|
Pages: [1]
|
 |
|
Author
|
Topic: JOHN REED 1766 (Read 247 times)
|
Mum44
RootsChat Aristocrat
 Offline
Posts: 2477
Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
|
John Reed, my 2 x great grandfather was baptised 3 March 1766 in St. Peter's Church, Titchfield. I have a photo-copy of the entry which I made at Winchester R.O. His parents were William and Mary. William and Mary baptised 6 other children in Titchfield between 1767 and 1782.
I have always taken these 6 children to be my great-something aunts and uncles and have included them and their children in my Reed tree, believing that John was the eldest of 7. (I know we should make assumptions, but it is in this case logical ?)
This inclusion has recently led me to two other people researching this line, both of whom have the marriage of William and Mary (Groves) 11 Dec 1766 as the base for this family - which puts my John out of the frame, on the face of it.
The marriage was found on the IGI, and is a submitted entry (of which I am usually very suspicious since many of them seem to be part wishful thinking and part pure assumption)
Since Titchfield has not been included by the LDS as extracted entries I have nothing to compare this with, and am not able at the moment to go to Winchester again to re-look.
I also have a photo-copy of the marriage of John Reed to Mary Goddard at St. Peters in 1791; the witnesses are Robert Cripps and James Butler - not very helpful regarding possible brothers and sisters unless they are the husbands of one of his "sisters"
Is there anyone reading this who might be able to shed any light? The possibilities are, it seems
(a) John's parents were a different William and Mary, and if he had any siblings they were not baptised in Titchfield
(b) Correct William, different Mary - maybe John's mother died between March and Dec and William married Mary Groves
(c) - least likely - this is correct and they married late - not usually allowed to register children in those circumstances?
To make matters worse/more confusing - the next child is William - usually first son named after father? However, John and Mary Goddard's first son was John and their only other son (my great grandfather) was William.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Names: Titchfield, Hampshire: Reed, Fielder, Cawte.
Kent: Float, Cutbush. Wallasey, Cheshire: Carroll, Ledsham. Liverpool : Horsfall, Prescott
|
|
|
Little Nell
Moderator
RootsChat Marquessate
Offline
Posts: 5872
|
Hmm, this is probably not a lot of help, but there is no burial for a Mary Reed (or variant) that I can see in 1766 in Titchfield.
Nell
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Mum44
RootsChat Aristocrat
Offline
Posts: 2477
Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
|
Thank you Nell 
I was kind of hoping there would be and that was the answer - otherwise, if John 1766 is not part of that family, then a good section of my Reed tree will have to move sideways! I can't believe there isn't a connection at all !
However, if there were two William's baptising children in Titchfield at that time, then John is probably not even a cousin of the family I have him in, but a more distant relation.
I suppose it's not all gloom and doom - maybe he was the youngest of 7 not the oldest of 7, so there maybe lots of new great-something uncles and aunts to find. But looking for his parents marriage (anytime between 1740 and 1766 and possibly not necessarily in Titchfield) could require me to move into B&B in Winchester!
It's really wonderful to hook up with people doing the same research - but it has its downsides too!
 I'm now, it seems, minus a "proper" 3 x great grandparent set!
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Names: Titchfield, Hampshire: Reed, Fielder, Cawte.
Kent: Float, Cutbush. Wallasey, Cheshire: Carroll, Ledsham. Liverpool : Horsfall, Prescott
|
|
|
Elizabeth Revel
RootsChat Veteran
Offline
Posts: 755
|
Had you thought about the possibility of two Williams being father and son, each married to a Mary, and your John being the youngest brother to William who married later in the year of John's birth
You will need to spend time examining the church records forward and backwards to see if this might be the case.
Beth
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Census Information is Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk Lancashire and Cheshire: Harding, Turner, Gandy, Rigby, Bancroft, Moorcroft, Wright Wiltshire: Webb, Hayter, Mussell, Curtice, Sheppard Hampshire: Harper, Rawlings Ireland: Revels, Qua, Alexander, Clegg Bucks, Northants, Derby, Leicester and Cheshire: Spokes, Glover, Sturgess, Attewell, Whiting, Lester, Hall |
|
|
Elizabeth Revel
RootsChat Veteran
Offline
Posts: 755
|
Looked on Knightroots for Titchfield records and note that there are a few. Do you have
Page 8 No 63 Ann REED Brook March 26 1814 age 16
Beth
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Census Information is Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk Lancashire and Cheshire: Harding, Turner, Gandy, Rigby, Bancroft, Moorcroft, Wright Wiltshire: Webb, Hayter, Mussell, Curtice, Sheppard Hampshire: Harper, Rawlings Ireland: Revels, Qua, Alexander, Clegg Bucks, Northants, Derby, Leicester and Cheshire: Spokes, Glover, Sturgess, Attewell, Whiting, Lester, Hall |
|
|
Mum44
RootsChat Aristocrat
Offline
Posts: 2477
Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
|
Beth - good morning
Yes, I have that burial; I also got it from Knightroot. I believe it to be Ann bap. 3/9/1797, daughter of John b. 1766 and Mary Goddard.
I hadn't thought that John 1766 and William (whom I thought was his father!) might in fact be brothers - I'll look further into that - I'm gping to have to go back to Winchester obviously now to see what can be found -
Thanks for your interest and help
Mary
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Names: Titchfield, Hampshire: Reed, Fielder, Cawte.
Kent: Float, Cutbush. Wallasey, Cheshire: Carroll, Ledsham. Liverpool : Horsfall, Prescott
|
|
|
Mum44
RootsChat Aristocrat
Offline
Posts: 2477
Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
|
Hello again - I have just read a thread in the common room regarding the calender differences in the mid 1700's (thread: Should I Just Assume?)
http://www.rootschat.com/forum/index.php/topic,275237.0.html
Although this was in the 1750's not 1760's, do any of you have enough knowledge of this calender business to be able to say whether it could have been pertinent to my (assumed) 3 x great grandparents apparently being married 6 months after their son was baptised ?
I'm still hoping ! 
Mary
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: Saturday 29 December 07 21:08 GMT (UK) by Little Nell »
|
Logged
|
Names: Titchfield, Hampshire: Reed, Fielder, Cawte.
Kent: Float, Cutbush. Wallasey, Cheshire: Carroll, Ledsham. Liverpool : Horsfall, Prescott
|
|
|
Little Nell
Moderator
RootsChat Marquessate
Offline
Posts: 5872
|
No, by 1766 the change from the Julian to the Gregorian calendar should have no effect at all. It is really only prior to 1752 that this needs to be considered.
However, the operative word here is "should" - it may not hurt to check out the original parish register some time to make sure that there is no confusion.
Sorry, it may not be what you wanted to hear, but I try to look on the positive side. Just because they didn't marry until after their son was born does not preclude them from being your 3x great grandparents.
May I suggest that you get a copy of the marriage entry yourself just to satisfy yourself that the submitted entry is correct.
Witnesses often include a churchwarden or similar - the same name often crops up as one of the witnesses, so do not give up all hope. 
Nell
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1]
|
|
|
|
|
