Mileson Sillett was baptised in 1816 the son of Frances Sillett. I believe Frances was between marriages in 1816, her first husband Samuel having died there in 1814. None of the transcripts I have seen indicate whether she was a widow and I wonder if anyone had easy access to these parish records and could look to see if the original entry showed her status as widow.

Hi Folks, I have a real "toughy" with a part of my Osborne tree and as it involves a direct line to my nephew I would like to get a 2nd(or 3rd or 4th etc ) opinion on the correct connections. It starts with one Jacob Snelling at Mendlesham, against whom a bastardy order was issued in 1822 relative to a male child of Grace Steff(Stiff). On 16 Jan 1823 Jacob and Grace were married at Mendlesham, and from that point on I cannot find any reference to her. 1841 Census HO107/1023Bk12F5p2 shows Jacob with 3 children, John, Mary & Jacob Jnr, no wife 1851 Census HO107-1795F26p15 shows Jacob, widr, with Mary Ann, dau, Jacob son and Isaac G'son 1861 Census RG9/1148F8p9 shows Jacob, widr, with Mary Ann, dau and Anne Eliza g'dau 1871 CensusRG10/1735F72p8 shows the same 3 as in 1861 All above at Mendlesham George Osborne married Annie Eliza Snelling Mar Qtr 1872 I would very much appreciate all comments on the above. Phil White in New Hampshire USA Roots in Sussex and IOW

Hi, Just out of interest i copied this from the front of the parish register book for Tivetshall St,Mary years ago,i imagine the charges would be the same through the country. Written in the front page of the parish register of Tivetshall St.Mary 1813. Fees to be taken for various occasions in the two parishes of Tivetshall. Burial. 2/-. for the minster, 2/-. for the clerk, 3/6d. for digging the grave and ringing the bell. Burial of out of town people, 6/8d. added to the 2/-. ministers fee above. 4/-. added to the clerks fee above. Marriages. 7/6d. to the minister. 2/6d.to the clerk. Churching. 6/-.to the minister. 6/-.to the clerk. An upright stone on the grave,6/8d. to the minister.for an out of town person 10/8d. A table stone 1 guinea. Burying in chancel.3 guineas. When you see ag.lab.families with many children,such as my ancestors who lived in near poverty,i wonder how they managed to pay these charges Richard Myhill richardmyhill43@btinternet.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sid Jones" <sjones1828@gmail.com> To: <suffolk@rootsweb.com> Sent: Sunday, December 12, 2010 11:49 AM Subject: Re: [SFK-UK] Fees for Baptism > Hello again > Just to add a touch to what has already been said on this subject - there > were two short periods, one in the late 17th c the other late 18th c when > duties were levied on entries in the registers of baptisms, marriages and > burials. following Acts of 1695 and 1783 The governments were then, as now > and ever, scratching around for extra revenues. > > The 1695 Act was heavily "means tested" or "rank tested" so that Dukes and > Duchesses paid large sums. > > The 1783 Act applied a standard threepence per register entry charge with > thoee on parish relief exempted > . > Some parents seem to have refrained from taking their children to baptism, > with the result that there is some evidence that baptism numbers rose when > the duties were lifted after periods of some 10 years or so. > > There were fines payable for non payment and for those clergy who failed in > their duties as tax-collectors. > > Copies of both Acts are, I believe, available on Ancestry. > > Sid > > ------------------------------- > 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

Hello again Just to add a touch to what has already been said on this subject - there were two short periods, one in the late 17th c the other late 18th c when duties were levied on entries in the registers of baptisms, marriages and burials. following Acts of 1695 and 1783 The governments were then, as now and ever, scratching around for extra revenues. The 1695 Act was heavily "means tested" or "rank tested" so that Dukes and Duchesses paid large sums. The 1783 Act applied a standard threepence per register entry charge with thoee on parish relief exempted . Some parents seem to have refrained from taking their children to baptism, with the result that there is some evidence that baptism numbers rose when the duties were lifted after periods of some 10 years or so. There were fines payable for non payment and for those clergy who failed in their duties as tax-collectors. Copies of both Acts are, I believe, available on Ancestry. Sid

Thank you for clearing this matter up Sid. I know I and several other people were not seeing things in 17th centuray parish records where a 'fee' was recorded along with the amount, and where the person could not afford to do so the word 'pauper' was written, and in some accounts the amount that were gathered were recorded along with how many were 'paupers'. Honor On 12/12/2010 00:09, Sid Jones wrote: > Hello to all those interested, > > > From time to time this matter came before the courts as there seems to have > been some confusion amongst the laity as to whether fees were chargeable or > not. The opinion.of the courts was generally that no fees were payable "by > common right" but that in some parishes they were payable "by custom" The > uncertainties and disputes that arose were however sufficient for an 1872 > Act "to render it unlawful to demand any Fee or Reward for the Celebration > of the Sacrament of Baptism, or Registry thereof. > > Even after the Act some doubts remained however, because whilst it became > unlawful "for any minister. clerk in orders, parish clerk,, vestry clerk, > warden or any person to demand any fee for reward for the celebration of > baptism or for the registry thereof"" the Act contained the proviso that > "this act shall not apply to the presemt holder of any office who may at the > present time be entitled by any Acnt of Parliament to demand such fees" > > So disputes were still possible - but then few parliamentary Bills have ever > been passed after discussion, amendment or indeed mutilation in the Commons > and the Lords, in terms such that the resultant Act did not entch the legal > profession. > > Sid > > . > > ------------------------------- > 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

That makes sense. Canon law in both the Church of England and Catholic Church prohibits the charging of a fee for baptism because this would be an act of Simony - the selling of a sacrament. The 1872 law was passed under the influence of the ascendant Oxford Movement, who had attempted to reassert the sacramental nature of the CofE. The same does not apply to marriage, because technically, in Canon law, the Church does not marry the couple - they marry each other with the Church as a witness. This is a fairly cloudy theological area, I think. However, it does not prohibit the charging of a fee for burial, because this is not a sacrament. Simon www.suffolkchurches.co.uk On 12/12/2010 00:09, Sid Jones wrote: > Hello to all those interested, > > > From time to time this matter came before the courts as there seems to have > been some confusion amongst the laity as to whether fees were chargeable or > not. The opinion.of the courts was generally that no fees were payable "by > common right" but that in some parishes they were payable "by custom" The > uncertainties and disputes that arose were however sufficient for an 1872 > Act "to render it unlawful to demand any Fee or Reward for the Celebration > of the Sacrament of Baptism, or Registry thereof. > > Even after the Act some doubts remained however, because whilst it became > unlawful "for any minister. clerk in orders, parish clerk,, vestry clerk, > warden or any person to demand any fee for reward for the celebration of > baptism or for the registry thereof"" the Act contained the proviso that > "this act shall not apply to the presemt holder of any office who may at the > present time be entitled by any Acnt of Parliament to demand such fees" > > So disputes were still possible - but then few parliamentary Bills have ever > been passed after discussion, amendment or indeed mutilation in the Commons > and the Lords, in terms such that the resultant Act did not entch the legal > profession. > > Sid > > . > > ------------------------------- > 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 >

Hello to all those interested, >From time to time this matter came before the courts as there seems to have been some confusion amongst the laity as to whether fees were chargeable or not. The opinion.of the courts was generally that no fees were payable "by common right" but that in some parishes they were payable "by custom" The uncertainties and disputes that arose were however sufficient for an 1872 Act "to render it unlawful to demand any Fee or Reward for the Celebration of the Sacrament of Baptism, or Registry thereof. Even after the Act some doubts remained however, because whilst it became unlawful "for any minister. clerk in orders, parish clerk,, vestry clerk, warden or any person to demand any fee for reward for the celebration of baptism or for the registry thereof"" the Act contained the proviso that "this act shall not apply to the presemt holder of any office who may at the present time be entitled by any Acnt of Parliament to demand such fees" So disputes were still possible - but then few parliamentary Bills have ever been passed after discussion, amendment or indeed mutilation in the Commons and the Lords, in terms such that the resultant Act did not entch the legal profession. Sid .

As well as the fees for baptism or marriage, there were also charges for writing the event in the register - at least in some places at some times. These fees went to the rector / vicar / curate depending on local circumstance, so they are not referred to an any church accounts. The late 17th century rector of Melford kept big books of his accounts, which survive, and there are plenty of references to the fees for recording events - and a reference to the fact that while the overseers paid the fees for burials of paupers, they did not always pay the fee for recording the burial in the register, so he, the rector, recorded them out of the kindness of his heart ... it's possible that some 'missing' events are from that sort of circumstance. Lyn B -----Original Message----- From: suffolk-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:suffolk-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of NOREEN KENNEDY Sent: 11 December 2010 19:11 To: suffolk@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [SFK-UK] REEVE lookup request Sorry you are wrong, they did indeed charge a fee for bapts. parish records do show how much was paid and whether the persons family were excepted by the wording pauper by the side of the records. ( Hence the creation of AT'st's and BT's which were a way of seeing just how much money the church was collecting and to pick up any irregularitys , these records were always as far as I understand sent with an record of the Churches accounts. This practice of charging was at some point stopped. Honor ________________________________ From: richard <richardmyhill43@btinternet.com> To: suffolk@rootsweb.com Sent: Saturday, 11 December, 2010 18:59:03 snip> I always understood that the church did not charge for baptisms,that all were welcome to the house of god. Richard Myhill <snip ------------------------------- 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

On Sat, 11 Dec 2010 19:33:43 -0000 "Margaret North" <famwizard@googlemail.com> wrote: Hello Margaret, > We think life is difficult now but we don't know we are born in > some ways do we? Indeed we don't. -- Regards _ / ) "The blindingly obvious is / _)rad never immediately apparent"

Hi Di It depends on what you understand charge to mean Since 1872 fees for Baptism, either the sacrament or registration were abolished However there is nothing to stop a charge being made for a Baptismal Certificate or a request made for a donation Nivard Ovington in Cornwall (UK) > The church has always charged for baptisms I found out. > > Di

Hello Brad, Yes, we do get used to having it easy with all that has come online in the last years and have to remember that the vast majority of it should only be used as a finding aid. I have been particularly spoiled with my research in that all of my maternal grandmother's family came from the Fylde area of Lancashire and my father's family from Manchester, Salford and other parts of Lancashire. The records office is a bus ride away and more recently we have been further spoiled here in Lancashire with Lancs BMD and also Lancashire Online Parish Clerk; for both of which I have been involved in transcribing records. When I began research about fifteen years ago I spent hours poring over the records on microfilm or fiche and love nothing more than a good Will. Those of single women or childless widows have been particularly helpful when they name all the nieces and nephews. My great-great-grandparents didn't marry until 1863 in Manchester Cathedral about fourteen years after the birth of their first child and I have always thought that they were too busy trying to make ends meet to afford to get married. We think life is difficult now but we don't know we are born in some ways do we? Best wishes, Margaret. -----Original Message----- From: suffolk-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:suffolk-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Brad Rogers Sent: 11 December 2010 18:06 To: Suffolk ML Subject: Re: [SFK-UK] REEVE lookup request On Sat, 11 Dec 2010 15:55:27 -0000 "Margaret North" <famwizard@googlemail.com> wrote: Hello Margaret, > Yes, batch baptisms happened quite a lot didn't they? In this case I Certainly more often than some people might suppose. > am particularly interested to establish the abode of the family and the Most often, you'll get only the name of a parish for abode. But I'm sure you know that. > entry. It is so frustrating not being able to get to the relevant > archive to view the film or fiche of the register for ancestors who > didn't live within the Lancashire boundaries. I feel your pain, but we're so used to having it easy: Don't forget that genealogists have, up until recently, had to travel the length and breadth of the country to get the data they're after. Heaven forfend that ancestors should have came from, or travelled to, overseas! -- Regards _ / ) "The blindingly obvious is / _)rad never immediately apparent" ------------------------------- 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

The church has always charged for baptisms I found out. Di On 11/12/2010 18:59, richard wrote: > I always understood that the church did not charge for baptisms,that all > were welcome to the house of god. > Richard Myhill > > richardmyhill43@btinternet.com > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Brad Rogers"<brad@fineby.me.uk> > To: "Suffolk ML"<suffolk@rootsweb.com> > Sent: Saturday, December 11, 2010 2:50 PM > Subject: Re: [SFK-UK] REEVE lookup request > > >> On Sat, 11 Dec 2010 14:19:09 -0000 >> "Margaret North"<famwizard@googlemail.com> wrote: >> >> Hello Margaret, >> >>> I don't think they were twins as Robert William's birth was registered >>> in 1879 and Alice Maud's in 1882. I would like to know exactly what >>> is written in the register for each of these children please. >> I can't say what's in the Registers as, Like you, I'm too far away to do >> a look-up myself. However, it's not uncommon for families to baptise >> their children in 'batches'. There can be many reasons for this, ranging >> from lack of time (and then forgot) to baptise the first to having to >> save up to pay the fees and taking in a "special offer" by the >> incumbent: Buy one get one free, for example. >> >> -- >> Regards _ >> / ) "The blindingly obvious is >> / _)rad never immediately apparent" >> >> ------------------------------- >> 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 Richard You are quite correct At certain points in time there was or could be a fee for Baptisms but the 1872 Act abolished them Most Churches these days state the Baptism is free but suggest a donation of £XXX should be made Nivard Ovington in Cornwall (UK) >I always understood that the church did not charge for baptisms,that all > were welcome to the house of god. > Richard Myhill

Sorry you are wrong, they did indeed charge a fee for bapts. parish records do show how much was paid and whether the persons family were excepted by the wording pauper by the side of the records. ( Hence the creation of AT'st's and BT's which were a way of seeing just how much money the church was collecting and to pick up any irregularitys , these records were always as far as I understand sent with an record of the Churches accounts. This practice of charging was at some point stopped. Honor ________________________________ From: richard <richardmyhill43@btinternet.com> To: suffolk@rootsweb.com Sent: Saturday, 11 December, 2010 18:59:03 snip> I always understood that the church did not charge for baptisms,that all were welcome to the house of god. Richard Myhill <snip

Image sent - it's definitely not Snowland, might even be Ireland! Anne South Australia Rebecca Chapman wrote: > Hi, > > > > I wonder if someone who has access to Ancestry would be kind enough to check > a piece of information for me please. There is an entry in the London > burials in 1866 in the Brent District for a Martha Sosland. I wonder if > someone would be able to look and tell me if the original is Sosland or in > fact Snowland please? > > > > Many thanks for you time > > > > Rebecca

I always understood that the church did not charge for baptisms,that all were welcome to the house of god. Richard Myhill richardmyhill43@btinternet.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "Brad Rogers" <brad@fineby.me.uk> To: "Suffolk ML" <suffolk@rootsweb.com> Sent: Saturday, December 11, 2010 2:50 PM Subject: Re: [SFK-UK] REEVE lookup request > On Sat, 11 Dec 2010 14:19:09 -0000 > "Margaret North" <famwizard@googlemail.com> wrote: > > Hello Margaret, > >> I don't think they were twins as Robert William's birth was registered >> in 1879 and Alice Maud's in 1882. I would like to know exactly what >> is written in the register for each of these children please. > > I can't say what's in the Registers as, Like you, I'm too far away to do > a look-up myself. However, it's not uncommon for families to baptise > their children in 'batches'. There can be many reasons for this, ranging > from lack of time (and then forgot) to baptise the first to having to > save up to pay the fees and taking in a "special offer" by the > incumbent: Buy one get one free, for example. > > -- > Regards _ > / ) "The blindingly obvious is > / _)rad never immediately apparent" > > ------------------------------- > 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

On Sat, 11 Dec 2010 15:55:27 -0000 "Margaret North" <famwizard@googlemail.com> wrote: Hello Margaret, > Yes, batch baptisms happened quite a lot didn't they? In this case I Certainly more often than some people might suppose. > am particularly interested to establish the abode of the family and the Most often, you'll get only the name of a parish for abode. But I'm sure you know that. > entry. It is so frustrating not being able to get to the relevant > archive to view the film or fiche of the register for ancestors who > didn't live within the Lancashire boundaries. I feel your pain, but we're so used to having it easy: Don't forget that genealogists have, up until recently, had to travel the length and breadth of the country to get the data they're after. Heaven forfend that ancestors should have came from, or travelled to, overseas! -- Regards _ / ) "The blindingly obvious is / _)rad never immediately apparent"

Hello Brad, Yes, batch baptisms happened quite a lot didn't they? In this case I am particularly interested to establish the abode of the family and the occupation of the father so I would like a full transcript of each entry. It is so frustrating not being able to get to the relevant archive to view the film or fiche of the register for ancestors who didn't live within the Lancashire boundaries. Best wishes, Margaret. -----Original Message----- From: suffolk-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:suffolk-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Brad Rogers Sent: 11 December 2010 14:50 To: Suffolk ML Subject: Re: [SFK-UK] REEVE lookup request On Sat, 11 Dec 2010 14:19:09 -0000 "Margaret North" <famwizard@googlemail.com> wrote: Hello Margaret, > I don't think they were twins as Robert William's birth was registered > in 1879 and Alice Maud's in 1882. I would like to know exactly what > is written in the register for each of these children please. I can't say what's in the Registers as, Like you, I'm too far away to do a look-up myself. However, it's not uncommon for families to baptise their children in 'batches'. There can be many reasons for this, ranging from lack of time (and then forgot) to baptise the first to having to save up to pay the fees and taking in a "special offer" by the incumbent: Buy one get one free, for example. -- Regards _ / ) "The blindingly obvious is / _)rad never immediately apparent" ------------------------------- 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

Folks, Every week or so (or whenever the digest gets to about 20 KB), I'm forwarding to the List those posts that have been "gatewayed" from RootsWeb's SUFFOLK Board that might contain information of interest to List subscribers, and here's the current "digest" of such gatewayed posts. If you wish to respond to any of these gatewayed posts, please do so by clicking on the relevant "Message Board URL:" link and NOT by responding either to the list OR to my address as the digest poster. Board posters will not see your List response unless they are also subscribed to the List, and most are not. PLEASE also be careful about responding to any post and inadvertently re-posting the ENTIRE digest to the list! More information on RootsWeb's Boards can be found at: http://boards.RootsWeb.com/boardfaq.aspx#undefined , and the Board "home page" is at: http://boards.rootsweb.com/?o_iid=33216&o_lid=33216 . If you have any questions about the Boards or what the following is, pls contact me off-list at: mailto:SUFFOLK-admin@rootsweb.com . Thanks, Peter SUFFOLK List Admin. -------------------------------------------------- Re: ST PETERS CHILLESFORD LOOKUP This is a Message Board Post that is gatewayed to this mailing list. Author: robertstudd Surnames: Classification: queries Message Board URL: http://boards.rootsweb.com/localities.britisles.england.sfk.general/8521.3.1.1/mb.ashx Message Board Post: Hi , Im also related to the Bantofts and have James and Charlotte Plant on my tree with Children Ann 1834,William 1835 Henry 1837, Catherine 1839 and the elusive George 1840.If you concur, I can tell you the marriages and the Children of the above if you have not already got them and if indeed it is of some interest. Regards Bob -------------------------------------------------- THE MURKIN FAMILY This is a Message Board Post that is gatewayed to this mailing list. Author: raymurkin2 Surnames: Classification: queries Message Board URL: http://boards.rootsweb.com/localities.britisles.england.sfk.general/8639/mb.ashx Message Board Post: HI MY NAME IS RAY AND I AM HOPING THAT FOLKS OUT THERE WITH THE SAME SURNAME WOULD LIKE TO SHARE INFOMATION REGARDING THE FAMILY NAME -------------------------------------------------- Re: ST PETERS CHILLESFORD LOOKUP This is a Message Board Post that is gatewayed to this mailing list. Author: tlevett1 Surnames: Classification: queries Message Board URL: http://boards.rootsweb.com/localities.britisles.england.sfk.general/8521.4/mb.ashx Message Board Post: I have just purchased the full records for the Parish of Chillesford on fiche 1740 to 1900 and will be in a position to do look-ups at the beginning of the new year and hopefully help to clear up some of the mysteries mentioned in this thread, Terry. -------------------------------------------------- Re: ST PETERS CHILLESFORD LOOKUP This is a Message Board Post that is gatewayed to this mailing list. Author: rmgaris Surnames: Bantoft, Banthorpe, Bantrick, Knights, Plant Classification: queries Message Board URL: http://boards.rootsweb.com/localities.britisles.england.sfk.general/8521.3.1.1.1/mb.ashx Message Board Post: Hi Bob, thanks for your offer. We are particularly interested in details of Catherine b. 1839. Was it this Catherine (daughter of James & Charlotte) or the Catherine (b. about the same time to Samuel & Eliza) who married John Knights? If it was Catherine (daughter of Samuel & Eliza), then what happened to Catherine (daughter of James & Charlotte)? By the way, we purchased the birth certificate of George Bantoft b. 1840 only to discover parents listed as Benjamin & Mary Bantoft! Nevertheless we still can't help wondering whether young George was "adopted" by Benjamin & Mary following his mother's death only a month after he was born. Kind regards Robyn -------------------------------------------------- Re: ST PETERS CHILLESFORD LOOKUP This is a Message Board Post that is gatewayed to this mailing list. Author: robertstudd Surnames: Classification: queries Message Board URL: http://boards.rootsweb.com/localities.britisles.england.sfk.general/8521.3.1.1.1.1/mb.ashx Message Board Post: Hi Robyn, The Catherine bn abt 1839 who Married John Knights was the Daughter of Samuel Bantoft 1809-1894 and Eliza Ward 1808-1868,both Buried Chillesford. The Catherine bn April 21st 1839 the Daughter of James Bantoft and Charlotte Plant was Baptised 3rd May 1839 and Buried 25th July 1840 at St Peters Church,Chillesford.Aged abt 14 months. I see what you mean regarding the elusive George as I couldnt find him either relating to James and Charlotte , on early Census Sheets only to the Names you mentioned.i also have Charlottes Death as 1840,so you are more than likely correct. -------------------------------------------------- Re: Bastardy record - help needed This is a Message Board Post that is gatewayed to this mailing list. Author: jr_jameson_au Surnames: Classification: queries Message Board URL: http://boards.rootsweb.com/localities.britisles.england.sfk.general/8638.1.1/mb.ashx Message Board Post: Thanks for that - useful stuff. So I presume that another record confirms Charles Jolly as the father - under the heading of "Affiliation and bastardy papers / Affiliation orders" I find: Mehitabel Bareham (Mother) FL501/7/619 1832 These documents are held at Suffolk Record Office, Bury St Edmunds Branch Contents: Charles Jolly of Hundon, labourer (Father) 4 Jun. 1832 I found a christening record for Charles Bareham to mother Mehetabel Bareham (but no father listed) on 8 May 1832. I'm guessing this is the child fathered by Charles Jolly - is there any way to confirm? Regards ... John -------------------------------------------------- Re: parish records lookups This is a Message Board Post that is gatewayed to this mailing list. Author: jr_jameson_au Surnames: Classification: queries Message Board URL: http://boards.rootsweb.com/localities.britisles.england.sfk.general/8609.14/mb.ashx Message Board Post: Hi Kate, I'm trying to find more details on Mehetabel Bareham who I believe had two bastard sons John and Charles before she married Jonas Mayzes circa 1835. She was born and grew up in Clare before moving to Essex with Jonas. Anything you can add would be much appreciated. TIA ... John -------------------------------------------------- Re: Marjoram Family Tree This is a Message Board Post that is gatewayed to this mailing list. Author: geavic Surnames: Classification: queries Message Board URL: http://boards.rootsweb.com/localities.britisles.england.sfk.general/8528.8/mb.ashx Message Board Post: Australian BDM records have Mary also known as: Margreur or Margrair and surnames Marjaram, Marjoram and Hayaram Mary Ann Marjoram, some believe to be a Gypsy from Knoodishalt, Suffolk. Born: 15 MAY 1795 Suffolk, England Parents Thomas Marjoram (1769-70 d.- ) Elizabeth Watling (1770-73 d - ) In 1812, Mary Ann Marjoram was 16 years of age, working as servant and was charged with setting fire to a house. This details Mary Ann's crime of arson. She is alleged to have burnt down the house of Howard Welton of Raddingham on 25 November 1811. Mary was tried at At Suffold Assizes and sentenced to death, which was commuted to transportation for life, due to her youth and first offence. Mary was transported to Australia aboard the "Wanstead" and arrived Sydney, January 1814, and was placed at Parramatta, Arrival: 1814. Mary Ann Marjoram is transported to Australia aboard the Wanstead. Assignation: Richard BATTY b: 27 Aug 1797 in Sydney Cove NSW. Richard BATTY and Mary MARJORAM had a child Richard (April,1818) in Parramatta, NSW. Richard junior's death certificate states that his father was Richard BATTY, a painter and mother Mary Ann MARJORAM. Mary received permission to marry in 1819 and already with her first child Richard in 1820 married John William Coates who was transported to Sydney on the "Sir William Bensley". Married: John William Coates on 3 JAN 1820, Australia Spouse: John William Coates (1792-1847) B: 1792 Trimdon, Durham, , England D: 8 DEC 1847 New South Wales, Australia Children of Richard Batty and Mary Ann Marjoram Richard Coates (1818-) (Source: Carolyn Wilson) Spouse: Ann Susanna Children of John William Coates and Mary Ann Marjoram William COATES raised Mary's son Richard as his own circa 1857, Richard decided to change his name to his father's surname Batty. 1. Jane Coates (1821-1893) 2. Mary Coates (1823-1848) 3. Eleanor Coates (1825-1865) 4. Louisa Coates (1826-1909) 5. Matilda Coates (1827-) 6. John William Coates Jnr. (1827-) 7. Alfred Coates (1831-) 8. Emma Coates (1833-) 9. Ann Coates (1835-) There are many descendents in Australia trace their ancestry to Mary. -------------------------------------------------- Re: Marjoram Family Tree This is a Message Board Post that is gatewayed to this mailing list. Author: geavic Surnames: Classification: queries Message Board URL: http://boards.rootsweb.com/localities.britisles.england.sfk.general/8528.9/mb.ashx Message Board Post: Australian BDM records have Mary also known as: Margreur or Margrair and surnames Marjaram, Marjoram and Hayaram Mary Ann Marjoram, some believe to be a Gypsy from Knoodishalt, Suffolk. Born: 15 MAY 1795 Suffolk, England Parents Thomas Marjoram (1769-70 d.- ) Elizabeth Watling (1770-73 d - ) In 1812, Mary Ann Marjoram was 16 years of age, working as servant and was charged with setting fire to a house. This details Mary Ann's crime of arson. She is alleged to have burnt down the house of Howard Welton of Raddingham on 25 November 1811. Mary was tried at At Suffold Assizes and sentenced to death, which was commuted to transportation for life, due to her youth and first offence. Mary was transported to Australia aboard the "Wanstead" and arrived Sydney, January 1814, and was placed at Parramatta, Arrival: 1814. Mary Ann Marjoram is transported to Australia aboard the Wanstead. Assignation: Richard BATTY b: 27 Aug 1797 in Sydney Cove NSW. Richard BATTY and Mary MARJORAM had a child Richard (April,1818) in Parramatta, NSW. Richard junior's death certificate states that his father was Richard BATTY, a painter and mother Mary Ann MARJORAM. Mary received permission to marry in 1819 and already with her first child Richard in 1820 married John William Coates who was transported to Sydney on the "Sir William Bensley". Married: John William Coates on 3 JAN 1820, Australia Spouse: John William Coates (1792-1847) B: 1792 Trimdon, Durham, , England D: 8 DEC 1847 New South Wales, Australia Children of Richard Batty and Mary Ann Marjoram Richard Coates (1818-) (Source: Carolyn Wilson) Spouse: Ann Susanna Children of John William Coates and Mary Ann Marjoram William COATES raised Mary's son Richard as his own circa 1857, Richard decided to change his name to his father's surname Batty. 1. Jane Coates (1821-1893) 2. Mary Coates (1823-1848) 3. Eleanor Coates (1825-1865) 4. Louisa Coates (1826-1909) 5. Matilda Coates (1827-) 6. John William Coates Jnr. (1827-) 7. Alfred Coates (1831-) 8. Emma Coates (1833-) 9. Ann Coates (1835-) -------------------------------------------------- Re: Marjoram Family Tree This is a Message Board Post that is gatewayed to this mailing list. Author: geavic Surnames: Classification: queries Message Board URL: http://boards.rootsweb.com/localities.britisles.england.sfk.general/8528.3.2/mb.ashx Message Board Post: MARY Marjoram 1795 in Australia is referenced in a booklet by Beverley Earnshaw ~ A Century of Pioneers ~ The story of five pioneer families in the Central West. Copyright 1984 Beverley Earnshaw. -------------------------------------------------- Re: parish records lookups This is a Message Board Post that is gatewayed to this mailing list. Author: kathleendaley60 Surnames: buck Classification: lookup Message Board URL: http://boards.rootsweb.com/localities.britisles.england.sfk.general/8609.15/mb.ashx Message Board Post: hi thank you for your help on my last 2 lookups it a great help ...hope you maybe able to help me once more william buck d.o.b. 1858 Ipswich i only have father name edward buck 2nd one is william baker d.o.b.1858 ipswich father edward baker thank you kathy -------------------------------------------------- Re: Marjoram Family Tree This is a Message Board Post that is gatewayed to this mailing list. Author: suffolkmawther Surnames: Classification: queries Message Board URL: http://boards.rootsweb.com/localities.britisles.england.sfk.general/8528.3.2.1/mb.ashx Message Board Post: She Suffolk village mentioned above would be Knodishall in East Suffolk. Pat ... -------------------------------------------------- Re: Marjoram Family Tree This is a Message Board Post that is gatewayed to this mailing list. Author: suffolkmawther Surnames: Classification: queries Message Board URL: http://boards.rootsweb.com/localities.britisles.england.sfk.general/8528.3.2.1.1/mb.ashx Message Board Post: Above should read The Suffolk village ... Where was Raddingham? No parish of that name in the county. Pat ... -------------------------------------------------- Re: Bastardy record - help needed This is a Message Board Post that is gatewayed to this mailing list. Author: suffolkmawther Surnames: Classification: queries Message Board URL: http://boards.rootsweb.com/localities.britisles.england.sfk.general/8638.1.1.1/mb.ashx Message Board Post: The Bastardy records that you mention are recorded on card index system in a wooden cabinet on the first floor of the Bury St Edmunds branch of the Suffolk Record Office and are easily accessed if anyone is going along they could carry out a look up for you. Pat ... -------------------------------------------------- Re: buck...row....woor This is a Message Board Post that is gatewayed to this mailing list. Author: kathleendaley60 Surnames: buck row woor Classification: queries Message Board URL: http://boards.rootsweb.com/localities.britisles.england.sfk.general/8621.1.2/mb.ashx Message Board Post: william buck d.o.b 1859 father edward buck ipswich ann woor sufolk d.o.b 1846-1921 limehouse married 1870 josiah row suffolk d.o.b 1848-1903 linehouse father of josiah jonathan row ann father robert woor 1807-1874 mother harriet bridge 1807-1880 alice jane row 1865 sudburn may have mother name of woor -------------------------------------------------- Re: Bastardy record - help needed This is a Message Board Post that is gatewayed to this mailing list. Author: jr_jameson_au Surnames: Classification: queries Message Board URL: http://boards.rootsweb.com/localities.britisles.england.sfk.general/8638.1.1.1.1/mb.ashx Message Board Post: Now that would be a real kindness - Sydney to Bury St Edmunds is a bit far :-) -------------------------------------------------- Re: Marjoram Family Tree This is a Message Board Post that is gatewayed to this mailing list. Author: ejw2713 Surnames: Classification: queries Message Board URL: http://boards.rootsweb.com/localities.britisles.england.sfk.general/8528.3.2.1.1.1/mb.ashx Message Board Post: Could be Badingham? I've often seen it recorded as 'Baddingham' so not much of a stretch to change the first letter? -------------------------------------------------- Re: Marjoram Family Tree This is a Message Board Post that is gatewayed to this mailing list. Author: suffolkmawther Surnames: Classification: queries Message Board URL: http://boards.rootsweb.com/localities.britisles.england.sfk.general/8528.3.2.1.1.1.1/mb.ashx Message Board Post: ejw2713 I think you are correct with Badingham. Checked 1844 White's as it is the nearest reference I have to hand at home. In Badingham in 1844 there are John Welton - blacksmith Richard Welton - grocer and blacksmith Robert Welton - farmer We have (master) blacksmiths in our family and they usually employed a house servant as did many farmers, so this could well be a connection. Just the one Marjoram in our tree, Elizabeth who married Watson Bridges a blacksmith in Framlingham in 1799 (he was born in 1769). Pat ... -------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------

Folks, Every week or so (or whenever the digest gets to about 20 KB), I'm forwarding to the List those posts that have been "gatewayed" from RootsWeb's SUFFOLK Board that might contain information of interest to List subscribers, and here's the current "digest" of such gatewayed posts. If you wish to respond to any of these gatewayed posts, please do so by clicking on the relevant "Message Board URL:" link and NOT by responding either to the list OR to my address as the digest poster. Board posters will not see your List response unless they are also subscribed to the List, and most are not. PLEASE also be careful about responding to any post and inadvertently re-posting the ENTIRE digest to the list! More information on RootsWeb's Boards can be found at: http://boards.RootsWeb.com/boardfaq.aspx#undefined , and the Board "home page" is at: http://boards.rootsweb.com/?o_iid=33216&o_lid=33216 . If you have any questions about the Boards or what the following is, pls contact me off-list at: mailto:SUFFOLK-admin@rootsweb.com . Thanks, Peter SUFFOLK List Admin. -------------------------------------------------- Re: Gowings of Lowestoft Suffolk This is a Message Board Post that is gatewayed to this mailing list. Author: jo_morris Surnames: Classification: queries Message Board URL: http://boards.rootsweb.com/localities.britisles.england.sfk.general/8304.1/mb.ashx Message Board Post: Hi I am descended from Lewis Weston Dillwyn; his brother George m Sarah Ann Gowing, so we definitely have a link. I've recently placed my tree on Ancestry (Dave M's Ancestry) , so hopefully you can see it if there is anything on there that'll help you especially on the Dillwyn side. I am a bit short on the Gowing side, though. Best Wishes Dave Morris -------------------------------------------------- Re: parish records lookups This is a Message Board Post that is gatewayed to this mailing list. Author: GrahamWalterGooch Surnames: Gooch - Wall Classification: queries Message Board URL: http://boards.rootsweb.com/localities.britisles.england.sfk.general/8609.13/mb.ashx Message Board Post: Hi Kate, My Great Grandfather X 4 Thomas Gooch was born abt 1795 and married a Lucy Wall somewhere in Suffolk; he became a Brewer and was said to have had a brewery in Hailsham Sussex for several years. His son,also named Thomas was married in 1844 to Eliza Titley at the parish church at Trowbridge, County Wiltshire on April 9th 1844. I am trying to find evidence of the marriage between Thomas Gooch and Lucy Wall. -------------------------------------------------- Bastardy record - help needed This is a Message Board Post that is gatewayed to this mailing list. Author: jr_jameson_au Surnames: Classification: queries Message Board URL: http://boards.rootsweb.com/localities.britisles.england.sfk.general/8638/mb.ashx Message Board Post: Can sks help me understand what the following record means? And if anyone visits the Suffolk Records Office and could extract the details that would be really appreciated. Here's the NAA record of interest, under the heading of "Affiliation and bastardy papers" :- "Examination of Mehitabel Bareham of Clare FL501/7/653 1831 These documents are held at Suffolk Record Office, Bury St Edmunds Branch damaged and defective Contents: Concerning the bastard child soon to be born to her fathered by Charles Jolly of Hundon 21 Nov. 1831" TIA ... John -------------------------------------------------- Re: HELP NEEDED for the birth date of SAMUEL HOWLETT, born WOOLPIT, SUFFOLK about 1836/1842?? This is a Message Board Post that is gatewayed to this mailing list. Author: joanharvey61d Surnames: HOWLETT/SLOW/MURRELL/GODDARD Classification: queries Message Board URL: http://boards.rootsweb.com/localities.britisles.england.sfk.general/8609.9.1.2.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.2/mb.ashx Message Board Post: Hi jon Sorry for the late reply, and many thanks for your help. My gt grandmother, Caroline Howlett, birth cert, states Born 26 May 1874, West Street, Red Hill, Reigate Father is SAMUEL HOWLETT, a Farm Labourer Mother is ELIZA HOWLETT, formerly MURRELL (Marked with X) My query is, when SAMUEL HOWLETT and ELIZA MURRELL marry, their marriage cert states Married on 18 Oct 1864, The Register Office, Reigate, Surrey SAMUEL HOWLETT, age 24, a Bachelor, occ. a Limeburner, Father is JOHN HOWLETT, a Blacksmith ELIZA SLOW (NOT MURRELL) age 21, Spinster, father is THOMAS SLOW, occ. a Farm Labourer. So between 1864 and 1874, ELIZA HOWLETT has changed her single name from SLOW to MURRELL. Which is very strange. All I can think of is that I believe her mothers name was originally SLOW. Then her mother re-married to a THOMAS MURRELL. Otherwise, was ELIZA born out of wedlock, so took her mothers single name of SLOW??? All rather confusing, to say the least. I would be very grateful for your advice and help. Thank you Joan Harvey (nee Hands) from Erith, Kent -------------------------------------------------- Re: HELP NEEDED for the birth date of SAMUEL HOWLETT, born WOOLPIT, SUFFOLK about 1836/1842?? This is a Message Board Post that is gatewayed to this mailing list. Author: suffolkmawther Surnames: Classification: queries Message Board URL: http://boards.rootsweb.com/localities.britisles.england.sfk.general/8609.9.1.2.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.2.1/mb.ashx Message Board Post: As there is a ten year gap between the wedding and the birth of their daughter Caroline, do you have details of any other children (from census returns perhaps)? If not, it is possible that Samuel lost his first wife Eliza Murrell and then re-married another Eliza (it often happened that wives had same names). However, I note that in the 1901 census Eliza Howlett age 52 is at home with George Budgen age 61 a lodger and a niece - Agnes Murrell age 10 years! These are all references to the county of Surrey - at the moment you are posting on the message board for the county of Suffolk. Might help to ask for more help on the Surrey Board :-) Pat ... -------------------------------------------------- Re: HELP NEEDED for the birth date of SAMUEL HOWLETT, born WOOLPIT, SUFFOLK about 1836/1842?? This is a Message Board Post that is gatewayed to this mailing list. Author: joanharvey61d Surnames: Classification: queries Message Board URL: http://boards.rootsweb.com/localities.britisles.england.sfk.general/8609.9.1.2.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.2.1.1/mb.ashx Message Board Post: Hi Pat Many thanks for your reply, help and advice. I have found my gt gt grandparents Samuel and Eliza Howlett (nee SLOW/MURRELL) in 1871 & 1881 census, living in Reigate, Surrey. 1871 Census - living Labroke Rd, Reigate Samuel Howlett Married, age 31, born Woolpit, Suffolk Eliza Howlett, Married, age 24, born Thackham? or Merstham? Mary Ann Howlett, daur, age 5, born Redhill, Reigate George Howlett, son, age 3, born Reigate John Howlett, son, age 1, born Reigate 1818 Census - living The Market Place, High St, Reigate THE NAME HOWLETT has been mistranscribed - it has HAMLETT, this is wrong, should be HOWLETT The same family Samuel Howlett is age 39, born Woolpit Eliza Howlett age 37, born Godstone, Surrey Mary Ann, age 15 George Howlett age 13 John Howlett age 11 Caroline Howlett age 6 (my gt grandmother) I'm still unsure of Eliza, as I have said, in 1864 she is ELIZA SLOW, when she marries, then 1874, she becomes ELIZA MURRELL, on her daughter, Carolines birth cert, how strange. Perhaps she is another wife name ELIZA????? I am very grateful for your help, any other ideas please?? Many thanks Joan Harvey -------------------------------------------------- Re: HELP NEEDED for the birth date of SAMUEL HOWLETT, born WOOLPIT, SUFFOLK about 1836/1842?? This is a Message Board Post that is gatewayed to this mailing list. Author: jonwarrn Surnames: Classification: queries Message Board URL: http://boards.rootsweb.com/localities.britisles.england.sfk.general/8609.9.1.2.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.2.1.1.1/mb.ashx Message Board Post: Hi I think maybe Eliza's parents weren't married. Not 100% sure on all of this - Going on the niece, Agnes Murrell, 10 born Croydon in 1901 - it looks to me as though she might be the daughter of Amos Murrell (born 1857 Merstham) - in 1891 he has a daughter Emily born Oxted (registered Godstone June 1890), she died in March 1892 Croydon?, in 1901 Amos's family is in Croydon Agnes Murrell birth possiby registered March 1892 Croydon, same time place as Emily's death. In 1911 I think Agnes is still in the Reigate area, and says she is born Oxted. Going back to the 1861 census, in the Reigate district, piece 444 folio 149 page 3, you have Thomas and Eliza Murrell, children include Eliza 14 and Amos 4. They are still around in 1871, I don't know if they are near to the Howletts. Eliza may be quite a bit younger than Thomas, her age is a little in doubt, born Bromley Kent - 74 in 1891? an Eliza Slow was bap Bromley 7 March 1819 to James and Elizabeth. On the other hand she could be Slow by a marriage? Haven't found Thomas Eliza yet in 1851, can't even say they are together, so a lot of mystery still John -------------------------------------------------- Re: HELP NEEDED for the birth date of SAMUEL HOWLETT, born WOOLPIT, SUFFOLK about 1836/1842?? This is a Message Board Post that is gatewayed to this mailing list. Author: joanharvey61d Surnames: SLOW/MURRELL/HOWLETT/GODDARD from SURREY & WOOLPIT, SUFFOLK Classification: queries Message Board URL: http://boards.rootsweb.com/localities.britisles.england.sfk.general/8609.9.1.2.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.2.1.1.1.1/mb.ashx Message Board Post: Hi Jon Thanks for your reply and help, it is very much like a difficult jig-saw puzzle trying to fit everyone together. I have been told by a contact on genesreunited that they also believe that ELIZA SLOW/MURRELL parents never married. They have on their tree, Eliza Murrell, born 1844, Thackham, Surrey is the daughter of Thomas Murrell, born 1806 and Eliza Slow, born 1819. Parents of Thomas Murrell are Richard Murrell, b. 1776, Cove, Hampshire and Maria Bailey, b. 1777, they married in Yateley, Hampshire. If this is correct, why has Eliza given her name as "SLOW" on her marriage cert, in 1864 at Reigate, when she married Samuel Howlett?? But her name is MURRELL,(former name) as mother on her daughters (Caroline HOWLETT) birth cert, in 1874, all very confusing. The 1871 census has Thomas Murrell age 68, born Yateley, Hampshire and Eliza Murrell age 57, born Bromley, Kent, living Labroke Rd, Reigate. In the same household are Samuel and Eliza Howlett with their children, Mary Ann, George and John. So Thomas and Eliza Murrell surely must be the parents of Eliza Howlett (nee Slow/Murrell). Eliza Howlett has, born Thakeham, in the census for 1871, but in 1881 census,(NAME is HAMLETT, a mistake) it has born in Godstone, Surrey. Do you know where Thakeham is? Is it near to Godstone? Not sure about that, any ideas? I wonder if Thakeham is meant to read "Mertsham", as the writing is not very clear. Another mystery is SAMUEL HOWLETT, my gt gt grandfather. He was born Woolpit, Suffolk, the problem with him is, (I believe) that he has given the wrong ages all through census returns, making it difficult to find him. But I think he was born in 1835, Woolpit, but going by census, he supposed to be born about 1840. His father on marriage cert is John Howlett, a blacksmith. Another confusion is Samuel Howlett's age on marriage cert in 1864, is age 24. O dear, will I ever find the truth!!!! Many thanks for your help, much appreciated. Joan Harvey -------------------------------------------------- Re: HELP NEEDED for the birth date of SAMUEL HOWLETT, born WOOLPIT, SUFFOLK about 1836/1842?? This is a Message Board Post that is gatewayed to this mailing list. Author: jonwarrn Surnames: Classification: queries Message Board URL: http://boards.rootsweb.com/localities.britisles.england.sfk.general/8609.9.1.2.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.2.1.1.1.1.1/mb.ashx Message Board Post: Hi Joan The first possible baptism I can see is George Murrell in 1849 Betchworth to Thomas Eliza. But there are quite a few Murrells in these parts. If somebody has acquired one of the later birth certificates they may have some proof that the mother was Eliza Slow. I am not sure I can pin down a birth registration for Eliza, possibly there is one, but which? If the parents didn't marry they do sometimes use the mother's name, perhaps when it came to her marriage she got a bit nervous or worried as to whether she should use the Murrell name? Even though it would be her legal name if her birth was registered. If you can't find any evidence of the Samuel Howlett from 1835 being someone else - I suppose that would mean a marriage, death, census record or emigration - then it seems reasonable to suppose he is your Samuel, he might just be narrowing down an age gap with Eliza of about 9-12 years (depending on what her age was exactly!) Similarly if they are with the Murrell family in 71 (sorry, didn't realise this) then I agree with you, they should be her family Sadly you probably won't be able to find out now why they said these things, but I honestly think there is enough evidence to say who they are, with some confidence. But you are right to keep worrying away at it, there is a slight feeling something is missing! Wish I could find Eliza in 1851, it might help a bit more. I don't know where that place is, there's a Thakeham in Sussex, I don't think she was born in Reigate, its another mystery! Best wishes John -------------------------------------------------- Re: Bastardy record - help needed This is a Message Board Post that is gatewayed to this mailing list. Author: crusoe123 Surnames: Classification: queries Message Board URL: http://boards.rootsweb.com/localities.britisles.england.sfk.general/8638.1/mb.ashx Message Board Post: It means that Mehitabel Bareham of Clare was pregnant, and webt before the Magistrates to say whose child it was. She obviously alleged that the father was Charles Jolly of Hundon The date of the hearing was 21 November 1831. Damaged and defective, probably relates to the copy of the transcript of the evidence. If Mehitabel was in such circumstances that she could not provide for a child, then she would try to prove the parentage, prior to the birth. Later, you could only go to Court about this type of thing after the birth of the child. It was a means of obtaining either a weekly allowance from the father, or a lump sum. Often you geat to know what order was made, if parentage was proved, or, if unproved, then the case would be dismissed. -------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------