Author Topic: Richard Aylott/Aylett married at Little Canfield 1669  (Read 2659 times)

Offline Opal

  • RootsChat Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 239
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: Richard Aylott/Aylett married at Little Canfield 1669
« Reply #9 on: Wednesday 04 April 18 16:03 BST (UK) »
Thank you for the info re the Essex line.
The Matthew Aylott of Little Canfield was christened there on 26th July 1692, aged 4, birth year 1688 presumably, parents are given as Richard and Elizabeth Aylott.
There is a marriage of Matthew Aillet to Hannah Matthew in 1714, Newport, Essex in the Boyd's Marriage Index.  Newport  is approx 6/7/miles from Albury, Hertfordshire.  I have other Hertfordshire lines that jump the Essex/Herts Parishes over generations so this marriage could be plausible.
The Albury christenings of Jonathan 8th October 1714, Matthew 13th January 1716, Richard 'Alett' 1st May 1720 (is Richard due to his grandfather's name?) all give Matthew as the father and finally Ann 'Alett' 3rd November 1723, daughter of Hannah and Matthew Aylott.  This could be evidence that the Matthew/Hannah married in 1714 are the parents of these four children?
Hannah is buried at Albury on 9th September 1725 and is 'wife of Matthew Alett' in PR. 
What is possible is that Matthew born 1688 remarried on his wife's death and he had further children with a second wife - Thomas 4th October 1731, Joseph 18th February 1732, Matthew 24th December 1734 and James 2nd February 1745 in Albury? Unfortunately no mother's name is given.
This could explain why a Matthew, son of Matthew Aylett is buried on 4th January 1731/32 - possibly Matthew b.1716? And if so, why Matthew of 1734 was named that following the death of the 1716 Matthew and the earlier two children being called Thomas and Joseph?
Therefore I could have added an extra generation, that didn't occur!
There is a burial in Albury on 19th August 1759, unfortunately no age given for Matthew Eylott - this could be Matthew b.1688?  But this theory could explain why an Elizabeth, widow of Matthew Allott is buried on 2nd April 1770 at Albury, if he did remarry, whom I have not before been able to account for?
It is all about trying to use the evidence available and making sense of it, that is why it is so fascinating adding the pieces of the jigsaw puzzle and sometimes having to review that evidence and this could go some way to clarify what info I had gathered!
I have just gone through my notes and this theory is making sense after returning to it!
I shall look for your email though other users have used the 'Personal Message' service on this forum to send personal/private info to me before, such as email addresses or where possibly people are still living.
Hope all this Aylott info is still making sense!
Oxon - Stevens, Bunce, Mobbs, Creek, Hoare,Bates, Austin, Crawford, Richardson, Paxford
Bucks - Stevens, Claydon, Bunce,
Lincs - Twell, Harris, Bilson, Cumberworth, Cooper, Langton, Healey, Twelve(s)
Herefordshire - Gunter, Merry, Tylor
Essex - Underwood, Cant, Finch, Smyth, Frances alias Puckle
Hertfordshire - Clarke, Parker, Francis, Wallace, Aylott, Nottage
Beds - Covington, Bennett, Clark, Carter
Ireland - Manning

Offline ruthaylett

  • RootsChat Extra
  • **
  • Posts: 8
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: Richard Aylott/Aylett married at Little Canfield 1669
« Reply #10 on: Thursday 05 April 18 16:55 BST (UK) »
I agree the Albury story makes more sense like that; I think you are still some way short of knowing which Mathew it was.

On the Daniel Aylett issue raised by coombs (I think we might have talked Ayletts before?) - you cannot assume all Ayletts are closely related. The families spread out and get severely pruned. Very interested by the will - it's hard to find info from relatives. I have a Daniel Aylett associated with Gosfield in this period, which isn't far from Great Leighs. He did have a daughter Mary but also seems to have died quite young - there is a will from him. And the other thing is that he was a Society of Friends man. Daniel (like Matthew) is not the most common of Aylett names: I have one buried in Chelmsford in 1814, one buried Mountnessing 1806, then a set of largely 17th C ones, bap 1617/18 High Roding, one married Colchester 1650, one with a 1682 will in Tollesbury, also with a probably rather young son Daniel, and the Gosfield one who dies around 1726 and has a son bap 1723. No links to the Matthew-related families we were talking about as far as I know..

Offline ruthaylett

  • RootsChat Extra
  • **
  • Posts: 8
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: Richard Aylott/Aylett married at Little Canfield 1669
« Reply #11 on: Saturday 08 December 18 10:38 GMT (UK) »
I think I missed this when i was chatting earlier in the year. I track Aylett families so I have a database with quite a lot of them in it.

I have two Hannah Aylett's of the right sort of age. One is a daughter of Robert Aylett (a fairly well-to-do clothier) and Mary Wall in Braintree. They had at least ten children according to their wills -  Robert: PCC will 1657  folio 492 Robert Aylett, clothier, of
Braintree; Mary: PCC will 1659 folio 354 Mary relict of Robert of Braintree but as the Braintree PR doesn't go that far back I have no baps for them nor do I have the actual marriage. However she does have a sister Mary as well as brothers Thomas, John, Richard, Robert, Moses. The Richard is a candidate for the one that marries Ann Brett in Aveley, the John remains a clothier in Bocking, Thomas also stays in Bocking, Robert goes into the wine trade and die in oporto, Moses becomes a draper in London. However there isn't one called Daniel in any of the wills.

The other Hannah is bap 1661 in Braintree daughter of a Matthias and Hannah. However the mother dies soon after the child is born; if I am correct Matthias moves to Colchester and marries twice more, having daughters Elizabeth and Susan.

I have three possible Daniels listed but none of them as baps: one marries twice in 1650 and 1656 in Colchester and seems a bit too old to Hannah's brother; the next is only known from a will 1682, Tollesbury, which mentions a wife Anne  and son Daniel who sounds like he is still a child, but no other children; then there is the Society of Friends Gosfield one who at a guess was born in the 1690s and is too young to be Hannah's brother I would have thought. Any evidence Hannah was Society of friends?

I could concoct a story that Robert/Mary wall have a son Daniel who becomes a Quaker and is cut off from the family, but this is stretching it a bit...

Offline boxoffrogs

  • RootsChat Extra
  • **
  • Posts: 61
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: Richard Aylott/Aylett married at Little Canfield 1669
« Reply #12 on: Tuesday 04 July 23 19:55 BST (UK) »
hi @ruthaylett
I'm intrigued that you have collected a list of Aylett and was wondering if you might be able to help as I have a couple of troublesome ones!!! Hoping it's ok to add to this post!

1. Sarah Aylett m. William Turner at Bardfield Saling 1797 (my current theory is that she could be the b/b Sarah bap at Panfield 1770 to Sarah Aylet - but I'm intrigued that John Aylett is a witness at her marriage.

2. Rachel poss Aylett m. c.1779 Charles Deeks and has chn in Hawkwell from 1781-1797

thank you!
Essex/Suffolk and further afield where linked - Partridge, Elliott, Beckwith, Lewsey, Owers, Appelton, Josselyn, Sewell, Lindsell and loads of others!


Offline ruthaylett

  • RootsChat Extra
  • **
  • Posts: 8
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: Richard Aylott/Aylett married at Little Canfield 1669
« Reply #13 on: Tuesday 04 July 23 21:09 BST (UK) »
Sarah is one of those well-used Aylett names so unless you have other information it could be hard to locate the one in this marriage. It's true that the Paling one is geographically close; however there is a Hawkwell one bap 25 Feb 1770 whose parents are John and Sarah; she has a lot of younger siblings. There is also a Hatfield Broad Oak bap to a Thomas and Mary 5 Aug 1770; a Dagenham one to a Thomas and Sarah 13 Jan 1773; and others though further away. But I'd worry about the age at marriage for a woman bap 1770; moreover illegitimate children were often sent away to service if female. Are Turner and wife still about in the 1841 census? Any idea what his occupation was?

Offline ruthaylett

  • RootsChat Extra
  • **
  • Posts: 8
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: Richard Aylott/Aylett married at Little Canfield 1669
« Reply #14 on: Tuesday 04 July 23 21:18 BST (UK) »
And on Rachel: now this isn't a usual Aylett name at least in this period. The only one I have was bap 27 Oct 1734 in Rettendon to a  Richard and Mary - seems a bit early for a 1779 marriage.

Offline boxoffrogs

  • RootsChat Extra
  • **
  • Posts: 61
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: Richard Aylott/Aylett married at Little Canfield 1669
« Reply #15 on: Tuesday 04 July 23 21:52 BST (UK) »
Thank you for replying. Sadly William Turner died before census, though he was from Rayne but most seem to have been born around Bardfield Saling and not really into baptising! They had 4 children as far as I can tell, John, James, Sarah, Thomas - Thomas is my line and he married at 42. All seem to be agricultural labourers.

Were the Aylets non-conformists? There seem to be be fewer baptism records than others.
Essex/Suffolk and further afield where linked - Partridge, Elliott, Beckwith, Lewsey, Owers, Appelton, Josselyn, Sewell, Lindsell and loads of others!

Offline ruthaylett

  • RootsChat Extra
  • **
  • Posts: 8
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: Richard Aylott/Aylett married at Little Canfield 1669
« Reply #16 on: Tuesday 04 July 23 22:30 BST (UK) »
Ag lab men could marry late given the need to have enough income to support a family, though this was more usual I think for sons of farmers who waited until they inherited. Marriage ages on the whole seemed to drop during this century: and there was a fertility issue for women of course. 27 was very late for a woman's first marriage.

Some Ayletts were NCs especially in that part of Essex: Charles, born around 1758 in Wethersfield and a carpenter in Bocking, was an Independent; he has daughters baptised at the Bocking Independent Meeting House in the 1790s, too late to be useful for your marriage, and anyway a carpenter's daughter would not necessarily marry an ag lab. There was also an earlier Quaker family in Gosfield; suspect other Aylett NCs too. The 1753 act as far as I remember forced NCs to marry in a CoE.


Offline boxoffrogs

  • RootsChat Extra
  • **
  • Posts: 61
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: Richard Aylott/Aylett married at Little Canfield 1669
« Reply #17 on: Tuesday 04 July 23 22:43 BST (UK) »
Thank you, I appreciate your time and knowledge, it's one of those parts of my tree that I keep returning to, ever hopeful!
Essex/Suffolk and further afield where linked - Partridge, Elliott, Beckwith, Lewsey, Owers, Appelton, Josselyn, Sewell, Lindsell and loads of others!