Genealogists' Forum - We have branches everywhere!



Go Back   Genealogists' Forum - We have branches everywhere! > Research > Research Questions

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 22-06-20, 20:33
Phoenix's Avatar
Phoenix Phoenix is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 6,617
Default Killing them off

Henry Richardson and Elizabeth Field had 8 children (that I know of):

James 1783 - 1855
Ann 1788 -1849 (m Charles Pierce)
Henry 1796 - 1836 (died aged 40 mere weeks after his father died aged 81)
William 1798 - 1843
Michael 1801 - 1844
John 1803 - 1836 (1836 was not a good year for the family)

so far so good

Can anyone spot what happened to Sarah bp 29 aug 1785 Shermanbury
and Mary bp 27 Dec 1790 Cowfold?

The trees on Ancestry are embarassingly wrong.
__________________
The chestnuts cast their flambeaux
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 22-06-20, 20:42
Phoenix's Avatar
Phoenix Phoenix is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 6,617
Default

Hmm Sarah may have married Thomas Langford 14 Nov 1816 Cowfold. Serial witnesses.
__________________
The chestnuts cast their flambeaux
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 22-06-20, 21:05
Phoenix's Avatar
Phoenix Phoenix is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 6,617
Default

So on the census in 1841

Jas Langford 75
Sarah Langford 55
Henry Langford 20
Sarah Langford 20
Jas Langford 20
Daniel Langford 12

Henry, son of James marries Sarah Pierce in 1838. he dies later in 1841 aged 24.
But... he is baptised as son of THOMAS and Sarah.

A Sarah Langford has her illegitimate son Henry bp 6 Nov 1825 when her husband James was transported in Dec 1824.

Are there 3 Sarahs, two married to Jameses and one to Thomas?
__________________
The chestnuts cast their flambeaux

Last edited by Phoenix; 22-06-20 at 21:06. Reason: clarity
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 22-06-20, 21:17
Phoenix's Avatar
Phoenix Phoenix is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 6,617
Default

*sobs faintly* a THOMAS Langford of Sussex is sentenced to death in December 1824 (which could well be commuted to transportation)
__________________
The chestnuts cast their flambeaux

Last edited by Phoenix; 22-06-20 at 21:34.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 22-06-20, 22:09
Olde Crone Olde Crone is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 4,768
Default

Phoenix

For what it's worth, I have a lot of men named James in my tree and they are mistranscribed as Thomas on a surprising number of occasions! Could this be the case here, or have you seen the originals?

OC
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 22-06-20, 22:18
Phoenix's Avatar
Phoenix Phoenix is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 6,617
Default

I'm looking at originals, but I note that the baptisms post 1812 have entries out of order - which suggests hurried notes - which could include abbreviations. And I can well understand Jas and Thos being muddled.

I am now wondering whether Sarah remarried in 1827 as a spinster? Tomorrow, when I feel fresher, I'll check who the vicars were. The spiteful mind that drew attention to an illegitimacy was unlikely to approve a marriage if a husband was newly absent.
__________________
The chestnuts cast their flambeaux
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 23-06-20, 09:47
Merry's Avatar
Merry Merry is online now
Administrator
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Near Christchurch, Dorset
Posts: 21,264
Default

Quote:
Mary bp 27 Dec 1790 Cowfold
I see many people have attributed this marriage:

First name(s) James
Last name Burchfield
Name note -
Marriage year 1813
Marriage date 04 Feb 1813
Marriage place Slaugham
Spouse's first name(s) Mary
Spouse's last name Richardson

to James and Mary who died in 1841 and 1843 respectively aged 79 and 77. I think it's more likely they married in 1786 at Cuckfield and her maiden name was Ockenden. In 1841 Mary nee Ockenden (?) has Joseph Burchfield aged 30 in her household, and he seems to have been bap 1809, the son of James and Mary, so most likely nothing to do with the couple who married in 1813, unless that James Burchfield was a widower (perhaps you have something better than this transcript to determine that?).

Of course other than the 1813 marriage I've not found much to help and certainly have not found anything for a Mary Burchfield born about 1790, so the marriage may just be a red herring!
__________________
Merry

"Something has been filled in that I didn't know was blank" Matthew Broderick WDYTYA? March 2010
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 25-06-20, 09:02
Phoenix's Avatar
Phoenix Phoenix is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 6,617
Default

It looks as if that was a second marriage for Joseph, but whether it's my Mary is a different matter.
__________________
The chestnuts cast their flambeaux
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 25-06-20, 09:19
Merry's Avatar
Merry Merry is online now
Administrator
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Near Christchurch, Dorset
Posts: 21,264
Default

Do you mean James?

The James who died in 1841 seems to have been married to a Mary who was similar in age to him, but I think that Mary would have been too old to fit with the baptisms that are children of James and Mary born up to around 1820 as she was in her late 70s when she died in 1843. That's why I thought there might be two couples, but it's probably boarderline. If we knew if either or both were previously married in 1813 that would help a lot!
__________________
Merry

"Something has been filled in that I didn't know was blank" Matthew Broderick WDYTYA? March 2010
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 25-06-20, 11:27
Phoenix's Avatar
Phoenix Phoenix is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 6,617
Default

I do indeed mean James.

There is one Ancestry tree that has the first Mary dying, James remarrying to Mary Richardson. That tree (which of course I cannot find) has Mary living with her stepson Joseph and his family. But as you say, she is way too old to be "my" Mary and if she is a second wife was quite likely a widow when she married.

Life being what it is, the banns book seems to end in 1812, and the new marriage register shows neither parish, nor marital state, and until they recognise the idiocy, show all marriages as "with consent of relations" - which I assume they took to mean that nobody forbade the banns.
__________________
The chestnuts cast their flambeaux
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 00:05.


Hosted by Photon IT

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7 PL3
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.