GEE COMMENTS IN UPPER CASE. G ----- Original Message ----- From: "Robert Sterry" <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, September 15, 2004 9:06 AM > Hi all > > Finally got back to follow-up emails on this line. > > This line is looking very good and may still run further. > > I found Helen Norton's contribution particularly helpful. The Marriage Bond > established two interesting things. The John who married Elizabeth Cheeker > came from Swindon and may have been born there and that he was probably born > about 1714 or a bit earlier. Pity that the Bond only gives the age and > marital status of Elizabeth Checker/Cheeker. If he was in fact a widower, he > would of course have been much older. CAREFUL ROBERT - THAT'S MY SORT OF ASSUMPTION! WIFE No 1, IF THERE HAD BEEN ANOTHER COULD HAVE DIED AS EASILY AFTER ONE DAY AS TEN YEARS. > > However, there was a John L bp at Swindon in 1713 Father John. And indeed a > likely marriage of his father John to an Elizabeth Wilde in 1697 and several > siblings - Mary, Catherine and Ann. > GREAT STUFF. > John L bp at Swindon is also more likely to have been the one buried at > Wroughton in 1767 aged 51 - although the age is three years out. Which is of > course what Graham had in the first place. > OPEN MIND ON THIS, STILL. > If this is correct, this would push back Graham's Wroughton/Tidcombe line > another generation! > > The dates of baptisms of the children of John L and Elizabeth Wilde suggest > some other children should be about somewhere. > > If they married in 1697 and had children approx every two years as is > commonly the case, we have quite a few missing, including possibly a Leonard > bn abt 1715 who died at Wroughton in 1806 at the ripe old age of 91. > > 1698? > 1700? > 1702 - Ann > 1705 - Mary > 1708 - Catherine > 1711 - ? > 1713 - John > 1715 - Leonard? > NO BURIALS TO HELP OUT HERE, ALAS. > Could this marriage at Chiseldon be that of Ann bp at Swindon above? > 1728/29 Feb 18 Henry HERRING of Stratton St Margret's and Ann LOVELOCK of > Swindon > LOOKS GOOD. > Also a Chiseldon connection perhaps? After all it is right next door to > Wroughton! And a very convenient burial. > 1763 Mar 24 John Loveluck aged 65 > > Could this be the missing burial of John L bp 1697 on the Lyneham line? > GOOD QUESTION. > Could this burial at Chisledon > 1714 Sep 23 Kathern Luvlock > be Catherine bp 1708 at Swindon? AGAIN SEEMS MOST LIKELY. BUT IF THEY WERE AT CHISELDON FOR THAT BURIAL ISN'T THAT WHERE WE WOULD EXPECT LEONARD TO BE BAPTISED IF 1715 WAS HIS YEAR? > > I think we can also place a few other Wroughton burials into the tree as > well. Most of these relate to an earlier email with Graham but the tree I > have doesn't appear to have been updated. Unless I have the wrong version!? > > The John buried 1741/42 is almost certainly the John bp 1740 to John and > Elizabeth Cheeker/Checker as they baptised a second John in 1744. AGREED - DON'T KNOW WHY I LEFT IT OUT. > > Mary L buried 1834 aged 76 (bn abt 1758) is probably Mary Carpenter. > AGREED. > Mary buried 1807 aged 62 (bn abt 1745) may have been Mary bn 1742 to John L > and Elizabeth Cheeker/Checker or alternatively a wife called Mary of John bp > 1747. > SITTING ON THE FENCE ON THIS ONE. > The burial of John L in 1785 is almost certainly is probably John L bp 1785 > to Thomas L and Mary Carpenter. And his brother who was baptised in 1778 is > probably the Joh buried in 1780. > ALMOST CERTAINLY, OR PROBABLY, ONE NOT TO COMMENT ON! > The burial of Ann L in 1827 age 7 is probably Ann L bp 1819 to James L and > Lucy Ball. > AGREED. > The burial of Leonard L in 1795 is probably Leonard bp 1795 to Thomas and > Mary Carpenter - and another reason for thinking that John L and Elizabeth > Wilde had a son called Leonard. > AGREED. > Also on the matter of Leonard bn abt 1715, it is likely that this is the > same Leonard who married in Cliffe Pappard in 1743 and was baptising > children in Tidcombe between 1746 and 1754. And indeed, as Graham observed, > the Mary who was buried in Tidcombe in 1806 may well have been Leonard's > wife Mary Carpenter. > THE OTHER MARY CARPENTER THAT IS, OF COURSE. > But I think I should stop there and let others on the list see what they > think of all this.