Hi Jean, I think you have probably resolved the issue with the Benjamin born c. 1832/3. I would now like to find out whether the Benjamin Allen bapt. 1811 Hevingham to Benjamin Allen and Elizabeth Ebbs possibly emigrated to Australia. I would appreciate assistance as to whether he shows up in the 1841 or later British Census. I think the Jane Allen who married Edward Wighton was probably a sister to this Benjamin. Thanks for all the assistance to date. Kind regards, Warren Diggins -----Original Message----- From: Jean Greenwood <jeangreenwood@virginmedia.com> To: norfolk <norfolk@rootsweb.com> Sent: Mon, 4 Jul 2011 0:22 Subject: Re: [NFK] Benjamin Allen or Wighton or Williamson born Hevingham c. 1832/3 Hi Warren I think this may make sense of it:- >From LDS dward WIGHTON married Jane ALLEN 8 Aug 1835 t Martin at Oak Norwich I leave you to look up the original entry but if correct then the 1851 arents are probaly his true parents and he was born before their marriage. Cheers ean ------------------------------ o unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to NORFOLK-request@rootsweb.com ith the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of he message

Hello Listers, I would like to make contact with any descendants of Hannah BUNTING and Francis FULCHER who married on 12 October 1865 in Terrington St. Clement. Hannah is the sister of my gggm, Rebecca BUNTING who married George WARD in 1861. Rebecca had an illegitimate son, Henry with William Neep in 1856 and went on to have 6 children in her marriage with George:-George, John, Amy, Elizabeth, Thomas and Herbert. Hannah's and Rebecca's parents were John and Amy (n. Mindham) BUNTING. I look forward to hearing from anyone who may have a connection with this family. Di -- Dianne Feldtmann Dookie, Australia Researching WARD, BUNTING -Norfolk FORD, ALLMAN -Cheshire WARD, Lincolnshire JAMES, Bristol WYNN(E), Staffordshire On 3/07/11 8:21 PM, "elizabeth howard" <elizgh@btinternet.com> wrote: > Hi, there is an entry in the 1841 census for Hevingham which > shows an Edward Wighton , 32, ag lab, Y, Jane , 31, Y, and Benjn , 8 , Y. > Also in Hevingham in 1841 is a Benjamin Allen , 57, ag lab, Y, with Eliza, > 61, and a William Burphen , 5, Pheobe Allen , 27, and John Allen , 4 . > There is a big family of Wighton living just a few doors away , Thomas and > Sophia , with Juniper, William , Maria, Elizabeth, Robert . There is a > combination of William Wighton , 30, ag lab, Y, with Elizabeth , 25, Y, > Rebecca, 6 and Mary , 2......and with the family is John Williamson , 55 , > lodgr, perhaps this is the Elizabeth Williamson you mention married to > William Wighton . There is a Robert and Ann Williamson of Gt Bircham with > a son Benjamin aged 13 . > But no specific Benjamin Allen aged 5 or 6. If he is William > Burphen , 5, living with Benjamin Allen senr and Jane , then he would fit in > with Williama and Elizabeth Wighton`s other children , Rebecca 6 and Mary 2. > Perhaps !!! > > > > life is hard . soften it with a cat \\\=^..^=/// > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Warren Diggins" <digginswj@aol.com> > To: <norfolk@rootsweb.com> > Sent: Sunday, July 03, 2011 8:21 AM > Subject: [NFK] Benjamin Allen or Wighton or Williamson born Hevingham > c.1832/3 > > >> >> Hi Listers, >> >> I am trying to resolve an issue with two registration entries in FreeReg >> for a birth at St Botolph Hevingham. They both relate to Registry Entry >> 581, one indicating that Benjamin Allen was the illegitimate son of a >> woman surname Wighton, the other has father as surname Allen and mother as >> Elizabeth Wighton. >> >> I am wondering whether this Benjamin Allen has anything to do with the >> Elizabeth Williamson who married William Wighton at St Botolph Hevingham >> in 1832. Any ideas / assistance greatly appreciated. >> >> Kind regards, Warren Diggins (Australia) >> >> >> >> ------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to >> NORFOLK-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the >> quotes in the subject and the body of the message >> > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > NORFOLK-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in > the subject and the body of the message >

Gerry Thank you for your helpful and interesting thoughts. I have now found that 1829 was the date of Catholic Emancipation when fines etc. were no longer imposed, and more RC chapels opened around this time. Presumably RC marriages were also officially recognised after this date, though there could doubtless be hitches in getting a full system going for registration pre-1837. It's a good theory that they may have had to go into Suffolk, during this period. Or possibly found somewhere in Norwich, where Mary Ann was born. Incidentally, the family was living at Eye for a few years; the second and third sons were b. there c.1839-43. (The eldest was probably b.Woodton.) Another point which occurs is that I believe that some "landed" families retained their private RC chapels and either had their own chaplain or were on the rota of an itinerant priest. I'll be interested to know what you find out from Michael Gandy's work. Jill ----- Original Message ----- From: "Gerry Newnham" <gerry@kiltie.net> To: <norfolk@rootsweb.com> Sent: Sunday, July 03, 2011 7:30 PM Subject: Re: [NFK] Brooks - Potter missing marriage > Jill, > > I have to say that I am no expert on catholic marriages but have you > explored the possibility that they were married out of the county? Maybe > they had to travel down to Suffolk where there might have been a priest > available. The Suffolk border is quite close. (Closer until the NE part of > Suffolk was transferred to Norfolk. - mid 19th Cent?) > > I don't know if Norfolk was very catholic-friendly in the early 19th Cent > or whether Suffolk might have been more receptive? > > There is also the question of whether the catholic marriage would have > been recognised the the (Anglican) church authorities and the state. > > There is an excellent publication by Michael Gandy showing were and when > the catholic missions were established. I don't have a copy to hand but > know where I can get the information so will see what I can find out. It > might give you an idea where to find the records - if they survive. > > Gerry

Thank you for your research and suggestions, Bonnie and Jean. The idea of a second marriage had not occurred to me - if so must have been very short-lived I think, as first known child b.1837-8 when Mary Ann was 22-23yrs old. Bonnie, does your source cover RC marriages please? Jill ----- Original Message ----- From: "Bonnie Ostler" <bjrgen@gmail.com> Subject: Re: [NFK] Brooks - Potter missing marriage " there is no marriage of John Brooks (Brookes, Brooke, Brook) to Mary Ann/Mary Potter or Mary Ann Potter (Porter) to Brooks variants. Is there any possibility this was a second marriage for the bride?" Bonnie

Jill, I have to say that I am no expert on catholic marriages but have you explored the possibility that they were married out of the county? Maybe they had to travel down to Suffolk where there might have been a priest available. The Suffolk border is quite close. (Closer until the NE part of Suffolk was transferred to Norfolk. - mid 19th Cent?) I don't know if Norfolk was very catholic-friendly in the early 19th Cent or whether Suffolk might have been more receptive? There is also the question of whether the catholic marriage would have been recognised the the (Anglican) church authorities and the state. There is an excellent publication by Michael Gandy showing were and when the catholic missions were established. I don't have a copy to hand but know where I can get the information so will see what I can find out. It might give you an idea where to find the records - if they survive. Gerry On 3 Jul 2011, at 18:45, Jill Bloom wrote: > Hi all > > Confirmation is badly needed for the father of JOHN BROOKS, b.at Woodton 1814-15. Parentage may be John (again) Brooks and Frances(?), but there are other possibilities. I was hoping that John's (b.1814-15) marriage to Mary Ann Potter (b.Norwich) also b.1814-15, would be post 1837. However, over the years I have searched in vain all likely sources, pre- and post 1837, with no result. > > It is of course possible that they were never officially married at all. However, there was apparently a family tradition that our grandmother, Matilda Norton nee Brooks (d.1935), was a non-practising Roman Catholic. Strangely, today I came across the burial at Woodton of an unmarried Mary Brooks (45) in 1834. "Roman Catholic" is clearly indicated by the C of E incumbent in the register. > > I am not sure of the date when RCs were once again allowed to worship publicly in England - I think this was early 19th century - but in any case can't think where to go next. > > If anyone on this knowledgeable list has any bright ideas, they would be most welcome! > > Thanks > Jill > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to NORFOLK-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Entry 22 for Bap of John son John and Frances Brooks at Woodton 7 Aug 1814 father a wheelwrighte [sic] at https://www.familysearch.org/search/image/show#uri=https%3A//api.familysearch.org/records/pal%3A/MM9.1.i/dgs%3A004143512.004143512_01510 Jean On 3 July 2011 18:45, Jill Bloom <jescot33@googlemail.com> wrote: > Hi all > > Confirmation is badly needed for the father of JOHN BROOKS, b.at Woodton > 1814-15. Parentage may be John (again) Brooks and Frances(?), but there are > other possibilities. I was hoping that John's (b.1814-15) marriage to Mary > Ann Potter (b.Norwich) also b.1814-15, would be post 1837. However, over > the years I have searched in vain all likely sources, pre- and post 1837, > with no result. > > It is of course possible that they were never officially married at all. > However, there was apparently a family tradition that our grandmother, > Matilda Norton nee Brooks (d.1935), was a non-practising Roman Catholic. > Strangely, today I came across the burial at Woodton of an unmarried Mary > Brooks (45) in 1834. "Roman Catholic" is clearly indicated by the C of E > incumbent in the register. > > I am not sure of the date when RCs were once again allowed to worship > publicly in England - I think this was early 19th century - but in any case > can't think where to go next. > > If anyone on this knowledgeable list has any bright ideas, they would be > most welcome! > > Thanks > Jill > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > NORFOLK-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message >

Hi all Confirmation is badly needed for the father of JOHN BROOKS, b.at Woodton 1814-15. Parentage may be John (again) Brooks and Frances(?), but there are other possibilities. I was hoping that John's (b.1814-15) marriage to Mary Ann Potter (b.Norwich) also b.1814-15, would be post 1837. However, over the years I have searched in vain all likely sources, pre- and post 1837, with no result. It is of course possible that they were never officially married at all. However, there was apparently a family tradition that our grandmother, Matilda Norton nee Brooks (d.1935), was a non-practising Roman Catholic. Strangely, today I came across the burial at Woodton of an unmarried Mary Brooks (45) in 1834. "Roman Catholic" is clearly indicated by the C of E incumbent in the register. I am not sure of the date when RCs were once again allowed to worship publicly in England - I think this was early 19th century - but in any case can't think where to go next. If anyone on this knowledgeable list has any bright ideas, they would be most welcome! Thanks Jill

Thank you Jean,for the prompt and very helpful reply,regards,Charles

The Norfolk Surnames List is a free listing of surnames being researched in the County of Norfolk. These listings are associated with researchers' email addresses to assist in making connections between those who share common interests. There are currently 8,283 listings from 3,689 contributors. The list can be found at http://www.rootsweb.com/~engnfksl/Index.html Additions and alterations to the list should be made via the web site, not on this mailing list. Recently added surname entries include: ALLEN ALLENGER ASHMEAD BALDRY BANHAM BECKETT BRUCE BUGG BULLEN BULLOCK BURGESS CAGE CHILVERS CLARK CLEYDON COBB CRISP CROW DENT DOUGHTY DOWNHAM DURRANT ECCLESTONE FISHER FOLKARD GAGER GOODING GOODRUM GOULTY HARPLEY HAYHOE HOWARD IVES JOHNSON JUBY KEMP KIDD KING LACK LEGOOD LORD LOWNE MARTHIS MATHIS MICKLEBURGH MILLS NELSON NOBBS PALMER PEACOCK PELLS PLUNKETT PUNCHARD REMNANTS RODWELL ROOGE RUSHMORE SCARF SCOTT SMART SMITH STERN THURTLE TIERS TYERS WATSON WEBB WHITING WILLATS YALLOP

No, it is only Church of England parishes only but if a marriage was to be legal in the eyes of the state they would have to be married in the Church of England. My husband's Read family was Catholic but they were still married in Church of England. Bonnie On Sun, Jul 3, 2011 at 2:51 PM, Jill Bloom <jescot33@googlemail.com> wrote: > Thank you for your research and suggestions, Bonnie and Jean. The idea of > a > second marriage had not occurred to me - if so must have been very > short-lived I think, as first known child b.1837-8 when Mary Ann was > 22-23yrs old. > > Bonnie, does your source cover RC marriages please? > > Jill > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Bonnie Ostler" <bjrgen@gmail.com> > Subject: Re: [NFK] Brooks - Potter missing marriage > > > " there is no marriage of John Brooks (Brookes, Brooke, Brook) to Mary > Ann/Mary Potter or Mary Ann Potter (Porter) to Brooks variants. > > Is there any possibility this was a second marriage for the bride?" > > Bonnie > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > NORFOLK-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message >

Hi Warren I think this may make sense of it:- >From LDS Edward WIGHTON married Jane ALLEN 28 Aug 1835 St Martin at Oak Norwich I leave you to look up the original entry but if correct then the 1851 parents are probaly his true parents and he was born before their marriage. Cheers Jean

Hi, who knows !!! that is the joy of the search and the chase ...the ancestors are all very tricky people and there is nothing in A2A which might indicate that Hevingham had to support the illegitimate son of Elizabeth Williamson /Wighton ..........and no Burphen is a name in the village , there are quite a few of them ...... But no Benj, Ben , Benjamin Allen , Allan or anything like this 8/9yr old but interesting that there was an older Benjamin Allen just up the road with this odd child who clearly might be related ......but equally they could have taken him in for the parish rate they would have been paid ......... life is hard . soften it with a cat \\\=^..^=/// ----- Original Message ----- From: "Warren Diggins" <digginswj@aol.com> To: <norfolk@rootsweb.com> Sent: Sunday, July 03, 2011 11:52 AM Subject: Re: [NFK] Benjamin Allen or Wighton or Williamson born Hevinghamc.1832/3 > > > > > > Hi Elizabeth, > > Thanks for your reply. > > I am now wondering whether the William Burphen you mention might be > William B (for Benjamin), orphan. > > I have found another reference where relationship was denoted as orphan, > yet the child was actually a step-child to the head of the household. > I couldn't find the name Burphen on Freereg in Norfolk. Is Burphen clearly > written? > > It seems odd that Benjamin (born c. 1833) was not living with Elizabeth > Wighton if she was the mother? > > The Benjamin Allen I am chasing would have to have been born in 1831, and > I am hoping that he could therefore have been a child of Elizabeth > Williamson's, born before she married William Wighton (but baptised after > the marriage). > > > > Kind regards, Warren > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: elizabeth howard <elizgh@btinternet.com> > To: norfolk <norfolk@rootsweb.com> > Sent: Sun, 3 Jul 2011 20:23 > Subject: [NFK] Benjamin Allen or Wighton or Williamson born Hevingham > c.1832/3 > > > Hi, there is an entry in the 1841 census for Hevingham which > hows an Edward Wighton , 32, ag lab, Y, Jane , 31, Y, and Benjn , 8 , Y. > lso in Hevingham in 1841 is a Benjamin Allen , 57, ag lab, Y, with Eliza, > 1, and a William Burphen , 5, Pheobe Allen , 27, and John Allen , 4 . > here is a big family of Wighton living just a few doors away , Thomas and > ophia , with Juniper, William , Maria, Elizabeth, Robert . There is a > ombination of William Wighton , 30, ag lab, Y, with Elizabeth , 25, Y, > ebecca, 6 and Mary , 2......and with the family is John Williamson , 55 , > odgr, perhaps this is the Elizabeth Williamson you mention married to > illiam Wighton . There is a Robert and Ann Williamson of Gt Bircham with > son Benjamin aged 13 . > But no specific Benjamin Allen aged 5 or 6. If he is William > urphen , 5, living with Benjamin Allen senr and Jane , then he would fit > in > ith Williama and Elizabeth Wighton`s other children , Rebecca 6 and Mary > 2. > erhaps !!! > > life is hard . soften it with a cat \\\=^..^=/// > ---- Original Message ----- > rom: "Warren Diggins" <digginswj@aol.com> > o: <norfolk@rootsweb.com> > ent: Sunday, July 03, 2011 8:21 AM > ubject: [NFK] Benjamin Allen or Wighton or Williamson born Hevingham > .1832/3 > > > Hi Listers, > > I am trying to resolve an issue with two registration entries in FreeReg > for a birth at St Botolph Hevingham. They both relate to Registry Entry > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > NORFOLK-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message >

Sorry folks for the triplicate entry from Kirby Cane - having a few problems with slow paste facility! They weren't on the email when |I sent it -aargh Jean

This from Kirby Cane which is less than a mile away from Ellingham County Norfolk Place Kirby Cane Church All Saints RegisterNumber DateOfBirth BaptismDate 25 Oct 1804 Forename Jemima Sex F FatherForename James MotherForename Susanna FatherSurname GOODA MotherSurname BARNES Abode FatherOccupation Notes Privately baptized. FileNumber 2163 County Norfolk Place Kirby Cane Church All Saints RegisterNumber DateOfBirth BaptismDate 25 Oct 1804 Forename Jemima Sex F FatherForename James MotherForename Susanna FatherSurname GOODA MotherSurname BARNES Abode FatherOccupation Notes Privately baptized. FileNumber 2163 County Norfolk Place Kirby Cane Church All Saints RegisterNumber DateOfBirth BaptismDate 25 Oct 1804 Forename Jemima Sex F FatherForename James MotherForename Susanna FatherSurname GOODA MotherSurname BARNES Abode FatherOccupation Notes Privately baptized. FileNumber 2163 All Saints 25 Oct 1804 Jemima GOODA dau James and Susanna [Barnes] privately baptised Jean On 3 July 2011 13:43, Charles Hawker o2 <charles_hawker@o2.co.uk> wrote: > I am trying to find the baptism of Jemima Gooday.She is shown in the 1851 > census under her married name of Ives.She claims to have been born in > Ellingham.During a recent visit to the R.O. I searched both Ellingham and > Great Ellingham,without success.Her age given would mean she was born about > 1808. I would be grateful for any help a lister might be able to give me. > Regards,Charles > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > NORFOLK-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message >

Hi Jill The NFHS Norfolk Marriage CD 1801-1837 is supposed to contain all surviving marriage records for Norfolk during those years. Not certain I am allowed to reference this source on the mailing list but I will go ahead and say there is no marriage of John Brooks (Brookes, Brooke, Brook) to Mary Ann/Mary Potter or Mary Ann Potter (Porter) to Brooks variants. Is there any possibility this was a second marriage for the bride? Bonnie On Sun, Jul 3, 2011 at 1:45 PM, Jill Bloom <jescot33@googlemail.com> wrote: > Hi all > > Confirmation is badly needed for the father of JOHN BROOKS, b.at Woodton > 1814-15. Parentage may be John (again) Brooks and Frances(?), but there are > other possibilities. I was hoping that John's (b.1814-15) marriage to Mary > Ann Potter (b.Norwich) also b.1814-15, would be post 1837. However, over > the years I have searched in vain all likely sources, pre- and post 1837, > with no result. > > It is of course possible that they were never officially married at all. > However, there was apparently a family tradition that our grandmother, > Matilda Norton nee Brooks (d.1935), was a non-practising Roman Catholic. > Strangely, today I came across the burial at Woodton of an unmarried Mary > Brooks (45) in 1834. "Roman Catholic" is clearly indicated by the C of E > incumbent in the register. > > I am not sure of the date when RCs were once again allowed to worship > publicly in England - I think this was early 19th century - but in any case > can't think where to go next. > > If anyone on this knowledgeable list has any bright ideas, they would be > most welcome! > > Thanks > Jill > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > NORFOLK-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message >

>From 1851 census Name Relationship Mar Age Sex Occupation Birthplace Edward WHITON Head M 43 M Fowl Dealer Hevingham-Norfolk Jane WHITON Wife M 43 F Weaver (Silk & Worsted Net) Hevingham-Norfolk *Benjamin ALLEN* Son U 17 M Weaver (Cotton & Worsted Net) Hevingham-Norfolk John THURSTON Lodg M 73 M Broom Maker Hevingham-Norfolk Charles DACK Lodg U 61 M Ag Lab Hevingham-Norfolk Address: Town St, Aylsham Census Place: Hevingham Aylsham, Norfolk PRO Reference: HO/107/1810 Folio: 657 Page: 12 FHL Film: 0207463 In 1841 Benjamin is not shown with these parents On 3 July 2011 08:21, Warren Diggins <digginswj@aol.com> wrote: > > Hi Listers, > > I am trying to resolve an issue with two registration entries in FreeReg > for a birth at St Botolph Hevingham. They both relate to Registry Entry 581, > one indicating that Benjamin Allen was the illegitimate son of a woman > surname Wighton, the other has father as surname Allen and mother as > Elizabeth Wighton. > > I am wondering whether this Benjamin Allen has anything to do with the > Elizabeth Williamson who married William Wighton at St Botolph Hevingham in > 1832. Any ideas / assistance greatly appreciated. > > Kind regards, Warren Diggins (Australia) > > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > NORFOLK-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message >

I am trying to find the baptism of Jemima Gooday.She is shown in the 1851 census under her married name of Ives.She claims to have been born in Ellingham.During a recent visit to the R.O. I searched both Ellingham and Great Ellingham,without success.Her age given would mean she was born about 1808. I would be grateful for any help a lister might be able to give me. Regards,Charles

The register entry is online. http://tinyurl.com/6gmo229 I read it as 28 July 1833 Benjamin Illegitimate Father's surname not clear apart from ending in 'ighton'. Mother's surname Allen Benjamin lived in Hevingham And in the occupation box on a level with the mother's surname is written the word 'spinster'. Things to note: No date of birth for, or age at baptism of, Benjamin is given. There are no first names given for either Benjamin's father or mother. The description of 'spinster' does not automatically mean that by the time of Benjamin's baptism that his parents weren't married as the vicar has written 'spinster' besides every mother's name. I think it's his way of saying that before the parents married the mother's name was (xyz) and she was a spinster (as opposed to a widow). All you can conclude is that Benjamin was illegitimate at birth. However if you go to the previous image (number 38) and look at entry 565 that gives just the mother's name which leads me to suppose that possibly Benjamin's parents married after his birth but before his baptism. The BT entry is clearer regarding the surname of Benjamin's father, but still doesn't give any first names for either his father or mother. http://tinyurl.com/3m8gk2a Pam On 03/07/2011 08:21, Warren Diggins wrote: > Hi Listers, > > I am trying to resolve an issue with two registration entries in FreeReg for a birth at St Botolph Hevingham. They both relate to Registry Entry 581, one indicating that Benjamin Allen was the illegitimate son of a woman surname Wighton, the other has father as surname Allen and mother as Elizabeth Wighton. > > I am wondering whether this Benjamin Allen has anything to do with the Elizabeth Williamson who married William Wighton at St Botolph Hevingham in 1832. Any ideas / assistance greatly appreciated. > > Kind regards, Warren Diggins (Australia) > > > > ------------------------------- >

We do indeed. I would also like to point out if you think we have made a mistake you can report it to the freereg site and we (I most likely) will check it (eventually :)). As for the discussion - Ales and also Alse and Alce are common early versions of Alice. Someone suggested Alen - that is not a name common in Norfolk in those days. http://www.freereg.org.uk/howto/realnames.htm and http://www.freereg.org.uk/howto/latinnames.htm give you some of the more common names from the 1500-1800s. The newer names tend to come in from the mid 1850s. Julie On 01/07/2011 23:50, Mike Fry wrote: > On 2011/07/01 18:26, Richard wrote: > >> Those FreeReg Transcribers do know their stuff, don't they? > We try and give that impression :-) > -- Julie Harold FreeREG Norfolk Coordinator http://www.freereg.org.uk

Hi Warren You don't say whether you have looked at the original image so I am sending it to you. It is an entry which is not clear either in writing or intent and I think both the transcribers have had problems. I cant see anything that relates to an Elizabeth. Maybe you can decipher it! Hope this helps Jean On 3 July 2011 08:21, Warren Diggins <digginswj@aol.com> wrote: > > Hi Listers, > > I am trying to resolve an issue with two registration entries in FreeReg > for a birth at St Botolph Hevingham. They both relate to Registry Entry 581, > one indicating that Benjamin Allen was the illegitimate son of a woman > surname Wighton, the other has father as surname Allen and mother as > Elizabeth Wighton. > > I am wondering whether this Benjamin Allen has anything to do with the > Elizabeth Williamson who married William Wighton at St Botolph Hevingham in > 1832. Any ideas / assistance greatly appreciated. > > Kind regards, Warren Diggins (Australia) > > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > NORFOLK-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message >