RootsChat.Com
England (Counties as in 1851-1901) => England => Sussex => Topic started by: lucymags on Friday 19 January 18 07:32 GMT (UK)
-
Working up the Siffleet tree in Sussex, I came across this wonderful mine of information in the will of Thomas Siffleet, "signed in Dec 1806" - obviously quite a wealthy landowner.
http://www.sussex-opc.org/index.php?n=siffleet&t=will&k=105&l=102
Firstly (almost as an aside), there is this burial record https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:KG8P-93M:
Name Thomas Sifflet
Event Type Burial
Event Date 03 May 1806
Event Place Streat, Sussex, England
Age 74
Birth Year (Estimated) 1732
- which looks like a perfect fit until it dawns that his burial apparently took place 7 months before the will was signed. A bit strange because the name is unusual (even when misspelt). So is there any chance that the signing of the will could refer to a date after the death of the man who made the will? ???
Just trying to stick with what is already known, the nephew Thomas (1761-1843) referred to in the will, married to Ann (unknown birth name), has children Thomas, Sarah, Josiah, William and Michael DOBs between 1790 and 1802 and Elizabeth. Here in the will a James and Stephen are mentioned (and there's a Robert born later).
As far as I can see, the will refers to 3 nephews - Thomas, Michael and Josiah - c. 1760s.
The only brother mentioned is the late James, leaving a daughter Jemima. Brother-in-law Soper is presumably a sister's husband? (I'm still a bit confused about the Sopers, but will come back to them.)
Not mentioned, as far as I can see, is the name of nephew Thomas' father (who may be the John who pays land tax in Stockbury in Kent in 1798 and married to an Elizabeth Redman, but that marriage is only on an Ancestry tree and I've so far been unable to verify this).
Nephew Michael has sons James, William and Michael, and daughters Hannah Collins (married to Thomas in Worth, 1802) and Elizabeth Siffleet. I found records for Ellizabeth and Hannah Siffleet, baptised in Worth in 1803 and 1802 respectively, daughters of Michael and Elizabeth - these must be the then infant daughters of the nephew Michael's son, Michael?
In the meantime, I found the record of an Elizabeth Siffleet who dies in Worth aged 52 in 1803 (b.c. 1751) - no idea where she fits in. Seems a bit late to be mother of the 1802-3 girls - unless the age is a bit out and she died in childbirth... [Will ignore this for now.]
There's a number of other Siffleets on FS, but I'm just concentrating on the relationships in the will for now. This one is not for the faint-hearted, but if anyone has the time and will to have a look and confirm or disprove any of my assumptions, I'd appreciate it. My main interest is in the nephew Thomas' line, but having encountered this information, thought I'd attempt to fill what I can in of the others. But I think that I'm going to move on to trying to establish the father of "John", Thomas the elder and James when I come back to it next.
(I did also find some 1798 land tax payments by Thomas for land in Newick and Chailey, and noticed that the land called Trick in the will is actually ffrick/Frick.)
-
I will have a look at the details of the will a bit later unless someone else can help earlier.
However so far as the date of the will is concerned the body of the will shows it was signed in 1805. So there is a discrepancy with the header.
Of course, to be absolutely sure of the date it would be best to obtain a copy of the will rather than a transcript.
Barbara
-
I will have a look at the details of the will a bit later unless someone else can help earlier.
However so far as the date of the will is concerned the body of the will shows it was signed in 1805. So there is a discrepancy with the header.
Of course, to be absolutely sure of the date it would be best to obtain a copy of the will rather than a transcript.
Barbara
Ah - thanks so much, Barbara! This is why a second pair of eyes is so valuable. I don't know how many times I must have read that bit at the bottom and just not noticed "seventh Day of December in the Year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and five"! :)
Well, at least that confirms that those records are matching. I will let the transcriber know. (I don't know if it's possible to get a copy of the original.)
It's all a bit headache-inducing, but I think I'm slowly teasing out the bits that matter to my tree, so I certainly don't expect anyone to spend hours on this. I'm nearly done for the day now, but will come back to it on the weekend. (I have found a possibility for a father/brother called John but it needs more work.)
-
You can see the original will here, it is very long. You must be signed in
https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:S3HT-DRN9-RZ5?i=372&cat=685691
Thomas Siffleet of Newick, gentleman
Registered will with grant of probate, 12 July 1806
Date of will 7 Dec 1805
Value under £2000
Archdeaconry of Lewes
ESRO reference PBT 1/1/69/763
-
Oh, thanks for that, Jon! I will have a look at it on the weekend.
How did you manage to find it on FS, btw? It didn't seem to pop up on any of the searches I was doing for the Siffleets.
-
Hi
Details of the probate from The Keep
http://www.thekeep.info
then found the microfilm from the LDS catalogue on FamilySearch
http://www.rootschat.com/links/01ldh/
(select Probate records)
John
-
Hi John
Thanks so much - those are both very useful things to know. I can see other Siffleet records on the Keep site (and I have other branches in Sussex), and might be able to use the FS link to the Canterbury PC for another will I was working on in Bath a couple of weeks ago - will have to come back to that!
Mel
Edit: If anyone can think of a way of linking this person to Thomas who made the will, it would be great.
A John Sifflett [sic] baptised in 1744:
Name John Sifflett
Event Type Christening
Event Date 01 Jun 1744
Event Place Framfield, Sussex, England
Gender Male
Father's Name John Sifflett
The only way I can think that they could be in the same family would be if John is a much younger brother of Thomas the landowner, and the father of nephew Thomas, in which case he would have been only 17-18 when he fathered Thomas. (No John Siffleets are mentioned in the will.)
In the meantime, I have lots to get on with looking at the relationships and records I already have!
-
Sorry I don't have time to go through the 7 pages of the will at present but I would mention never get too tied up on relationships shown on old documents. The meaning of relationships is quite fluid.
I.E. Brother-in-law may be as you say sister's husband but it could also mean a brother of a wife (his or even his brother's wife).
A nephew could even mean a brother-in-law if the writer is using older terminology.
Cheers
Guy
-
Ah - thanks for that, Guy. Useful to know.
I think that I've worked out a likely or possible structure, which will do for now (with copious notes for the bits awaiting further evidence). I've also found a few of the places he mentions in the will on the map (e.g. Frick, The Rough, etc.), which is quite interesting to see.
I will leave the will for now and work on documenting all the people I have, before heading up the tree again.
Thanks again to everyone who has helped me with this. Much appreciated. :-)
-
Sorry I didn't get back to you yesterday but the will was longer than I expected. I am finishing some notes on the relationships which I will post so that you can compare with your findings.
Barbara
-
This is what I have deduced! I recommend that you check the transcript against the image of the will.
Family groups other than that of nephew Thomas
1. Cousin John Broomfield deceased and his daughter Sarah now the wife of Hollingdale
2. Brother in Law Thomas Soper, his son John Soper and his daughter Jane the wife of Heath Note: as mentioned by Guy the term brother in law has several meanings.
3. Late brother James Siffleet and his daughter Jemima
4. Nephew Michael Siffleet of Worth and his 2 daughters, Hannah the wife of Thomas Collens of Worth Yeoman and Elizabeth Sifleet, spinster
5. Christian Sturt and Thomas Sturt children of my Niece Elizabeth the Wife of William Sturt
6. Kinswoman Mary Gansey daughter of Detemia Gansey
7. Nathaniel Willy, Edward Willy, William Willy Richard Willy , Sarah Willy Elizabeth Willy and Mary Willy sons and Daughters of my Niece Elizabeth Willy
Thomas Siffleet and family
1. Thomas Sifleet nephew
2. Wife Ann
3. Children Thomas Siffleet, Stephen Siffleet, Josiah Siffleet*, William Siffleet , James Siffleet, Michael Siffleet, Elizabeth Siffleet, Sarah Siffleet
You will be able to deuce that some of those mentioned are under 21 at the time the will was written. The Sussex Family History Group has a baptismal index and it would be worth you checking that although you will need to become a member.
Good luck.
Barbara
Edit: forgot the footnote
*Kinsman Josiah Siffleet. Later refers to him as “my aforesaid kinsman Josiah Siffleet another son of my nephew Thomas Siffleet “and also as “my said nephew Josiah Sifleet”. I think they all mean the same person.
-
Sussex Marriage Index has
Thos Siffleet + Ann Nye
20 June 1786, Chailey
Both of the parish.
By banns, witnesses Rich Norman, Jn Baker
seems to indicate that Ann marked.
There is also a marriage at St Thomas at Cliffe, 8 October 1781
Micah Siffleet + Elizabeth Franks
by licence, transcript says -
Both 21 years and upwards
Micah was a Yeoman, other bondsman Abraham Atherell, Malster
See the marriage here
https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:S3HT-62RQ-PN6?i=232&cat=216922
But is Michah the Michael Siffleet of Worth?
John
-
Just a brief note from my tablet to say thanks very much for all of your work, Barbara, and thanks to John for those extra records.
I have spent hours this evening, after adding what I thought was correct or likely on these characters, on a separate but related conundrum, which I'll post when time allows and after I've examined and compared this new information. (I found some more about Michael - had many children and died in Brighton, I think - but not following up everyone there because not my line.)
-
I did also find some 1798 land tax payments by Thomas for land in Newick and Chailey, and noticed that the land called Trick in the will is actually ffrick/Frick.
More Land Tax records from 1780 onwards, if you want to wade through them!
Chailey
https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:S3HT-DTS7-NP3?i=777&cat=326164
first mention of Thos Siffleet image 780
Newick
https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:S3HY-6D9S-HY4?i=847&cat=326528
-
Thanks for those land tax records, John - will come back to them when I find the right moment!
I am going to start by making a few notes based on what I've found so far on the first group.
Family groups other than that of nephew Thomas
1. Cousin John Broomfield deceased and his daughter Sarah now the wife of Hollingdale
2. Brother in Law Thomas Soper, his son John Soper and his daughter Jane the wife of Heath Note: as mentioned by Guy the term brother in law has several meanings.
3. Late brother James Siffleet and his daughter Jemima
4. Nephew Michael Siffleet of Worth and his 2 daughters, Hannah the wife of Thomas Collens of Worth Yeoman and Elizabeth Sifleet, spinster
5. Christian Sturt and Thomas Sturt children of my Niece Elizabeth the Wife of William Sturt
6. Kinswoman Mary Gansey daughter of Detemia Gansey
7. Nathaniel Willy, Edward Willy, William Willy Richard Willy , Sarah Willy Elizabeth Willy and Mary Willy sons and Daughters of my Niece Elizabeth Willy
1. Re the Broomfield connection - I found this marriage but haven't managed to work out the connection yet. Maybe Thomas landowner's (TLO) father? That would make TLO only born about 13 years after the marriage, but he would have Broomfield cousins. ???
Name Thomas Siffleet
Event Date 12 Nov 1719
Event Place Horsted Keynes, Sussex, England
Spouse's Name Sarah Broomfield
2. My Soper family group concurs with this, except that upon looking at the script, deciphered "Hoath" rather than Heath, and found a burial of a Jane Hoath which seems to match:
Church name St George - Crowhurst (small village near Battle in East Sussex, although recorded as Surrey on FreeReg)
Burial date 17 Jun 1810
Person age 50
Burial person forename Jane
Burial person surname HOATH
And then, relating to no. 5, I have just found this record on FreeReg:
Place Henfield
Church name St Peter
Marriage date 27 Mar 1788
Groom forename William
Groom surname STURT
Groom condition bachelor
Groom parish Ashurst
Bride forename Elizabeth
Bride surname SOPER
Bride condition spinster
Bride parish Henfield
Witness Henry STURT
Witness Jane SOPER
Register note Licence. Groom William Sturt Junr
Does that latter note mean that the groom was under age, or...?
This one is tying my brain up in knots, because I'd initially created a sister Siffleet (possibly also a Jane?) to TLO who married a Soper and thus produced Jane Hoath (Soper) - but this is suggesting that Elizabeth Soper is the one who is the Soper and Sturt connection to the family. I need to ponder this further.
3. James and Jemima - tick. :)
4. Michael and co. (possibly that Micah - will return to that) - all good, except that I found a marriage record for Hannah which uses the Collins spelling (https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:N228-HXP):
Name Thomas Collins
Spouse's Name Hannah Siffleet
Event Date 08 Dec 1802
Event Place Worth,Sussex,England
5. Connected to the Sopers somehow - see above. Need to work on these.
6. Haven't looked at Ganseys yet.
7. Ditto Willys, although wondering about the niece relationship. There are quite a lot of Willys and variations of the name - will come back to that one.
Edit: I have found a marriage of a Jane Soper to a James Heath in Chichesterm oddly, recorded twice on different dates: https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:NX4D-N6F and https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:Q2Q4-3C5W (the latter perhaps a civil marriage, then the church marriage?). But the latter says she's a widow, so I think that rules her out. Just a strange coincidence?!
(That letter looks like a definite "o" to me, although I know that handwriting was different in those days.)
-
About Thomas Siffleet nephew (TSN) and family - all concur, although I do have a Robert supposedly born 1817 (at this stage undocumented, so not sure where he came from - will have to check, because that would make his mother Ann rather old.)
Re Josiah: I have one who would be contemporaraneous with brothers TSN and Michael:
Name Josiah Sifleet [sic]
Event Type Burial
Event Date 13 May 1832
Event Place Barcombe, Sussex, England
Age 79
Birth Year (Estimated) 1753
but also a Josiah who is son of TSN, 1796-1843 - with death record, 1841 Census record and a note (by someone else) "A bit of a rogue, who in 1840 pleaded guilty to stealing two bushels of wheat from John Ellis. Died in 1843 leaving a wife and 7 young children, of injuries sustained by a fall whilst wrestling."
John:
That Ann Nye marriage certainly looks possible - although the only Ann Nye baptisms I can see seem to be grouped around Henfield and Horsham areas - about 15-20 km from Chailey.
I also found possible marriages for TLO and his brother John, only a month apart:
Name Thomas Siffleet
Event Type Marriage
Event Date 07 Aug 1749
Event Place Isfield, Sussex, England
Gender Male
Spouse's Name Sarah Juden
Spouse's Gender Female
Name John Siffleet
Event Type Marriage
Event Date 07 Sep 1749
Event Place Isfield, Sussex, England
Gender Male
Spouse's Name Sarah Durrant
Spouse's Gender Female
- and also 2 infant burials in Bolney, 1758 (Sarah) and 1760 (Thomas), in which the mother is Sarah, which possibly tells the story about TLO's family?
I need to take a break now and restart my computer, but will return with the questions about the parentage of TLO and brothers...
-
Just one more note before I pack up for the night, having just spent hours tidying up my notes, cross-referencing, etc. I don't have time to fully document the other confusion I'm trying to sort out and clear up, but briefly, it is this.
A number of existing family trees have got Thomas the nephew (b. 1761 - aka TSN) as the son of a John Siffleet or Syfleet in Stockbury, Kent and some have put TSN born there as well). Having trawled through various records, I can find no definite verification of this, and also noted that the spelling is mostly Syfleet in Kent and Siffleet (Sifflett/Sifleet) in East Sussex.
Further, some of the trees put TSN's wife as Ann Calloway (1774-1855) (coincidentally, a name I found, aged 42ish in 1851 at Fletching Common, living with a John Calloway 10 years older), and his parents as John Siffleet (1731-1823) and Elizabeth Redman or Redmains (1735-1797 - a family more fully documented on other trees too).
Something just doesn't sound right about this, with no explanation or other evidence as to why all of the sons of the Stockbury John Syfleet/Siffleet are in Newick by 1800ish...
Also I found this death record for a Thomas born 1767 (which could possibly relate to a Thomas in Stockbury being confused with my Thomas):
SYFLEET, THOMAS 76
GRO Reference: 1843 S Quarter in HOLLINGBOURN UNION Volume 05 Page 201
The 1719 marriage (mentioned above) to Sarah Broomfield seem to be more likely parents, but makes that TLO was only born 13 years after the marriage, in 1732. OTOH, as his brothers seem to be deceased, him being the youngest son makes sense...
I'm too tired to go on now - still have quite a bit of work to do on Michael Siffleet (including some liaison with an overlapping tree) and will have to come back to the other people in the will. There's no rush for this and I don't know how much time I'll find in the coming week to work on this, but I'm determined to establish the parents of TLO, Josiah, John(?) and possible other siblings as well as the Sopers and the other little question markes, before I leave this line!
I still need to trawl through more Siffleets and Syfleets on various sources, and btw I also discovered this handy site, which sidetracked me for a while and I'll have to come back to: http://theweald.org/home.asp.
-
Update:
I have managed to lock down or weed out most of the pesky players now, and I'm 99.9% certain that the Stockbury confusion arose from a Thomas Syfleet who was born 1768 in Stockbury.
I have got rid of the 1817 Robert, as he belonged to the Stockbury Thomas. So I think I can put Stockbury Syfleets to bed now, unless I encounter a link further up the tree.
I'm still working through the the tidy-up (have still to re-work the Sopers and other relatives listed above) before pushing on with the ancestors, but have a quick question here about Thomas the nephew's children (listed in the will Thomas Siffleet, James Siffleet . . . . . .William Siffleet, Michael Siffleet, Elizabeth Siffleet and Sarah Siffleet). I don't know if I can assume that the children are in order of age(wouldn't the first son usually take the father's name?), but the only ones I can't find any baptism or other records for as yet are James and Elizabeth. (Checked Ancestry, FindMyPast, FS.)
So any ideas about James and Elizabeth are welcome.
Edit: I have to give up soon, but I have found a record which could fit the Broomfield connection:
If Sarah Broomfield is TLO's mother, she could be the sister of the John Broomfield mentioned in the will; it also mentions his daughter Sarah. This could be those people:
Name Sarah Bromfield
Residence Place Maidstone, Kent, England
Gender Female
Christening Date 30 Aug 1719
Christening Date (Original) 30 Aug 1719
Christening Place Maidstone, Kent, England
Father's Name John Bromfield
Mother's Name Jane
https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:NNV2-23X
Other Broomfields and Bromfields seem to be more in Kent than Sussex. But I'll have to return to this one.
Further edit: To add to the confusion, there's this info about Broomfields in Sussex: http://theweald.org/d10.asp?bookid=sac14c229&xid=A&xnm=1 - Elizabeths and Johns, involved, but the John mentioned there only had a brother called French (no offspring).
-
A Soper-Broomfield connection!
This one must be linked. I haven't yet concentrated on the Soper link but will need to take this one into account as well when I do.
From FreeReg:
Place Bolney
Church name St Mary Magdalene
Register type Transcript
Marriage date 18 May 1721
Groom forename John
Groom surname BROMFIELD
Groom parish Street
Bride forename Mary
Bride surname SOPER
Bride parish Henfield
-
Edit: I have found a marriage of a Jane Soper to a James Heath in Chichesterm oddly, recorded twice on different dates: https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:NX4D-N6F and https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:Q2Q4-3C5W (the latter perhaps a civil marriage, then the church marriage?). But the latter says she's a widow, so I think that rules her out. Just a strange coincidence?!
The concept of a distinct civil marriage and church marriage is not something that exists in England, so you can rule that out. I haven't looked at those two links, but assuming they are only transcripts, not images, the likely explanation is that one is the reading of banns and the other is the marriage.
Also, as others have found, do not interpret the mention of "Chichester" as meaning the event took place in Chichester. It may simply be the documents were obtained, perhaps by Family Search ie originally the Mormon "IGI", from the Diocese of Chichester which covers almost anywhere in West or East Sussex. You would have to do more research to confirm where the marriage happened.
-
Glad you are making some headway.
I am afraid I won't have a lot of time to help this coming week but will keep and eye on the thread.
When looking for baptisms don't forget nonconformist records or the possibility of late baptisms. I agree with John that multiple entries for marriages are often because the records are banns and family search does not make this clear.
I looked at the image of the will and I believe the surname is written as Heath rather than Hoath. If other records you are looking at for this name are transcripts it is quite possible that the transcriber has confused "o" and "e". I compare the letter formation with other parts of the script to check.
I am not sure what your starting point was for this research but areI think you need to find the parents and siblings of Thomas the testator and therefore the father of Thomas the nephew - assuming the latter is your direct ancestor.
Barbara
-
Thanks for that tip, John, handy to know and thanks again for your info and advice, Barbara. I see what you mean about the e looking like o in the others too - so I'll go back to that Hoath record and email the FreeReg person to check - they are usually very responsive.
I've been puzzling over the Soper-Sturt connections. There are several candidates for Thomas the brother-in-law, mostly in Henfield, and that William Sturt-Elizabeth Soper from Henfield marriage (with Jane as witness) ties in with this and suggests that niece Elizabeth is a sibling of John and Jane, although he has not specifically named Elizabeth as daughter of Thomas b-i-l.
I have a Thomas Soper who marries Mary Byfleet in 1757 and a John and Mary who have a John in 1789, but not enough evidence to tie them altogether and I'l probably give up on the details of the relationships, if only I can manage to work out how Thomas TLO is related to Thomas Soper...
My relationship is through John(? - still speculative - married a Sarah Durrant in Isfield 1749), brother of Thomas the testator (more apt description, thank you!) and I have a speculative father called Thomas who married Sarah Broomfield in 1719. However I am still on the lookout for corroborating or conflicting evidence.
I probably won't have as much time to devote to it this week either, but I'll see if I happen upon some fresh evidence or sudden insight by having a look when I can. My starting point was Thomas the nephew (via his daughter Sarah), from which point there's enough evidence linking everyone else in the chain up to that point.
Thanks for your interest and I'll report back if/when I find anything more definitive.
Edit: Going back to those Chichester marriage records, I see that the image is available here: https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:S3HT-6LV4-MFK, and also that it is James who is widowed, not Jane, as I previously mis-read. I think that this must be them.
-
Going back to those Chichester marriage records, I see that the image is available here: https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:S3HT-6LV4-MFK
You can see the bond here, allegation next image
https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:S3HY-6XHC-BHM?i=395&cat=604176
John
-
You can see the bond here, allegation next image
https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:S3HY-6XHC-BHM?i=395&cat=604176
John
Well, that's very interesting, thanks John! I have just educated myself (via FS and Wikipedia) about the nature of these licences, and it seems likely that they did the licence rather than banns because of the time of year (Advent). It also tells me that James was a carpenter, of Chichester.
The other FS entry, which gives just the year (1799) must be when they actually got married. Is it unsafe to assume that they were married in January? From what I read, the lack of mention of parental consent would imply that Jane was over 21 at the time of the licence.
Edit: I have just found a more likely burial for Jane - which puts her at about 35 at the time of marriage, but he was a widower, so quite feasible.
County Sussex
Place Chichester
Church name St Peter the Great
Register type Parish Register
Register entry number 213
Burial date 18 Oct 1843
Person age 80
Burial person forename Jane
Burial person surname HEATH
Burial person abode Somers Town [Somerstown, which is in Chichester]
and one for husband James:
County Sussex
Place Chichester
Church name St Peter the Great
Register type Parish Register
Register entry number 255
Burial date 26 Jan 1817
Person age 53
Burial person forename James
Burial person surname HEATH
Burial person abode Tower St
Register note Mr
-
Hi
Don't know if these will help (or if you have them)
Will of Thomas Soper of Henfield, Yeoman, proved 1795
http://www.thekeep.info/collections/getrecord/GB179_PBT_1_1_67_156
Original will here (codicil next image)
https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:S3HT-DRZZ-NY?i=997&cat=685691
Will of Thomas Soper of Henfield, Yeoman, proved 1796
http://www.thekeep.info/collections/getrecord/GB179_PBT_1_1_67_311
Original will
https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:S3HY-6XP3-HX2?i=169&cat=685691
(I think the codicil is previous image, 169)
Will of Elizabeth Soper of Henfield, wife of Thomas Soper, yeoman, proved 1794
http://www.thekeep.info/collections/getrecord/GB179_PBT_1_1_66_841
Original will
https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:S3HT-DRZC-7F?i=606&cat=685691
One of the Henfield parish register microfilms
Burials of the two Thomas Sopers
https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:S3HY-69ZS-4NL?i=254&cat=143272
with Elizabeth's burial on previous image (faint images!)
John
-
The other FS entry, which gives just the year (1799) must be when they actually got married. Is it unsafe to assume that they were married in January?
Yes, 2 January 1799
Parish register
https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:S3HY-6X1Q-52T?i=114&cat=451893
I have just found a more likely burial for Jane - which puts her at about 35 at the time of marriage, but he was a widower, so quite feasible.
She would be around for the 1841 census!
Could this be her?
https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:M7SZ-GSJ
John
-
Thanks again, John - that's fabulous and will keep me busy for a good while yet!
I have just been constructing the Soper family from parents Thomas and Elizabeth (still have to come back to that relationship with the Siffleets) and now have quite a few names and dates.
Jane Soper (c. 1763-1817) marries James Heath (1763-1817) (not yet checked out kids from earlier marriage; I did spot lots of other Heath baptisms in Chichester, 2 different fathers though). No kids.
Elizabeth Soper marries William Sturt in Henfield, 2 kids Christian and Thomas (still under 21 in 1805).
John Soper - as yet no more, but noted that he only gets twenty pounds in the will.
I will have a look at those wills to help clarify and add details to what I have on them; then, apart from finding the proven or most likely relationship to the Siffleets, will leave the Sopers there before I get too bogged down or carried away with all of their family links!
-
Hi
I think you may well have been right about the Soper-Byfleet marriage. Mary marked, perhaps her name was misinterpreted?
Looking at Elizabeth's will, she mentions Jane Soper and Elizabeth Sturt, but she doesn't say they were her daughters. Perhaps she was their stepmother?
Thomas Soper married Elizabeth Davey at Henfield in 1788, and they were both widowed.
https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:S3HY-69ZS-WMP?i=342&cat=143272
Also on that image is the Sturt - Soper marriage!
The Soper - Byfleet marriage is on image 314.
John
-
Will of James Broomfield of Isfield, yeoman (written 1763, proved Deanery of South Malling in 1774)
Register copy version
https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:S3HY-6L43-3P6?i=327&cat=173636
Names nephew Thomas Siffleet
-
Great - you're way ahead of me now, having just returned to it; I'm struggling to document what I have and keep up now! Thanks again. I still haven't got to those wills, but the 2nd marriage to Elizabeth Davey makes sense, so I have put that into the family structure.
To muddy the waters, I just found this on FreReg:
County Surrey
Place Byfleet
Church name St Mary
Register type Transcript
Burial date 17 May 1780
Burial person forename Mary
Burial person surname SOPER
- but this must just be coincidence!
I will let you know when I catch up and work out what's what, and/or with any new findings.
-
One of the Henfield parish register microfilms
Burials of the two Thomas Sopers
https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:S3HY-69ZS-4NL?i=254&cat=143272
with Elizabeth's burial on previous image (faint images!)
Before I get to the wills - still tidying up dates and records - a quick question about these...
I see Elizabeth's - 23 Dec 1790.
Then Thomas 8 Jan 1795 and the other one 21 July 1796, but it's a bit difficult to read what comes after each name. Judging by the first letters of the words, I think the first could be Sen. and the second Junr.??
Mel
-
Another will (sorry!)
Will of Mary Dutnell (Durtnall) of Lewes, The Beechwood, St John under the Castle, widow
written 1767, proved 1776, Archdeaconry of Lewes.
Could be an important one? Quick look, names brother/nephew Thomas Siffleet (and more of them, even Mary Soper!!)
two pages of it here
https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:S3HY-D189-XV2?i=614&cat=685691
This was after a trail back via The Keep
13 Dec 1806
Letters of Administration of the goods of Elizabeth Killingbeck left unadministered by Mary Killingbeck granted to Josiah Siffleet of Hamsey, gardener, cousin germain and next of kin of said Elizabeth.
There is more related stuff from the same source on The Keep website.
Anyway, it all starts (I think!) with a marriage
27 Feb 1714/5, apparently at Maresfield
Thomas Killingbeck + Mary Siffleet
It was by licence (Deanery of South Malling)
The marriage licence register says both of Chiltington
https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:S3HT-DT69-KB5?i=1152&cat=604182
Thomas and Mary had a (only?) daughter Elizabeth. Who may have been baptized as an adult? Elizabeth must have died circa 1753, because
4 May 1753
Letters of Administration granted out of the Archdeaconry Court of Lewes to Mary Killingbeck, mother of Elizabeth Killingbeck late of Beechwood, deceased, of the estate of the said Elizabeth
The widowed mother Mary then married again
10 May 1753
Assignment for £100 by Mary Killingbeck, widow, with concurrence of Thomas Dutnell, to William Michell of Lewes, gent, in consideration of intended marriage betwen said Mary and Thomas.
Family Search has the marriage, Thomas Dutnell + Mary Killingbeck, 24 May 1753, Rodmell.
All those years later Josiah administers the estate of Elizabeth. Is he the Josiah you found who was buried in 1832 age 79?
John
-
Then Thomas 8 Jan 1795 and the other one 21 July 1796, but it's a bit difficult to read what comes after each name. Judging by the first letters of the words, I think the first could be Sen. and the second Junr.??
Hi
Yes, that is how I read it. Senior and junior, sadly going in quick succession. With Elizabeth, 1794, being the wife of Thomas senior.
John
-
Hi
Yes, that is how I read it. Senior and junior, sadly going in quick succession. With Elizabeth, 1794, being the wife of Thomas senior.
John
Hi again, and for the last time tonight I fear - I need to take a break and will only be getting back to this in small bites over the next few days, I think.
I wrote 1790 in error for Elizabeth (seeing the 1794 as a 1, I think) - but your note above caused me to look again and I think it's Dec 1793.
Until next time - many thanks again. I will start looking at the wills tomorrow. :)
Mel
p.s. I meant to add too that I keep getting distracted by other familiar names I spot in the registers, seen as witnesses or somewhere in my searches - Vinall, Nye, Woolven and others!
-
Yes, 1793, sorry. Thinking of the probate!
We certainly have enough wills for the time being!
John
-
I've had a couple of stabs at sorting out the relationships in the will (still to return to the basic connection with where Mary and brother Thomas fit in the Siffleet family, amongst other things) and will be busy on documenting them all for a while still over the next couple of days - but wonder if you could advise on how to read the sentence attached, about Josias? I'm not sure whether or where a comma might fall - i.e. is Josias the eldest son of John Siffleet, eldest brother of said nephew Thomas, or eldest son of John Siffleet and also the eldest brother of said nephew Thomas? ???
I have two Josiahs so far:
Josiah 1796-1843 (son of Thomas the nephew) and Josiah 1753-1832, who is a brother of Thomas the testator/landowner.
And don't know if Josias is interchangeable with Josiah? The only Josias I can see on FS is in Brighton, marries Sarah Jones in 1791; a Josiah marries Susanna Bannister in Brighton in 1779.
I won't complete this tonight - will finish working through it tomorrow.
-
Hi
As I see things, Mary's will confirms your own ideas.
Thomas Siffleet, her brother, had three sons - John (eldest), James, and Thomas (youngest).
I would imagine that Thomas the youngest son is the man we started with - the landowner with the 1806 will.
So, John the eldest son of Thomas senior married a Sarah. John is dead by the time Mary wrote the will. And I think Mary mentioned two sons of John, with Josias being the elder/eldest.
Again, I honestly think Josias/Josiah is much the same name (but I am happy to be corrected!)
It's interesting that Josiah Siffleet took up the administration of the estate of his cousin Elizabeth (daughter of Mary) in 1806. The same year that Thomas Siffleet's will was proved. It may all be connected?
John
-
Hi again
Samuel seems to be the other son of John.
I thought the Josiah mentioned was a nephew of Thomas the landowner? I haven't gone all through that will though! There was also, as you say, a Josiah who was a son of the nephew Thomas.
Josiah seems to have eventually sold Beachwood
http://www.thekeep.info/collections/getrecord/GB179_SAS-WS_8
An early mention of the Killingbecks and Beachwood in 1655
http://www.thekeep.info/collections/getrecord/GB179_SAS-WS_14
What is intriguing is the name of one of the witnesses!
John
-
Ah yes, I didn't go into detail of how I thought it hung together at this stage, sorry. I had already speculatively added Thomas Sr (possible wife a Broomfield) as father of Thomas landowner, and I would agree with what you've described - thanks.
I haven't yet got to looking at that connection to 1806 Elizabeth's will execution and will still need to go back to the original will to review everything - but the Dutnall one seemed like such a rich source that I had to start documenting as soon as I saw it!
And the earlier mention is very interesting too. Perhaps that is the link to the Syfleets in Kent.
I'm not on my computer now and might not find any time tomorrow. I will update you with my conclusions when I get there (not ruling out more questions first though!).
-
This entry in the archives dated 15 Apr 1584 http://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/d08f42e9-b1f9-4834-b641-a0c4dfffb585 says
Thomas Sackville, kt, Lord Buckhurst, and his son and heir Robert Sackville esq, to Thomas Comber of Allington, yeoman, of:-
A piece of land containing 31 acres parcel of Beachwood in the parish of St John under the Castle of Lewes between the queen's highway from Wivelsfield to Lewes, NE, a whapple way from Restinge Oake to Waningore Parke, NW, the demesnes of the manor of Waningore, W and the lands of the said Thomas Comber, S
Also a piece of land containing 44 acres parcel also of Beachwood in St John's parish between the said highway, SW, the said whapple way, N and W and another highway leading from Markwickes House towards the Restinge Oake, E
All the premises being parcel of the demesnes of the manor of Allington
I wonder if this "Beechwood Hall" is related to the property mentioned? https://goo.gl/maps/RCBGmJB2NFJ2 - there is also an Allington Farm nearby.
I think I have now documented the basic relationships of people mentioned in Mary's will. I'll PM you a couple of the relevant profiles FYI. I will have to come back to the rest tonight or tomorrow.
-
Hi
I've been wondering exactly where it was (is!) The map link is also a great help.
They do have some manor records on FamilySearch, but sadly not Allington.
Another will - a PCC one. On ancestry
as detailed on TNA
Will of Francis Killingbecke or Killingbeck of Ardingly, Sussex
Date 15 April 1653
PROB 11/230/7
Had a quick look last night and I thought it is actually the one that originally went through in 1747?
With a related record
Sentence of Francis Killingbeck, Batchelor of West Hoadley, Sussex
23 November 1747
PROB 11/758/152
My memory of it is that Francis bequeaths Beachwood to Elizabeth, then she died and it became an administration with will annexed in 1753 to mother Mary (there is a note). But I may be wrong about all this. I'll have to give it another look!
Lack of Baptisms
We have some Siffleet marriages and (a few) burials, but no baptisms for the period we need them (there are some later I believe)
So I tend to the view that the Siffleets were nonconformists (there aren't even any Soper baptisms in Henfield?)
However, FamilySearch coverage of Sussex is not complete and, as Barbara said, the Sussex FHG indexes are more comprehensive.
Have realised FS don't have Isfield - although burials are indexed elsewhere. They do have a film with transcriptions of marriages, from which the entries for Thomas and John have been taken
https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:S3HT-D447-Z9K?cat=1197887
John
-
My memory of it is that Francis bequeaths Beachwood to Elizabeth
Didn't mention it at all!
It's a different Mary in 1747 - the wife of John Durrant - possibly an attempt to get the will overturned.
-
Thanks again John. I am just too tired to work anything more out tonight - I will try to find time tomorrow and/or Sunday.
Hmmm, I remember that John Siffleet married a Sarah Durrant, which I see is on that film you linked to - possibly some connection there with the Mary Durrant. I think I got that from FreeReg, along with the Sarah Juden-Thomas one. I see that it says those include Marriages for the parishes of: Etchingham, 1813-1837; Heathfield, 1813-1837; Isfield, 1691-1753. That might be the explanation for lack of indexing on FS? Will be interesting to page through when I have more time.
More when I have time to catch up with your findings! It's going to take me a while yet to go back through those other wills and notes and ensure that I have everything out of them properly documented, before forging ahead up the Killingbecks...
-
Yes, we know that John had died by the time his aunt Mary made her will.
A John Siffleet died intestate before then, but there is a probate inventory (from 1759)
http://www.thekeep.info/collections/getrecord/GB179_PBT_1_10_3098
And we can see it on FamilySearch
https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:S3HY-D4B9-42K?i=862&cat=685691
Land Tax records show a John Siffleet in Isfield (had a farm?), 1750-1753
https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:S3HT-D4WW-ZCR?i=503&cat=326451
John Siffleet granted license in 1754 to dig clay in Chailey (see The Keep)
But we only have Chailey Land Tax from 1780
Index to Death Duty Registers
1819
Jemima Siffleet
administrators Michl Siffleet of Newick, Thos Siffleet of Chailey Sussex
Chichesr Lewes
-
Hi again
A bit more stuff
On Beachwood/Beechwood
We can see the land tax for St John sub Castro, 1780 onwards
https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:S3HT-6LFQ-V94?i=562&cat=326480
which show that from 1793 the occupiers for a spell were Sopers. See also 1798 on ancestry (Sifflett).
We can also see that a Mr Tourle already had land there.
Have you come across this?
Three records on The Keep which tell us a bit about Samuel Siffleet, the son of John, mentioned in Mary's will. And that he had a daughter
http://www.thekeep.info/collections/search/?s=samuel+siffleet+barcombe&submit=Search
(hope that works!)
Sussex Burials has a couple of interesting entries at Chailey St Peter
21 June 1767
Elizabeth Syflet
wife of James
11 Dec 1791
Sarah Siffleet
widow
John
-
1819
Jemima Siffleet
A big surprise, to me at any rate, here it is!
https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:S3HT-D159-RN5?i=638&cat=685691
Relationship to Jemima of the administrators - could be important?
-
A big surprise, to me at any rate, here it is!
https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:S3HT-D159-RN5?i=638&cat=685691
Relationship to Jemima of the administrators - could be important?
Starting with your most recent post, because it's brief...
This is strange - seems to suggest that Jemima is sister of Michael and Thomas the nephews of Thomas the landowner, rather than daughter of a James who is brother of Thomas the landowner, as suggested in his will (I think)? I'm confused. Will have to come back to this one! (Still busy checking through those earlier documents, before I get to the latest you've just posted - thanks! - and not much time today either.)
-
Whew! I think (hope) that I have now gone through all of those wills and documents and constructed relationships and made notes as appropriate. Still a few minor questions, but they are noted and that will do for now.
I should mention that some way back on this thread, I confused the names Durrant and Dutnell. Durrant is the main name in my family line (Sarah, wife of John Siffleet) - Dutnell was only the name of Mary's second husband, so I'm not going to bother further with them.
Thank you very much for all of your help, suggestions and guidance on this one, John - you have helped me not only to build this tree but also in finding more of the source documents in future, and those transcriptions of useful documents on The Keep.
I should probably let this thread die (or only add anything related to the various Sopers or Siffleets already mentioned) and after a final tidy-up and a break, start on one of the other lines - plenty on the Killingbecks, so may leave them for later, but I also want to see if I can work out the Broomfield and Durrant lines. I will post a new thread if I get stuck with one of them!
And thanks again to Barbara for helping to decipher the first will and relationships. There are still Willys and Ganseys I haven't constructed - Elizabeth Willy the niece must have been the daughter of one of original Thomas' brothers who married a Willy (possibly misspelt) - but I am not going to worry about them any further at the moment.
-
I confused the names Durrant and Dutnell.
So did I!
Before we let the thread go, one extra thing.
We know that some of the main places we are interested in - Chailey, Isfield, Newick - have not been filmed by the LDS. Although we seem to be OK with marriages and burials (transcription wise), we don't have baptisms.
I really do hope there are some, but I have thought all along that maybe the Siffleets were nonconformists (at least for a time).
Someone on rootschat was looking for the will of James Broomfield a few years ago. They got some burial info from one of our contributors
A 75 year old James Broomffield who was an anabaptist teacher from Chailey, was buried at All Saints, Waldron, Sussex, 7 March 1774. (info SFHG Members burial list website)
So that set me off looking into Baptists in Sussex. The main centre of activity seemed to be Ditchling. And some records have been put online
https://www.unitarian.org.uk/resources/document-library/records-general-baptist-meeting-house-now-unitarian-ditchling-sussex
There is a pdf document there. Consisting of three volumes. It's the first one that is useful for Siffleets.
There is a general index to the first volume, starting on page 162 (which is page 88 of the pdf, about halfway down) and on page 161 are abbreviations used in the index.
Siffleets are indexed on page 171 of volume one.
It is a bit fuzzy, but never mind. Most of the numbers in the index refer to the pages immediately above, List of Baptisms and of others admitted to Church Membership/into Church Communion (which are given numbers 1-494, and starting on page 150). These will be adults.
m = married to (who, but not when they married)
p = page number in the volume
i.e. James Siffleet p7
and if we go back to page 7 of volume 1 we see mention of James Sifleet being admonished.
We see familiar names here, Soper/Soaper, Broomfield
It also helps with the mystery of Detemia Gansey - a search on FamilySearch for the name Detemia, "any place" Sussex brings up what may be her burial. Even better is looking for Ditemia, which it says in the original, because FamilySearch have indexed the surname three times in different ways.
A mystery burial? At Westmeston, 20 Oct 1765
Thomas Ciphlet senex (old man) Anabaptist
https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:S3HY-69HW-9RK?i=54&cat=245147
Good luck
John
-
Ah - well that's very interesting, and I will of course have a closer look at the Siffleets as well as other names on there. There are a few others which have cropped up before in the tree or my searches too - Parsons, Beadle, Hollingdale, etc. - in the PDF and on the page you linked to.
And actually, after posting my previous post, I immediately realised that I do still want to make an attempt at going further up the tree, beyond Thomas the speculative granddaddy (possible husband of Sarah Broomfield) - so I will come back to these.
That burial of Thomas Ciphlet - I wonder if he could be this granddaddy? His sister Mary Dutnell's will was written a couple of years after the burial date, and she does say he's dead.
I also realised that the Killingbecks are only related to aunt Mary Dutnell (Siffleet) - so actually not going to rush into doing too much work on them in the near future.
And thanks for the tip about Detemia - I will check her out. Once I've sighted and worked on a few more facts and relationships, I'll update you when I think I've got to the end of the Siffleets (at least to my satisfaction - I know it's almost never-ending, really!).
-
Just to finish off this thread - I just wanted to report back that thanks to a lot of help from John, I have managed to extract a lot of information and construct relationships amongst the Siffleets, back to a Thomas Sr (c.1695), and several Bro(o)mfields, so I think that this thread can be marked as completed at this point.
I did find the Detemia Gansey burial, but couldn't easily find the link to the Siffleets, so giving up on that one, at least for now. Ditto Elizabeth Willy, although I think that she must be an unnamed daughter of either James or John. (I have just had another quick look and did find a possible death record in London - WILLY, ELIZABETH 74, GRO Reference: 1844 J Quarter in MARYLEBONE Volume 01 Page 161 - but can't spot any obvious links to children or husband so will just keep her details noted on my scratchpad for another day.)
Thanks again, Barbara and John, for helping me with this.
-
Hi Mel
Turns out Detemia's marriage wasn't in Sussex
Matthias Gande + Dittymir Siffleet
11 May 1790, St George the Martyr, Southwark
Is on ancestry.
John
-
Well done and sorry I had to bow out of the research!
Barbara
-
Hi Mel
Turns out Detemia's marriage wasn't in Sussex
Matthias Gande + Dittymir Siffleet
11 May 1790, St George the Martyr, Southwark
Is on ancestry.
John
Yet another variation on the spelling! Thanks for that, John - I'll add it to my notes.
Barbara, your clear analysis and setting out of the relationships in the original will were very helpful in providing the basis for further investigation.
All in all a very fruitful investigation!
:)
Mel