Author Topic: Hannah Fition  (Read 3217 times)

Offline Roy G

  • RootsChat Aristocrat
  • ******
  • Posts: 2,178
    • View Profile
Re: Hannah Fition
« Reply #9 on: Friday 20 April 12 06:15 BST (UK) »
Thanks for your thanks Bob and I am pleased that the scenario I suggested to you seems to make sense. 
The dots as you call them are there, but they do need verification. 

The IGI (Batch) Number: I04472-0 gives the baptisms and I04472-1 the burials. 
Neither should end with a full stop as I initially showed.  Accessing them will give you the following Sedlescombe baptisms and burials.
Stephen Spilstead bapt 21 Feb 1823    no burial
John Spilstead      bapt 30 May 1824   no burial
William Spilstead  bapt 22 July 1832    possibly matched by a burial 10 Dec 1833
Mary Spilstead      no age or baptism   burial 18 November 1834 (Childbirth death?)
Thomas Spilstead bapt 29 Nov 1834    possibly matched by a burial 31 Dec 1834 and may have been the cause of Mary's demise

The IGI index has not shown the ages of the above nor told you who their parents were, or husband was, but there is a possibility that that information does appear on the IGI microfilm of the actual parish register.  Deaths followed by a second marriage and family could explain the age difference between John & Hannah and why William & Thomas from John's first marriage never ended up in OZ.

If proven, your second task should be to find an East Sussex marriage of the Widower John Spilstead to a Hannah from Battle, sometime between 1834-1837. Finding that marriage will make it far more probable that the scenario I have suggested can be considered close to the truth.   I would like to help in that respect, but unfortunately my copy of the SMI does not work on this computer. Hopefully another Rootschatter (perhaps Omega 1?) can supply that info

As there appears to be some uncertainty about the maiden name of Hannah, another avenue of exploration is the purchase of the birth certificate of Mary Ann or Elizabeth.  The mother's maiden name should also appear on that.

Someone else has put on the Internet John SPILSTEAD Jnr. was born in 1822 in Sedlescombe, and was christened on 11 Apr 1824 in Ewhurst, Sussex, England. He died in Aug 1907 in Erskineville, NSW, Australia. He married Harriet SIVYER on 13 Mar 1848 in Wesleyan Chapel, Sydney, NSW, Australia.

By the way Bob, are you aware of a Mr G Tankard who appears on Genes Reunited?  Amongst his Spilstead ancestors from Sedelscombe & Battle, he lists, Mary 1841, Elizabeth 1837, John 1823, John 1803, (and Thomas, William & Stephen) all of whom come from your line.
Roy


RootsChat is the busiest, largest free family history forum site in the country. It is completely free to use. Register now.
Also register instantly with Facebook or Twitter (and other social networks). Start your genealogy search now.


Offline L

  • RootsChat Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 194
    • View Profile
Re: Hannah Fition
« Reply #10 on: Sunday 22 April 12 12:22 BST (UK) »
The only marriage of a John Spilsted to a Hannah, in the right timeframe  on the SMI was:

John Spilsted bachelor(?) and Hannah Philcox, both of the parish, at Brede, on 09.07.1836

Regards,
Lesley
Catt,Ades,Hook,Ashdown,Cobby,Harvey
Census information is Crown Copyright:www.nationalarchives.gov.uk

RootsChat is the busiest, largest free family history forum site in the country. It is completely free to use. Register now.
Also register instantly with Facebook or Twitter (and other social networks). Start your genealogy search now.


Offline Roy G

  • RootsChat Aristocrat
  • ******
  • Posts: 2,178
    • View Profile
Re: Hannah Fition
« Reply #11 on: Sunday 22 April 12 17:42 BST (UK) »
Even though both parties are listed as single, the Brede marriage is certainly worth following up for several reasons:
[1] There are no other Sussex born John & Hannah combinations on the 1841 census
[2] In 1841 Hannah is down as 26 and there was a baptism of an over 2 year old Hannah Philcox in Battle in 1818.  (presumably there were no Episcopalian facilities elsewhere)
[3] The parents of that child were James & Mary
[4] The marriage year is fine for a first born a year later
So perhaps Fition followed by squiggle could have been a badly written and transcribed Philcox?
Worth checking out don't you think?
Roy G

Offline moamabob

  • RootsChat Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 112
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: Hannah Fition
« Reply #12 on: Monday 23 April 12 00:29 BST (UK) »
I certainly believe the timeframe of date, places & miss spelled names you have found for me are making the name of Hannah & John certainly unquestionable & are coming together as the right British couple.
again I can not Thank all for the help in knocking down a few brick in the British side of the Spilsted's wall
Cheers Bob S :)

Offline TheoLC

  • RootsChat Pioneer
  • *
  • Posts: 1
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: Hannah Fition
« Reply #13 on: Saturday 14 October 17 23:43 BST (UK) »
The Fition is definitely a misspelling of Philcox.