Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - lucymags

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 ... 33
Scotland / Re: SA migrant John Carter who may have died back in Scotland 1908
« on: Monday 10 December 18 07:30 GMT (UK)  »
Thanks for that, Monica.  :)

Her full name was Ann Maria Green Carter (Bashforth) - not sure where the Green came from because her mother was Clark(e) - but I suppose it's likely that they'd drop the 3rd initial on a shipping record. Perhaps that is her, as she moved north to Johannesburg (I think to join a daughter) at some point after John's death, and Durban would be the nearest point of arrival for that city. Perhaps she spent some time in England and/or Scotland and then decided to move up to Johannesburg.

Scotland / Re: SA migrant John Carter who may have died back in Scotland 1908
« on: Sunday 09 December 18 07:21 GMT (UK)  »
Thanks for that, doddsie.

I did investigate your lead, but her death notice says she was born in Cape Town (c.1856 - no baptism found). Her father was from Sheffield and joined the Royal Artillery in 1847, and possibly met her mother when he was stationed near where she lived in Hounslow, although he was stationed in the Cape Colony by 1851 and they only married in Cape Town in March 1854. (I haven't found any records of either's passage to the Cape.)

Do you have details of Thomas' death?

They are mentioned in Thomas Seckford's work, published 1792 -  "The statutes and ordinances for the government of the alms-houses in Woodbridge ....". A searchable version available on google books.

Do you mean Thomas senior, or the son? Either way, I have some details of death but haven't looked at that work yet, so thanks for that. I'm on my tablet now and although I can see the bibliographic details, it's not showing a preview or allowing me to search. I'll have to have another look on the computer tomorrow if I can find time.

Another thing which seems like an indication of Thomas' seniority in age is the fact that he was executor of elder brother William's will in 1601. I think that I am going to put him above Robert in my tree (with copious notes on both).

If anything concrete to confirm or contradict this assumption turns up, I'll post FYI - else I think this query is pretty much done, thank you.

Oh, well then I just don't know.  :-\

Perhaps Thomas was 2nd son, but went and bought land outside the manor after the eldest brother William became tenant there, got married, had kids, etc. and just didn't want to live there? Then after William and then later the mother died,, mummy's boy Robert applied for tenancy (and only got married later).

It'll have to wait until tomorrow now, when fresh eyes may help something else emerge!

Thanks for your help.  :)

Another thought, relating to the granting of the coat of arms. If Robert was not married by 1610, and aged about 44 by then with no offspring, whereas Thomas was already married with offspring, would this have made a difference?

I think I'm about to give up on this one. References to the Manor of Hollesley in other sources do not mention any Boltons. This one (The manors of Suffolk, etc.) says "The manor was forfeited to the Crown and held by Queen Elizabeth for the remainder of her life. In 1605, however. King Jas. I. granted the manor to Thomas, Earl of Suffolk, and Henry, Earl of Northampton, and they the same year sold it to Sir Michael Stanhope, of Sudbourne, Knt.,...".

(According to the Visitation, first tenant mentioned is the elder brother William in April 1587, shortly after his father's death. He dies in 1601. His widow and mother (both Annes) get admitted in 1608, and then when the mother dies in 1611, Robert gets it. Anne the widow remarries so I assume she goes elsewhere.)

Anyway, I think that I'll leave this and move on to Thomas's offspring now!

Edit: Oops, sorry, I just realised that the tenants lease the land, as per the info on the link on admittance, so would not have been mentioned in that book, which is about the owners or lords of the manor.

As Thomas’ father died in 1587, I would assume that Thomas applied for his own coat of arms in 1610/15

Thanks, Lily - I'm just trying to work out why Robert, apparently his elder brother, did not apply for one himself?  ???


And now I have just realised that actually Katherine was only admitted (although it says "with her husband") on 17 April 1627 - over 15 years later than he was.  ???

I'll carry on ploughing through these documents I have and also see if I can find anything relevant on the Manor of Hollesley...

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 ... 33