is still standing. There are photos on Genuki that I took a year or so ago.. http://www.genuki.org.uk/big/eng/YKS/PhotoFrames/WRY/SheffieldBroomallStreetExStSilas.html and http://www.genuki.org.uk/big/eng/YKS/PhotoFrames/WRY/SheffieldStSilasRT.html regards Richard carol cooper wrote: > Hi List, > I know that St Silas, Gilcar, Broomhall Street and St Matthias, Summerfield Street are closed churches, but can anyone please tell me if the buildings are still standing? >

Hi Carol. St Matthias, Summerfield Street was demolished after it closed in 1950, as far as I am aware St Silas is still standing, you pass it as you go up Upper Hanover St to the Brook Hill roundabout. Kind RegardsAngela Treweek _________________________________________________________________ The next generation of MSN Hotmail has arrived - Windows Live Hotmail http://www.newhotmail.co.uk

Hi List, I know that St Silas, Gilcar, Broomhall Street and St Matthias, Summerfield Street are closed churches, but can anyone please tell me if the buildings are still standing? carol -- I am using the free version of SPAMfighter for private users. It has removed 212 spam emails to date. Paying users do not have this message in their emails. Get the free SPAMfighter here: http://www.spamfighter.com/len

Hi list, I am hoping that someone with a better brain than I can help me figure this out. I have a birth certificate of Samuel Bray1 born November 1870 in Sheffield to Samuel and Ellen (late Needham, formerly Holmes)Bray >From this I was able to get the information that I needed to order a marriage certificate for Samuel and Ellen. The marriage was March 1870 in Sheffield between Samuel Bray2, bachelor aged 27 and Ellen Bray (widow) aged 35. His father is Samuel Bray (deceased drayman) and her was Henry Holmes, coal miner. I think Samuel Bray2 may have been the one in a birth certificate for September 1844 - Sam Bray, son of Samuel Bray3 and Mary Bray formerly Kenyon. He was born in Fulwood. It appears that Mary Kenyon Bray died quite young and that Samuel Bray3 may have remarried. I say may have because although I have a certificate I am not sure if it is the same man or not. The certificate is for a marriage of Samuel Bray (widower), son of Robert Bray, Age 57 and Ellen Needham (widow, daughter of Henry Holmes, coal miner. Ellen was 35 or 36. They lived at Nursery Lane in the Sheffield area. I cannot make out clearly the name of the town or village. The marriage took place in 1863. So my question is: Was it possible for a man to marry his step mother and does anyone have any suggestions on how I can confirm whether Sam Bray2 and Samuel Bray3 were actually son and father. I know that the 2 Ellens reported the same age in both occasions but it would be one heck of a coincidence for them to be different people. I look forward to any advice. Dianne Alberta Canada www.broadyancestry.com

This photo site was posted on another forum I am on, it has some very interesting views of Sheffield in the late 1970's. http://www.mainlymono.co.uk/sheffield/ As the photos are available for sale I had better mention that I have no conection with this site except for thinking they are brilliant photos. Regards Janet www.researchingrelatives.co.uk - your local professional genealogists