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

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

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

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

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 >

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 >