Author Topic: Marriage in Latin - 'Banns omitted'  (Read 1931 times)

Offline BrittaniaW

  • RootsChat Extra
  • **
  • Posts: 9
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: Marriage in Latin - 'Banns omitted'
« Reply #9 on: Friday 22 June 18 06:16 BST (UK) »
Hello Goldie

It costs £8.40 to get the National Archives to give you a quote to see if a document can be copied and advise you what the cost will be – this is non-refundable!  I’ll either pay the money or wait until my sister is travelling that way and get her to copy it – probably cheaper to pay the £8.40!  I understand about copyright.

You said that the Katherine Hurst who married Richard Broster is the daughter of Henry (died 1669 Poynton) and Anne Worthington.  I had been leaning to the view that she was Hamnet’s daughter!  I’m not sure how you know that, but in case you are not completely certain, my reasoning was as follows!
•   The Katherine Hurst who married Richard Broster in Bollington in 1706 was the sister of Henry Hurst yeoman who was buried in Bollington in 1728 (Henry’s will).
•   Hamnet Hurst (1638 – 1726) and is wife Ellen had moved to Adlington by 1680 (when his son Joseph was buried there).
•   Both Henry (died 1728) and his sister Katherine had children called Hamnet - Henry also had a daughter Ellen (the name of Hamnet’s wife), but not one called Ann (and he had four daughters).  (I did not know Katherine had a daughter Katherine.)
•   A Henry Hurst husbandman was buried in Poynton in 1726.
•   As the Henry Hurst who was the son of Henry Hurst (died 1669) was his oldest son, I thought he would get the property in Poynton, and was therefore more likely to be the one who died in Poynton in 1726.
•   As Henry Hurst (died 1728) had a child baptized in Adlington in 1695 and subsequently children baptized in Bollington and Pott Shrigley, I thought he was more likely to be the son of Hamnet who had moved to Adlington.  If so, Katherine would be Hamnet’s daughter.
•   If Katherine was the daughter of Henry (died 1669), she would have been older and at least 36 when she got married.  If she was Hamnet’s daughter she could have been younger.

I have not been able to find too many baptisms before 1695, maybe only Hamnet (1638) and his son George (1670), which seems a little strange, but they may be there.  It seemed like the Lambs were Quakers, and I wondered if more were.

Thanks again, look forward to your thoughts.

Offline goldie61

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 4,496
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: Marriage in Latin - 'Banns omitted'
« Reply #10 on: Saturday 23 June 18 08:57 BST (UK) »
Hi Brittania

It’s interesting you thought the father of Katherine might be Hamnet and not Henry.
(no record of a baptism with either father).
It is many years ago since I did this side of my family, and it’s only just with you spurring me on recently that I’ve had another serious look at it.
I think you may well be right.
I can’t find in my notes why I thought Henry spefically was her father  - I think with there being a will for Henry (died 1669, the one that is very badly damaged), and then a will for his son Henry in 1728 which mentions Richard Broster as his brother in law, I just thought Katherines father was on balance Henry senior. But Richard Broster would also have been Hamnet’s brother in law of course. And as you say, she and Richard Broster don’t name any of their children Henry (not ones for which there is a baptism anyway), and they DO name one Hamnet. This may be because it was a family name of course, but with the added reason that it was probably Katherine’s father’s name.
Plus if she was Hamnet’s daughter and not Henry’s, her age would be a better fit for having children post 1706, as you say.
Actually it makes my life a little less complicated if indeed Katherine’s father was Hamnet and not Henry. At least I don’t have to worry about who Henry’s mother was!
The mother of Hamnet, bap 18 Nov 1638, must have been Katheirne Hyde (alias Ward), as she and Henry Hurst were married 11 May 1629 at Poynton, and she didn’t die until 1664.
Which of Hamnet’s children are you descended from? Henry? I see he had quite a few.
Have you seen the fragment of Hamnet’s marriage licence to Ellen Mottram in 1667? It doesn’t give  much information.
Have you traced Ellen Mottram at all?


By the way, have you come across a great story about Richard Broster stealing a chest of money and treasure from under the noses of Bonnie Prince Charlie’s army?!
https://archive.org/stream/nookscornersofla00crosuoft#page/344/mode/2up/search/broster
This is 1745, so could possibly be Richard Broster, the husband of Katherine (he died 1748), or perhaps his son Richard. The ‘bench in the cellar’ given as 1757, must be the son anyway.

Good fun!
Cheers
Goldie
Lane, Burgess: Cheshire. Finney, Rogers, Gilman:Derbys
Cochran, Nicol, Paton, Bruce:Scotland. Bertolle:London
Bainbridge, Christman, Jeffs: Staffs

Offline goldie61

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 4,496
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: Marriage in Latin - 'Banns omitted'
« Reply #11 on: Saturday 23 June 18 21:40 BST (UK) »
Have you found a will for Hamnet died 1726? I can't see one.
Lane, Burgess: Cheshire. Finney, Rogers, Gilman:Derbys
Cochran, Nicol, Paton, Bruce:Scotland. Bertolle:London
Bainbridge, Christman, Jeffs: Staffs

Offline BrittaniaW

  • RootsChat Extra
  • **
  • Posts: 9
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: Marriage in Latin - 'Banns omitted'
« Reply #12 on: Sunday 24 June 18 05:51 BST (UK) »
Hello Goldie

Thanks for your post.  This may end up being quite long, so don’t hesitate to tell me if it becomes too boring.

I’ll start by saying that I am descended from Ellen Hurst who married Isaac Clayton in Bollington in 1732.  She died in Adlington in 1775.  Unfortunately, another Ellen Hurst married William Skelhorn in Adlington in 1734 and died in Adlington in 1735.  The two possible baptisms are Ellen, daughter of Henry, (Ellen1) baptized in Bollington in 1698 and Ellen, daughter of Hamnet (and Mary Lownds), (Ellen2) baptized in Adlington in 1714.  (By the way, I work on the way current calendars are done, that is, if the baptism was shown as February 1697, I call it February 1698, so I am consistent!)

Hamnet, the father of Ellen2, married in Adlington in 1713 and died there as Hamnet Hurst junior in 1718.  Until I saw Joseph Hyde alias Ward’s will, I had the Hamnet Hursts worked out!  There were three – Hamnet baptized 1638 in Poynton and buried in Adlington in 1726 (Hamnet1), Hamnet son of Henry baptized in Poynton in 1699 (Hamnet2) and Hamnet son of George (Hamnet’s son baptized in 1670) baptized in Shropshire in 1711 and buried there in 1738 (Hamnet3).  I assumed Hamnet2 was the one married in 1713 and buried in 1718, father of Ellen2, although he would only have been about 14 when he got married.  However, Joseph’s will refers to another Hamnet being a son of Hamnet1 (Hamnet4), so it is possible that he was the one who married in 1713.  I am still one burial short, though!!!

Also, after I sent the last post to you, I realized that Hamnet2 (baptized 1699) could possibly be the son of Henry (probably buried 1726 Poynton), the son of Henry (buried 1669 Poynton), son of Henry and Katharine, rather than Henry, brother of Katharine Broster (? son of Hamnet).  This is because I have the following children for Henry, brother of Katharine Broster, that I think is Hamnet’s son – James (1695 Adlington – 1715 Pott Shrigley), Ellen (1698 Bollington), Hamnet (1699 Poynton), Elizabeth (1701 Pott Shrigley/Bollington married Thomas Newton), Mary (1703 Pott Shrigley/Tidderington married Nathaniel Harrop), Sarah (1706 Pott Shrigley/Tidderington – 1707 Titherington), John (1708 Pott Shrigley/Tidderington) and Henry (1712 Pott Shrigley).

Hamnet stands out because he is baptized in Poynton and is very close to Ellen.  I hadn’t worried about it because I thought there were only three Hamnets and he had to be the one married in 1713.  Now that Hamnet1 had a son Hamnet4 (from Joseph’s will), I am extremely confused.  Joseph referred to Hamnet4 in connection with property in Adlington, so he may be more likely to be the one who married in Adlington in 1713, especially if the Henry baptized in 1699 was the son of Henry in Poynton, not Henry in Bollington.  Hamnet4 would not have been young, but he did die rather quickly after fathering three children!  There is no Hamnet referred to in the will of Henry buried 1728, but that could be just because Hamnet had died in 1718.

I lean towards my Ellen Hurst being Ellen1 for three reasons:
•   Ellen1 was baptized in Bollington, rather than Adlington, and my Ellen married in Bollington.
•   my Ellen had a daughter Sarah (and I am fairly sure Ellen1’s mother, the wife of Henry Hurst buried 1728, was Sarah buried 1722 Pott Shrigley) and no daughter Mary (Ellen2’s mother’s name).  She only had one son, John, and one other daughter, though.
•   Peter Harrop (son of Nathaniel Harrop and Mary Hurst – Ellen1’s sister) was the executor of her husband Isaac Clayton’s will.

Obviously, none of this is conclusive, but I think I am most likely descended from Ellen the daughter of Henry buried 1728, whom I think most likely was the son of Hamnet1.  I don’t have a will for Hamnet1, but I wish I did, because it would have to make life easier.  The children I have for him are mainly from burials – George (1670 – 1745), Hamnet (Joseph’s will), Joseph (buried 1680), Ellen and John (both buried 1691) and possibly Henry and Katharine (the names certainly fit, being his parents’ names!).

I know that the 1667 marriage licence shows Hamnet as a farmer from Poynton and Ellen Mottram from Adlington.  I think (!!!) her father could be John Mottram buried Adlington 1681, because Hamnet Hurst is one of the people who did the inventory (probate 1682).  However, despite the fact that there is supposed to be a will, as yet I have only found the inventory – I will be looking further.  (John Mottram would explain Hamnet’s son John and Hamnet’s move to Adlington!)

Thanks for the reference for Richard Broster – I look forward to reading it.  I presume you have Katherine Broster’s burial and know Richard was married previously.

I hope this hasn’t bored you too much.  I’m not sure about RootsChat protocols, but I would be happy to email if you want.

Thanks
Brittania


Offline goldie61

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 4,496
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: Marriage in Latin - 'Banns omitted'
« Reply #13 on: Monday 25 June 18 05:31 BST (UK) »
I have just sent you a PM.
Look forward to hearing from you.
Lane, Burgess: Cheshire. Finney, Rogers, Gilman:Derbys
Cochran, Nicol, Paton, Bruce:Scotland. Bertolle:London
Bainbridge, Christman, Jeffs: Staffs

Offline BrittaniaW

  • RootsChat Extra
  • **
  • Posts: 9
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: Marriage in Latin - 'Banns omitted'
« Reply #14 on: Monday 25 June 18 06:12 BST (UK) »
Hopefully I have just sent you a PM!

Thanks