Donna, I haven't seen this pattern in parish records. But I must check Dinah's. My ancestor George Tribe (1714 - 1752) shares a common tombstone in Thakeham churchyard with his wife Dinah (nee Parlett) (1715 - 1777) where she is described as the relict of George Tribe. After George's death she married a David Stow, but she was laid to rest with George. George who died aged 38, was a Blacksmith and Clockmaker, which trade he passed on to his two oldest sons, but James his youngest son and my ancestor, became a joiner, which was David Stow's trade. (Joiners made the clock cases). The gravestones at Thakeham are still readable, but those at a church (Salehurst) I visited recently were totally gone. Jeff Sussex In a message dated 03/11/2012 23:49:30 GMT Standard Time, [email protected] writes: Is it possible or was it a pattern that women in early/mid 17th C would have been known/seen/recorded with the surname of her first marriage in parish records? I.e., Alice (Pardon) Tillinghast m. John Tillinghast 1597, (he died 1624), then Alice married a Henry Waller 1629. Was married to him for possibly about 10 years or less, but her burial record might read Alice Tillinghast....especially if the 2nd husband died before her? Donna TILLINGHAST Casey Michigan, USA The pessimist complains about the wind; the optimist expects it will change; the realist adjusts the sails. ------------------------------- 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

Jeff, Here in the US I have heard of the same thing occurring a number of times currently. My reason, of course, to ask my question is that I find the burial of a woman in 1648 in London, who would "fit" the person who had married another man, but may have been buried with or the family entered the first married surname instead of the surname of the 2nd husband. I will wait to see if others have any input...and continue to search for the custom of the time and report if I find anything more about this subject. Thanks again Jeff, Donna   The pessimist complains about the wind; the optimist expects it will change; the realist adjusts the sails. ________________________________ From: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> To: [email protected]; [email protected] Sent: Saturday, November 3, 2012 9:35 PM Subject: Re: [SFHG] Surname in burial record: 2 marriages - 1st marriage surname? Donna, I haven't seen this pattern in parish records. But I  must check Dinah's. My ancestor George Tribe (1714 - 1752) shares a common tombstone in  Thakeham churchyard with his wife Dinah (nee Parlett) (1715 - 1777) where she is  described as the relict of George Tribe. After George's death she married a  David Stow, but she was laid to rest with George. George who died aged 38, was a Blacksmith and Clockmaker, which trade he  passed on to his two oldest sons, but James his youngest son and my ancestor, became a joiner, which was David Stow's trade. (Joiners made the clock  cases). The gravestones at Thakeham are still readable, but those at a  church (Salehurst) I visited recently were totally gone.  Jeff Sussex In a message dated 03/11/2012 23:49:30 GMT  Standard Time, [email protected] writes: Is it possible or was it a  pattern that women in early/mid 17th C would have been known/seen/recorded with  the surname of her first marriage in parish records? I.e., Alice (Pardon)  Tillinghast m. John Tillinghast 1597, (he died 1624), then Alice married a Henry  Waller 1629.  Was married to him for possibly about 10 years or less, but  her burial record might read Alice Tillinghast....especially if the 2nd husband  died before her? Donna TILLINGHAST Casey Michigan,  USA The pessimist complains about the wind; the optimist expects it  will change; the realist adjusts the  sails. ------------------------------- 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