On 27/10/2012 8:00 p.m., [email protected] wrote: > > Today's Topics: > > 1. RANT family around Ipswich circa 1740 (and other periods) > (David Cullingford) > 2. Re: natural born? (Carol Clarke) > 3. Re: RANT family around Ipswich circa 1740 (and other periods) > (Peter J Richardson) > 4. Re: Warren Family (mcculley) > 5. Re: Warren Family (e-mail anne.cruise1) > 6. Re: Warren Family (mcculley) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2012 12:53:00 +0100 (GMT Daylight Time) > From: "David Cullingford" <[email protected]> > Subject: [SFK-UK] RANT family around Ipswich circa 1740 (and other > periods) > To: <[email protected]> > Message-ID: <[email protected]> > Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > > Hi > > This is a crossover from my Norfolk research and I was wondering if there > were any researchers on this list who have an interest in this family? > > Humphrey Rant, barrister, born 1708 in Bunwell, Norfolk, Died 1779 in > Marlingford, Nfk. Married to Mary Life, daughter of Nathaniel Life, died > 1781 in Marlingford. > Humphrey was practicing in Ipswich, well that is what the records seem to > infer? > > Children include: > Meux William, born ? Died Ipswich 1769 > Elizabeth, born 1734, Dickleburgh, Nfk, died 1739 in Ipswich > Mary, born 1735, Dickleburgh, married Seymore Leeke. > Susanna, born 1736, Dickleburgh > William, born 1738, Dickleburgh. > There may be more, just that I have not found them yet. > > I am also interested in any other Rant families from Suffolk from the 1700s > and if you are aware of any, before this period? > > One person that eludes me at present is Roger Rant who was present around > Ousden but I believe he was born in Norfolk. He was the father of Roger > Rant, born circa 1600 and also went on to practice law, ending up residing > at Swaffham Prior in Cambridgeshire. > > I have a lot of information on the family from Norfolk and some from Suffolk > (Mendham, South Elmham St Margaret) > > If you are looking at this family, please let me know? > > Regards > > David > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2012 13:02:11 +0100 (BST) > From: Carol Clarke <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [SFK-UK] natural born? > To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> > Message-ID: > <[email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 > > Hi, > Your letter intrigues me and I wonder if we have a connection. I have ELIZABETH CHILVERS born about 1770 place unknown but possibly Bruisyard or Cransford Suffolk. On the 8th. of September 1790 she gave birth to a son GEORGE COLE CHILVERS in Bruisyard Suffolk. A Bastardy Bond exsists for this child against a GEORGE COLE of Bruisyard. I am wondering if this might be the same ELIZABETH as your lady. I also know that ELIZABETH resided at Bruisyard, Cransford, Halesworth and possibly Bungay. Does any of this connect with what you have? > Regards > Carol > ? > > > > ________________________________ > From: Anne & Des Gentleman <[email protected]> > To: [email protected] > Sent: Tuesday, 23 October 2012, 7:17 > Subject: [SFK-UK] natural born? > > Dear Listers, > ? i know i should know but what does the 'natural' mean in? the entries > below please? > > > 11 January 1796 > > Charles natural son of Elizabeth Chilvers > > 25 February 1796 > > Honour natural daughter of Elizabeth Chilvers > > Sincerely Anne Gentleman > > > ------------------------------- > 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 > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 3 > Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2012 13:30:40 +0100 > From: "Peter J Richardson" <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [SFK-UK] RANT family around Ipswich circa 1740 (and other > periods) > To: <[email protected]> > Message-ID: <[email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; > reply-type=original > > Hello David, > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "David Cullingford" <[email protected]> > To: <[email protected]> > Sent: Friday, October 26, 2012 12:53 PM > Subject: [SFK-UK] RANT family around Ipswich circa 1740 (and other periods) > > >> I have a lot of information on the family from Norfolk and some from >> Suffolk >> (Mendham, South Elmham St Margaret) >> >> If you are looking at this family, please let me know? > I have William RANT b.c.1753 who married Jane GEDNEY (chr 29 Apr 1774, > Mendham) at Mendham on 13th September 1798 at Mendham. So far as I can > ascertain William was buried aged 84 at Mendham on 22nd March 1837 and his > wife aged 81 at Mendham on 23rd January 1856. > > My interest is the Gedneys, Jane's parents James Gedny (c.1723-1788) and > Sarah Fisher (c.1730-1815) were my 5xGt grandparents. > > Regards > Peter > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 4 > Date: Sat, 27 Oct 2012 12:20:10 +1100 > From: "mcculley" <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [SFK-UK] Warren Family > To: <[email protected]> > Message-ID: <[email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; > reply-type=original > > An update from your excellent suggestion Ken > I have received a very prompt and helpful reply from Ann. > Sadly I will not be able to confirm the burial place of William or Hannah. > Ann tells me that the graveyard has been turned into a car park and no care > has been taken to preserve the headstones. They appear to have been just > uprooted and thrown into a heap in the corner. Many are broken beyond > recognition and many were in several pieces. The chapel register could not > be found. > How can this type of wilful disrespect of past generations be allowed? > Especially as it is important to note that all the gentle folk buried in > that graveyard were founders of the present day Grace Baptist Church. > Whilst The Time Team value and care for ancient grave yards other > organizations are apparently permitted to do such as Beccles Baptist Church > has done. > Thank you again, Ken, for your help. > Marjorie > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: K Finch > Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2012 6:46 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [SFK-UK] Warren Family > > Have you tried Ann Young who not only does the burial search but also the MI > one for Suffolk FHS. She has led the team who have trascrided records of the > area as well as graveyard transcriptions (our website gives contact details) > > > Ken Finch > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 5 > Date: Sat, 27 Oct 2012 07:05:21 +0100 > From: "e-mail anne.cruise1" <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [SFK-UK] Warren Family > To: [email protected] > Message-ID: > <[email protected]om> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 > > The development of burial grounds is covered by Law. > > Here is a summary of the Law taken from here: > > http://www.spoilheap.co.uk/burial2.htm > > The Disused Burial Grounds (Amendment) Act 1981 and the Pastoral Measure > 1983. > > - the development of a disused burial ground is restricted by the > Disused Burial Grounds Act 1884. > - definition of a disused burial ground - 'any churchyard, cemetery or > other ground, whether consecrated or not, which has at any time been set > apart for the purpose of interment, and which is no longer used for > interments'. > - this does not include intramural burials within a church building. > - the 1983 measure defines a burial ground as 'any land set apart and > consecrated for the purpose of burials whether or not burials have taken > place therein'. > - the 1981 Act and the 1983 Measure regulate the removal of human > remains and tombstones or memorials which may be affected by the > development (the former to non-Church of England, the latter to Church of > England burial grounds). > - other burial grounds are covered by the original 1884 Act, but > development is generally not prohibited if no one has been buried on the > land in the last 50 years. > - notice of the proposed development must be given by the landowner in > local newspapers and at the site. > > The Faculty Jurisdiction Measure 1964 > > - tombstones and other memorials belong to the person who erected them, > and after his death to the heirs of the person in whose memory the monument > was erected. > - grave goods - generally these belong to the landowner, but in > post-medieval or early modern burial sites there may be claims to the > effects from the personal representatives. > > If, after advertisement of the change of use, no heirs of the deceased come > forward to "claim" the memorial, it is assumed there are no heirs. > > If there are true heirs, then if they fail to come forward to claim "what > is theirs", then it would seem to me that any "wilful disrespect" is on > their part for failing to maintain an interest in the burial plot, not on > the part of the developers. > > Anne > > > > On 27 October 2012 02:20, mcculley <[email protected]> wrote: > >> <SNIP> >> How can this type of wilful disrespect of past generations be allowed? > <SNIP> > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 6 > Date: Sat, 27 Oct 2012 17:34:51 +1100 > From: "mcculley" <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [SFK-UK] Warren Family > To: <[email protected]> > Message-ID: <[email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; > reply-type=original > > Thank you Ann for that detailed explanation of the situation. I appreciate > it very much. > It could be a little difficult perhaps for true heirs to come forward to > claim the headstones when they have not been advised of their existence. Any > advertisement of change of use would of course not reached me in Australia > and no part of my family remains in UK. > Perhaps this is why many folk are attempting to study family history to > ascertain where exactly their ancestors are buried. > Families migrate to other countries yet still value their roots as it is > discovered with study and help. > Once again many thanks for you view on the matter. I still however feel it > unfortunate that the headstones were not treated with greater care so that > transcription may have been possible. > Best wishes > Marjorie > > > > > > > I > -----Original Message----- > From: e-mail anne.cruise1 > Sent: Saturday, October 27, 2012 5:05 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [SFK-UK] Warren Family > > The development of burial grounds is covered by Law. > > Here is a summary of the Law taken from here: > > http://www.spoilheap.co.uk/burial2.htm > > The Disused Burial Grounds (Amendment) Act 1981 and the Pastoral Measure > 1983. > > - the development of a disused burial ground is restricted by the > Disused Burial Grounds Act 1884. > - definition of a disused burial ground - 'any churchyard, cemetery or > other ground, whether consecrated or not, which has at any time been set > apart for the purpose of interment, and which is no longer used for > interments'. > - this does not include intramural burials within a church building. > - the 1983 measure defines a burial ground as 'any land set apart and > consecrated for the purpose of burials whether or not burials have taken > place therein'. > - the 1981 Act and the 1983 Measure regulate the removal of human > remains and tombstones or memorials which may be affected by the > development (the former to non-Church of England, the latter to Church of > England burial grounds). > - other burial grounds are covered by the original 1884 Act, but > development is generally not prohibited if no one has been buried on the > land in the last 50 years. > - notice of the proposed development must be given by the landowner in > local newspapers and at the site. > > The Faculty Jurisdiction Measure 1964 > > - tombstones and other memorials belong to the person who erected them, > and after his death to the heirs of the person in whose memory the > monument > was erected. > - grave goods - generally these belong to the landowner, but in > post-medieval or early modern burial sites there may be claims to the > effects from the personal representatives. > > If, after advertisement of the change of use, no heirs of the deceased come > forward to "claim" the memorial, it is assumed there are no heirs. > > If there are true heirs, then if they fail to come forward to claim "what > is theirs", then it would seem to me that any "wilful disrespect" is on > their part for failing to maintain an interest in the burial plot, not on > the part of the developers. > > Anne > > > > ------------------------------- > 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 > > > > > ------------------------------ > > To contact the SUFFOLK list administrator, send an email to > [email protected] > > To post a message to the SUFFOLK mailing list, send an email to [email protected] > > __________________________________________________________ > 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 > email with no additional text. > > > End of SUFFOLK Digest, Vol 7, Issue 225 > *************************************** >