Angela, I have a Millicent HAWARD who married Stephen LUDBROOK (don't know when). They had a daughter Phoebe LUDBROOK who was born in Peasenhall 17 July 1791. I have a Henry EADE, Christened Peasenhall 29 June 1679, the son of Henery EADE (died 1714 in Beccles) and Maria. Henry married Elizabeth PEIRCE 29 October 1698. Henry and Elizabeth had a son Henry EADE, christened Westleton June 1707 and buried Westleton 5 March 1761. Henry married Elizabeth CROW (1707-1778) in 1737 at Shottisham. Henry and Elizabeth had a son John EADE, Christened 17 May 1738 in Middleton. John married Amy IVES (1736-1812) 7 October 1759 in Yoxford. John and Amy had two children, Hannah Christened Yoxford 19 August 1770 and Henry Christened Yoxford 9 August 1761. Hannah EADE married Mark NEAVE 17 November 1793 in Peasenhall. They had eight children. Hope this helps. Let me know if you can add to what I have. Mike Nova Scotia, Canada ----- Original Message ----- From: "Angela Monaghan" <angela.monaghan@virgin.net> To: <SUFFOLK@rootsweb.com> Sent: Saturday, February 12, 2011 3:55 PM Subject: [SFK-UK] HAWARD and Wissett PRs >I have recently re-joined this mailing list, after a gap of a couple of > years, and just wanted to introduce myself. I'm interested in the > surnames > HAWARD in and around Halesworth before 1890, EASTOE in and around > Halesworth > and EADE in and around Yoxford before 1880. Would be pleased to hear from > anyone else with the same interests. > > > > I would also appreciate some help regarding a marriage between Benjamin > HAWARD and Elizabeth WICKENSON in 1755 - there are several submitted > entries > for this marriage on the IGI which say it took place in Halesworth, but I > cannot find it in the Halesworth parish registers (Suffolk Family History > Society). However, there is one IGI entry for the same marriage which > says > it took place in Wissett. If anyone has access to the Wissett PRs and > could > do me a look-up, I would be grateful. Or is there another explanation for > why I can't find it? Many thanks. > > > > Angela > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > SUFFOLK-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message >

----- Original Message ----- From: "Jacquie Knott" <jacquieknott@ntlworld.com> To: <suffolk@rootsweb.com> Sent: Saturday, February 12, 2011 12:31 PM Subject: Re: [SFK-UK] Newmarket Railway Station Enquiry > I am afraid that Newmarket Railway Station was shamefully demolished in > the 1980s, despite being mentioned in Pevsner's The Buildings of > England. It was a fine red brick building, of a similar style to the > ones which survive at Needham Market and Stowmarket. All that the > Newmarket railway station consists of today is a concrete platform > further towards the tunnel than the old station. But the old station had > fallen into decay and disuse long before demolition, so the prints would > have been removed well before the 1980s. That explains a lot. I moved to Newmarket in 1990 so was not aware of the history. The railway station of today is little more than a glorified bus shelter. :-( Regards Peter

Michael Portillo on his recent series of Great British Railway Journeys mentions 3 stations - Wikipedia gives 4! In any event the original station buildings from all these instances were either demolished or have been converted to office buildings. One of the stations was built with the encouragement of the Jockey Club as they owned Newmarket races and wanted to enable attendance of both horses and people at meetings so might be the one referred to so might be worth seeing if the Jockey club http://www.thejockeyclub.co.uk have a friendly archivist. Regards Tony -----Original Message----- From: suffolk-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:suffolk-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Louise Sent: 12 February 2011 11:40 To: SUFFOLK@rootsweb.com Subject: [SFK-UK] Newmarket Railway Station Enquiry Hi >> What I am trying to find out is if the Newmarket railway station > in the first class section have sporting prints still hanging on > the walls as I read an article dated 1936 mentioning them. The one I was interested in was the one of Phar Lap the race horse. > > I tried three times ringing a number I found to be put in contact > with the station master there to ask him but it seems it isn't a > manned station. > > I had wanted to ask if SKS who lives near there if they could tell me if they are still there or not. If not still there could someone tell me where they would be today? > > > > Thank you > > Louise in Australia ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to SUFFOLK-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Sorry Louise - I forgot to say that it is the original, grand 19th Century station which was demolished in the 1980s. The building which housed the smaller new station of 1904 which Steve mentions survives, but it was sold off long ago for other commercial uses. Simon On 12/02/2011 11:39, Louise wrote: > Hi >>> What I am trying to find out is if the Newmarket railway station >> in the first class section have sporting prints still hanging on >> the walls as I read an article dated 1936 mentioning them. > The one I was interested in was the one of Phar Lap the race horse. >> I tried three times ringing a number I found to be put in contact >> with the station master there to ask him but it seems it isn't a >> manned station. >> >> I had wanted to ask if SKS who lives near there if they could tell me if they are still there or not. > If not still there could someone tell me where they would be today? >> Thank you >> >> Louise in Australia > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to SUFFOLK-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message >

Louise I am afraid that Newmarket Railway Station was shamefully demolished in the 1980s, despite being mentioned in Pevsner's The Buildings of England. It was a fine red brick building, of a similar style to the ones which survive at Needham Market and Stowmarket. All that the Newmarket railway station consists of today is a concrete platform further towards the tunnel than the old station. But the old station had fallen into decay and disuse long before demolition, so the prints would have been removed well before the 1980s. Simon suffolkchurches.co.uk On 12/02/2011 11:39, Louise wrote: > Hi >>> What I am trying to find out is if the Newmarket railway station >> in the first class section have sporting prints still hanging on >> the walls as I read an article dated 1936 mentioning them. > The one I was interested in was the one of Phar Lap the race horse. >> I tried three times ringing a number I found to be put in contact >> with the station master there to ask him but it seems it isn't a >> manned station. >> >> I had wanted to ask if SKS who lives near there if they could tell me if they are still there or not. > If not still there could someone tell me where they would be today? >> Thank you >> >> Louise in Australia > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to SUFFOLK-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message >

Peter Knott <peter.knott@btinternet.com> wrote: > Hello David > Thank you for your input. Their children were baptised at St Mary's Bury > St Edmunds so that marriage location fits perfectly. > Bury is of course within the Archdeaconry of Sudbury but there does not > appear to be any substantive reason why new FamilySearch has listed the > marriage in that way. Listers have suggested that the marriage might have > been by licence or that the LDS record was taken from Bishops Transcripts. > LDS Help in response to my query merely reported back to me the facts > that I had given them! Peter If you go back to my response of 3rd February you will see that I directed you to the film which clearly stated that the full title of the film was "Bishop's transcripts for the Archdeaconry of Sudbury, 1560-1853". I would guess that the new search facility has decided to abbreviate this and having given the film number has left it up to the researcher to look for the full title. Bishops Transcripts are copies of the returns made by each church of the births marriages and deaths in their parishes. Many incumbents - as it was they who could either give or deny permission - would not allow the Mormon Church to copy their records and I believe that this led to the copying of the transcripts so that all could be ordained into the church. It needs to be remembered that the primary purpose of the extracts is not to help genealogists but to further the work of the church. This is why you may not get the answers you expect when enquiring about the indexes - there is currently a debate about this on soc.genealogy.britain as it looks as though when the old search facility is fully replaced by the new family search that there will be no ability to download GEDCOM files. Brian

Hello David Thank you for your input. Their children were baptised at St Mary's Bury St Edmunds so that marriage location fits perfectly. Bury is of course within the Archdeaconry of Sudbury but there does not appear to be any substantive reason why new FamilySearch has listed the marriage in that way. Listers have suggested that the marriage might have been by licence or that the LDS record was taken from Bishops Transcripts. LDS Help in response to my query merely reported back to me the facts that I had given them! Kind Regards Peter ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Gobbitt" <davidgobbitt@yahoo.co.uk> To: <suffolk@rootsweb.com>; <peter.knott@btinternet.com> Sent: Friday, February 11, 2011 5:27 PM Subject: Marriage of George Skinner & Catherine Clarke 1776 Hello Peter George SKINNER married Catherine CLARKE on 27 May 1776 at St Mary's church in Bury St Edmunds (Thingoe Deanery). The Suffolk FHS marriage indexes (http://www.suffolkfhs.co.uk/osc/index.php?cPath=31_38) make life a lot easier for us nowadays, but I'm afraid there are still times when I don't get round to looking at this mailing list more than once a fortnight! David Message: 1 Date: Wed, 2 Feb 2011 17:07:36 -0000 From: "Peter Knott" <peter.knott@btinternet.com> Subject: [SFK-UK] Marriage of George Skinner & Catherine Clarke 1776 The new FamilySearch site has a marriage of the above couple with the Marriage Place stated to be 'Archdeaconry of Suffolk'. I am accustomed to seeing a named parish designated as place and have not encountered this before. Is anyone able to shed any light please? Clearly the parish name would be ideal! Peter Knott

There were two stations at Newmarket, one nearer the tunnel that goes under the heath was the old station. It was already closed when I was a child in the 50's but my Grandmother called it the old station. --- On Sat, 12/2/11, Louise <walburn@bigpond.com> wrote: > From: Louise <walburn@bigpond.com> > Subject: [SFK-UK] Newmarket Railway Station Enquiry > To: SUFFOLK@rootsweb.com > Date: Saturday, 12 February, 2011, 18:39 > Hi > >> What I am trying to find out is if the Newmarket > railway station > > in the first class section  have sporting prints > still hanging on > > the walls as I read an article dated 1936 mentioning > them. > The one I was interested in was the one of Phar Lap the > race horse. > > > > I tried three times ringing a number I found to be put > in contact > > with the station master there to ask him but it seems > it isn't a > > manned station. > > > > I had wanted to ask if SKS who lives near there if > they could tell me if they are still there or not. > If not still there could someone tell me where they would > be today? > > > > > > > Thank you > > > > Louise in Australia > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to SUFFOLK-request@rootsweb.com > with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the > subject and the body of the message >

Hi Listers I am having some difficulty reading and interpreting a word on a 1861 Census return for Edwardstone, details below. The line concerned is for the baby "Boarder", Charles Carpenter. Details of the return are: 1861 Census Return for Edwardstone, Suffolk - R.G 9/1135 Page 14, Enumeration no: 69 - "Lovely Green" Robert & Charlotte PARSON Robert & Charlotte are aged 52 and 47 years respectively, and have a baby "Boarder" living with them. The enumerator has added a comment in brackets, for this baby under the "Rank, Profession, or Occupation" column of this return which I am having difficulty reading. The baby's entry reads: (Name and Surname): Charles Carpenter; (Relation to Head of Family): Boarder; (Condition): -; (Age of Males): 1 [year], (Rank, Profession, or Occupation): [Word undecipherable]; (Where born): Suffolk, Semer. Any assistance would be appreciated regards eddie tricker

Hello Peter George SKINNER married Catherine CLARKE on 27 May 1776 at St Mary's church in Bury St Edmunds (Thingoe Deanery). The Suffolk FHS marriage indexes (http://www.suffolkfhs.co.uk/osc/index.php?cPath=31_38) make life a lot easier for us nowadays, but I'm afraid there are still times when I don't get round to looking at this mailing list more than once a fortnight! David Message: 1 Date: Wed, 2 Feb 2011 17:07:36 -0000 From: "Peter Knott" <peter.knott@btinternet.com> Subject: [SFK-UK] Marriage of George Skinner & Catherine Clarke 1776 The new FamilySearch site has a marriage of the above couple with the Marriage Place stated to be 'Archdeaconry of Suffolk'. I am accustomed to seeing a named parish designated as place and have not encountered this before. Is anyone able to shed any light please? Clearly the parish name would be ideal! Peter Knott

G'day Folks This link arrived in an National Archives newsletter Your main source for these records is the General Register Office, but you can also find many non-conformist or overseas records of births, marriages and deaths online at BMDregisters.co.uk**. It allows searches of records for folks that were "non conformist". http://www.bmdregisters.co.uk/?dm_i=MAN,D1AV,3BNBUJ,118RN,1 regards eddie

Hi Simon, excellent advice, I'll try and follow it. Very many thanks for your help. Neil > Three pieces of advice given to me when I was starting out which have > consistently proved useful: > > 1) follow the paper trail. Assume that the baptism in 1766 is NOT your > man, then see if you can follow this other chap through marriage and > burial. If he disappears off the face of the earth after baptism, there > is a good chance he is your man after all. If you find someone else of > the same name being married and buried in south Suffolk around this > time, you'll need to think again. > > 2) remember that we are only baptised and buried once, and are unlikely > to marry more than a couple of times. But there are other people's life > events which may well shed light on us - if your man had children of his > own who were baptised or married, or if his parents had other children > who were baptised or married, it may enable you to pin him down to a > particular parish at a particular time. I have pinpointed a couple of my > ancestors simply because they witnessed other people's marriages (albeit > after 1837). If you go sideways, you may well be able to build up a > network which shows the geographical shape of the family, and you can > then follow the paper trail (see 1!) > > 3) apply Occam's Razor: 'the most sufficient explanation is most likely > to be the correct one'. This doesn't mean you should take the Whelnetham > baptism at face value, but rather as you build a plenitude of > sufficiency, so you will begin to see the validity or otherwise of your > assumptions. > > I would add a further thought that south Suffolk was a hotbed of > non-conformism in the 18th century. If you can find someone of the right > age who was baptised or received into a non-conformist community at the > right time it may well prove that the connection to Great Whelnetham is > erroneous. > > Simon > www.suffolkchurches.co.uk > > > > > > On 09/02/2011 20:32, neilrbowers@neilrbowers.plus.com wrote: >> Good day fellow researchers, >> I have a general question which I am looking for advice on. I have an >> ancestor who dies in Monks Eleigh in 1825 and is married in Monks Eleigh >> in 1786. There doesn't appear to be a baptism in Monks Eleigh at the >> correct tIme but there is a baptism in 1766 in Great Welnetham which >> other >> researchers have taken to be the correct one. >> >> My question is the obvious one, what corroborative evidence could be >> available for this assumption? >> >> Regards, >> >> Neil >> >> >> ------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to >> SUFFOLK-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 > SUFFOLK-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message >

Hi Nivard, that's very good advice. No, I haven't seen the marriage original yet. I will need to check it. No will as far as I am aware. I'll check burials and other people of the same name. Many thanks again. Neil > Hi Neil > > My first job would be to check the PRs in the places mentioned to see if > there are any other events for your prospective groom > > If there is a burial soon after baptism (which do not as a rule appear on > the IGI) its a bit of a clue you have the wrong man, similarly was there > another marriage or children to the same name in the time frame ? > > Have you seen the original marriage recording? does it mention any other > details > > Did he leave a will? > > Who else of the same name is buried in the same place ? > > Nivard Ovington in Cornwall (UK) > > > >> Good day fellow researchers, >> I have a general question which I am looking for advice on. I have an >> ancestor who dies in Monks Eleigh in 1825 and is married in Monks Eleigh >> in 1786. There doesn't appear to be a baptism in Monks Eleigh at the >> correct tIme but there is a baptism in 1766 in Great Welnetham which >> other >> researchers have taken to be the correct one. >> >> My question is the obvious one, what corroborative evidence could be >> available for this assumption? >> >> Regards, >> >> Neil > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > SUFFOLK-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message >

Hi David, I didn't think to check land ownerships. Many thanks for the suggestion. Neil > Hi Neil, > If the name is common to the district, it can be difficult. > If a labourer, then the twenty years or so at marriage is spot on but if > the ancestor were a landowning one, then one would expect him to marry at > age 25 so a baptism about 1760 would be about right, plus he would most > likely have kinsfolk in that area. > Yeomen's sons would help out on dad's farm until 25 and then be rewarded > with some land to start them off as members of the freeholding class. > This was considered important at that time. Or land might come with the > marriage. People took care to marry within their'class' and that can also > be helpful to researchers. About 1600, more than 50% of the popuation > were freeholders.People then were a lot more mobile than we give them > credit for. My own family did not move very far in 600 years but they > did move from parish to parish every generation or so, and sometimes > with a great jump. The reason was always land. > If you have reason to assume you might have found a suitable candidate, > then a search of the manorial court rolls might prove helpful. Like > father, like son. > 1825 marked the end of rural East Anglia's prosperity and almost all men > became ag-labs from then on but don't assume that this was so, prior to > that date. > Happy hunting, David. > > --- On Thu, 10/2/11, neilrbowers@neilrbowers.plus.com > <neilrbowers@neilrbowers.plus.com> wrote: > > > From: neilrbowers@neilrbowers.plus.com <neilrbowers@neilrbowers.plus.com> > Subject: [SFK-UK] General advice > To: suffolk@rootsweb.com > Date: Thursday, 10, February, 2011, 9:32 AM > > > Good day fellow researchers, > I have a general question which I am looking for advice on. I have an > ancestor who dies in Monks Eleigh in 1825 and is married in Monks Eleigh > in 1786. There doesn't appear to be a baptism in Monks Eleigh at the > correct tIme but there is a baptism in 1766 in Great Welnetham which other > researchers have taken to be the correct one. > > My question is the obvious one, what corroborative evidence could be > available for this assumption? > > Regards, > > Neil > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > SUFFOLK-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 > SUFFOLK-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message >

Hi Mike, yes, a difficult question. Many thanks for your advice. Neil > On 2011/02/09 22:32, neilrbowers@neilrbowers.plus.com wrote: > >> I have a general question which I am looking for advice on. I have an >> ancestor who dies in Monks Eleigh in 1825 and is married in Monks Eleigh >> in 1786. There doesn't appear to be a baptism in Monks Eleigh at the >> correct tIme but there is a baptism in 1766 in Great Welnetham which >> other researchers have taken to be the correct one. >> >> My question is the obvious one, what corroborative evidence could be >> available for this assumption? > > A difficult one to answer :-) > > At that time, the Marriage register is extremely unlikely to give the > parents. > The addition of Father's names and occupations only came in 1837. Ages > were generally only given as 'of full age' - and people fibbed - so > that's not going to be of any use unless a number was given. Even then, > it might be a fib! > By rights, if one or other was not a resident of the parish, the Marriage > register should give the name of the parish they belonged to. But again, > this is not always reliable. > > The Baptism register is also unlikely to add much in the way of extra > clues. > You'll get the Father's name and Surname, but probably only the Mother's > name (unless very unlucky) and not her maiden name. If you're lucky, the > register might give a date of birth, but this would be the exception > rather than a rule. > > So, you're going to have to resort to what ever other papers from the > parish that might have survived. Those are going to involve a long, long > and probably fruitless, search, unless one or other attracted the > attention of the Overseers. > > -- > Regards, > Mike Fry > Johannesburg

Thanks Bernie, I'll keep looking. > This couple may have moved to another village for a time and had kids > baptised else where.I have relations  who lived in monks eleigh and had > three children in monks eleigh and one in pakenham and one in stratford > St. mary by the essex/suffolk border. My relations were James and Martha > Fynn who had the lion pub there at that time. > bernie fynn > > --- On Thu, 10/2/11, neilrbowers@neilrbowers.plus.com > <neilrbowers@neilrbowers.plus.com> wrote: > > From: neilrbowers@neilrbowers.plus.com <neilrbowers@neilrbowers.plus.com> > Subject: [SFK-UK] General advice > To: suffolk@rootsweb.com > Received: Thursday, 10 February, 2011, 9:32 AM > > Good day fellow researchers, > I have a general question which I am looking for advice on. I have an > ancestor who dies in Monks Eleigh in 1825 and is married in Monks Eleigh > in 1786. There doesn't appear to be a baptism in Monks Eleigh at the > correct tIme but there is a baptism in 1766 in Great Welnetham which other > researchers have taken to be the correct one. > > My question is the obvious one, what corroborative evidence could be > available for this assumption? > > Regards, > > Neil > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > SUFFOLK-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 > SUFFOLK-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message >

Hi Eddie It says (Visitor) Nivard Ovington in Cornwall (UK) > Hi Listers > > I am having some difficulty reading and interpreting a word on a 1861 > Census return for Edwardstone, details below. > > The line concerned is for the baby "Boarder", Charles Carpenter. > > Details of the return are: > > 1861 Census Return for Edwardstone, Suffolk - R.G 9/1135 > > Page 14, Enumeration no: 69 - "Lovely Green" > > Robert & Charlotte PARSON

On Thu, 10 Feb 2011 18:25:41 -0500 "Bob Stephenson" <rstephenson3@cogeco.ca> wrote: Hello Bob, > Hello Brad, i tried this and it worked. Thankyou very much for the > help. You're welcome, Bob. -- Regards _ / ) "The blindingly obvious is / _)rad never immediately apparent"

Hi all Perhaps worth mentioning that the bmdregister site is a pay per view or I believe part of thegenealogist subscription More on non conformists from the National Archives guides http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/records/research-guides/nonconformists.htm Nivard Ovington in Cornwall (UK) > G'day Folks > This link arrived in an National Archives newsletter > > Your main source for these records is the General Register Office, > but you can also find many non-conformist or overseas records of > births, marriages and deaths online at BMDregisters.co.uk**. > > > It allows searches of records for folks that were "non conformist". > > http://www.bmdregisters.co.uk/?dm_i=MAN,D1AV,3BNBUJ,118RN,1 > > regards > eddie

On Thu, 10 Feb 2011 11:37:07 -0500 "Bob Stephenson" <rstephenson3@cogeco.ca> wrote: Hello Bob, > ( May 1985 ). After all is entered i go to the next step and it comes > back that i must enter the month and year ( which is already > entered ). I di need help. At the GRO? If you enter may 1985, you're doing it wrong. Use 05/85 instead, like it tells you to. -- Regards _ / ) "The blindingly obvious is / _)rad never immediately apparent"