Henry Edwards Inkley

[casalguidi]

Sarah baptised 1803 certainly looks to be the daughter of John INKLEY and Sarah nee MOORLEN  thus the half sister of Henry Edwards INKLEY.  Sarah baptised 1803 did marry James JAQUES:

1861 Pinner Hill Road, Harrow, Middlesex

Sarah JAQUES head mar 55 b.Hollingbourne Kent
Sarah INKLEY niece unm 14 b.Kingsdown Kent
/
William JAQUES head mar 26 miller b.Pinner Middlesex
Charlotte wife 26 b.Pinner
William son 8m b.Pinner

RG9/783 folio 49 page 4
.....................

John INKLEY m Sarah MOORLEN and they look to have had children:

Sarah 1803
Elizabeth 1808
Eleanor 1813
John 1814

These would tie in with Sarah's husband, John INKLEY, dying in 1815 would they not?  There may be more children but these are the ones that I could immediately see.

I'm not sure why you all seem to be getting confused .................. is there anything we could do to help make things a bit clearer?

Do any of you have access to the census?  Sarah EDWARDS late INKLEY nee MOORLEN is deceased by the time of the 1861 census so there is a death that might fit 1853 in the Hollingbourne registration district http://freebmd.rootsweb.com - the Hollingbourne district covers Lenham where the EDWARDS' were living in 1851 and where Sarah's widower was still living in 1861+.

Casalguidi

[pops1]

You make it sound so easy to understand ,thankyou so much it has been a puzzle for everybody for many years since one of my family had a paid researcher delve into the family tree and when Sarah was found the family member being an out and out snob wouldn't go any further because the researcher wrote Sarah Inkley"Widow, Pauper who baptised 4 illegitimate children  Hollingbourne"  To me it makes our Sarah super interesting and l am so glad it is now unraveled.
 The Sarah Edwards who died in 1853 would have been our Sarah because she appears in the 1841 ,1851 census but not the 1861 census so that fits in nicely.
I am sure everybody in our little group on this thread would like to thankyou for your superior skill .Can't wait for the others to see the great news that unravels another part of Sarah's life she must have been quite a women.

[ab]

I mucked up last post ,but I thik it sent before I rectified it. Will try again later

[pops1]

You can change what you have written by clicking on the modify button on the right hand side of your posting

[ab]

Thanks, I am not that clever with computers.

 It does seem like we have found Sarah Moorlen Inkley Edwards death
 in 1853 Hollingbourne. Many thanks to Casalguidi for her help!

 I am thinking that perhaps those chilren ...Elizabeth 1808, Eleanor 1813
 and John 1814 were also Sarah and John Inkley,s children, then John died1815
 
  Maybe William Edwards was already married,but began living with Sarah
  having  Emily ,Robert,Keziah and Henry with her,before he was free to marry in 1831
  I guess we will never know the real story, but at least we have made some progress.
 
 Keziah is also a mystery. With a name like that you would think she would
 be easy to find.
 Like you, the only marriage I found for Sarah 1804  was in Rochester.,to J Jaques
 Must away for now, to visit my Mother in Nursing home. She was an Inkley....
 but not a Sarah!!!
 

[bosdal]

Thank-you all for the great research and outcome.  I am married to an Inkley and a descendant of Robert so this is a wonderful find.  As you say AB perhaps Sarah was living with William Edwards or at least she might have been his mistress, but one would think that she would give the children his surname if they were his, or at  least give the fathers first name in the baptismal register even if she didn't want his full name to be known if he was their father - we will probably never know. Wouldn't it be nice if something popped up  Such a great story.

[pops1]

Will get down to really dating the family tree properly and l will send you a copy Bosdal.
Now l want to expand the tree as far as l can ,so much fun but totally consuming