Author Topic: Brainteaser trying to work out relationships from a will - Siffleet  (Read 3125 times)

Offline lucymags

  • RootsChat Senior
  • ****
  • Posts: 291
  • Slowly but surely...
    • View Profile
Re: Brainteaser trying to work out relationships from a will - Siffleet
« Reply #18 on: Monday 22 January 18 07:37 GMT (UK) »
A Soper-Broomfield connection!
This one must be linked. I haven't yet concentrated on the Soper link but will need to take this one into account as well when I do.
From FreeReg:
Place                 Bolney
Church name   St Mary Magdalene
Register type   Transcript
Marriage date   18 May 1721
Groom forename   John
Groom surname   BROMFIELD
Groom parish   Street
Bride forename   Mary
Bride surname   SOPER
Bride parish   Henfield

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 JohninSussex

  • RootsChat Senior
  • ****
  • Posts: 357
    • View Profile
Re: Brainteaser trying to work out relationships from a will - Siffleet
« Reply #19 on: Monday 22 January 18 08:20 GMT (UK) »
Edit: I have found a marriage of a Jane Soper to a James Heath in Chichesterm oddly, recorded twice on different dates: https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:NX4D-N6F and https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:Q2Q4-3C5W (the latter perhaps a civil marriage, then the church marriage?). But the latter says she's a widow, so I think that rules her out. Just a strange coincidence?!


The concept of a distinct civil marriage and church marriage is not something that exists in England, so you can rule that out.  I haven't looked at those two links, but assuming they are only transcripts, not images, the likely explanation is that one is the reading of banns and the other is the marriage. 

Also, as others have found, do not interpret the mention of "Chichester" as meaning the event took place in Chichester.  It may simply be the documents were obtained, perhaps by Family Search ie originally the Mormon "IGI", from the Diocese of Chichester which covers almost anywhere in West or East Sussex.  You would have to do more research to confirm where the marriage happened.
Rutter, Sampson, Swinerd, Head, Redman in Kent.  Others in Cheshire, Manchester, Glos/War/Worcs.
RUTTER family and Matilda Sampson's Will:

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 Barbara F

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 3,690
    • View Profile
Re: Brainteaser trying to work out relationships from a will - Siffleet
« Reply #20 on: Monday 22 January 18 10:04 GMT (UK) »
Glad you are making some headway.

I am afraid I won't have a lot of time to help this coming week but will keep and eye on the thread.

When looking for baptisms don't forget nonconformist records or the possibility of late baptisms.  I agree with John that multiple entries for marriages are often because the records are banns and family search does not make this clear.

I looked at the image of the will and I believe the surname is written as Heath rather than Hoath.  If other records you are looking at for this name are transcripts it is quite possible that the transcriber has confused "o" and "e". I compare the letter formation with other parts of the script to check.

I am not sure what your starting point was for this research but  areI think you need to find the parents and siblings of Thomas the testator and therefore the father of Thomas the nephew - assuming the latter is your direct ancestor.

Barbara
Joy, Larkin, Twort, Baker, Whibley - Brenchley and Horsmonden area Kent
Fewell and Speller - Essex and London
Headington and Bateman - London
Feltwell - Norfolk and London
Lewin - India and NZ
Evan-Thomas - Wales and London
Purser and Cook - Hunts

Census information is Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk

Offline lucymags

  • RootsChat Senior
  • ****
  • Posts: 291
  • Slowly but surely...
    • View Profile
Re: Brainteaser trying to work out relationships from a will - Siffleet
« Reply #21 on: Monday 22 January 18 11:53 GMT (UK) »
Thanks for that tip, John, handy to know and thanks again for your info and advice, Barbara. I see what you mean about the e looking like o in the others too - so I'll go back to that Hoath record and email the FreeReg person to check - they are usually very responsive.

I've been puzzling over the Soper-Sturt connections. There are several candidates for Thomas the brother-in-law, mostly in Henfield, and that William Sturt-Elizabeth Soper from Henfield marriage (with Jane as witness) ties in with this and suggests that niece Elizabeth is a sibling of John and Jane, although he has not specifically named Elizabeth as daughter of Thomas b-i-l.

I have a Thomas Soper who marries Mary Byfleet in 1757 and a John and Mary who have a John in 1789, but not enough evidence to tie them altogether and I'l probably give up on the details of the relationships, if only I can manage to work out how Thomas TLO is related to Thomas Soper...

My relationship is through John(? - still speculative - married a Sarah Durrant in Isfield 1749), brother of Thomas the testator (more apt description, thank you!) and I have a speculative father called Thomas who married Sarah Broomfield in 1719. However I am still on the lookout for corroborating or conflicting evidence.

I probably won't have as much time to devote to it this week either, but I'll see if I happen upon some fresh evidence or sudden insight by having a look when I can. My starting point was Thomas the nephew (via his daughter Sarah), from which point there's enough evidence linking everyone else in the chain up to that point.

Thanks for your interest and I'll report back if/when I find anything more definitive.

Edit: Going back to those Chichester marriage records, I see that the image is available here: https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:S3HT-6LV4-MFK, and also that it is James who is widowed, not Jane, as I previously mis-read. I think that this must be them.

Offline jonw65

  • RootsChat Aristocrat
  • ******
  • Posts: 2,726
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: Brainteaser trying to work out relationships from a will - Siffleet
« Reply #22 on: Monday 22 January 18 18:01 GMT (UK) »
Going back to those Chichester marriage records, I see that the image is available here: https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:S3HT-6LV4-MFK

You can see the bond here, allegation next image
https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:S3HY-6XHC-BHM?i=395&cat=604176
John

Offline lucymags

  • RootsChat Senior
  • ****
  • Posts: 291
  • Slowly but surely...
    • View Profile
Re: Brainteaser trying to work out relationships from a will - Siffleet
« Reply #23 on: Tuesday 23 January 18 02:50 GMT (UK) »
You can see the bond here, allegation next image
https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:S3HY-6XHC-BHM?i=395&cat=604176
John

Well, that's very interesting, thanks John! I have just educated myself (via FS and Wikipedia) about the nature of these licences, and it seems likely that they did the licence rather than banns because of the time of year (Advent). It also tells me that James was a carpenter, of Chichester.

The other FS entry, which gives just the year (1799) must be when they actually got married. Is it unsafe to assume that they were married in January? From what I read, the lack of mention of parental consent would imply that Jane was over 21 at the time of the licence.

Edit: I have just found a more likely burial for Jane - which puts her at about 35 at the time of marriage, but he was a widower, so quite feasible.
County   Sussex
Place         Chichester
Church name   St Peter the Great
Register type   Parish Register
Register entry number   213
Burial date           18 Oct 1843
Person age           80
Burial person forename   Jane
Burial person surname           HEATH
Burial person abode   Somers Town [Somerstown, which is in Chichester]

and one for husband James:
County   Sussex
Place Chichester
Church name   St Peter the Great
Register type   Parish Register
Register entry number   255
Burial date           26 Jan 1817
Person age           53
Burial person forename   James
Burial person surname           HEATH
Burial person abode           Tower St
Register note    Mr

Offline jonw65

  • RootsChat Aristocrat
  • ******
  • Posts: 2,726
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: Brainteaser trying to work out relationships from a will - Siffleet
« Reply #24 on: Tuesday 23 January 18 23:05 GMT (UK) »
Hi
Don't know if these will help (or if you have them)
Will of Thomas Soper of Henfield, Yeoman, proved 1795
http://www.thekeep.info/collections/getrecord/GB179_PBT_1_1_67_156

Original will here (codicil next image)
https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:S3HT-DRZZ-NY?i=997&cat=685691

Will of Thomas Soper of Henfield, Yeoman, proved 1796
http://www.thekeep.info/collections/getrecord/GB179_PBT_1_1_67_311

Original will
https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:S3HY-6XP3-HX2?i=169&cat=685691
(I think the codicil is previous image, 169)

Will of Elizabeth Soper of Henfield, wife of Thomas Soper, yeoman, proved 1794
http://www.thekeep.info/collections/getrecord/GB179_PBT_1_1_66_841

Original will
https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:S3HT-DRZC-7F?i=606&cat=685691

One of the Henfield parish register microfilms
Burials of the two Thomas Sopers
https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:S3HY-69ZS-4NL?i=254&cat=143272

with Elizabeth's burial on previous image (faint images!)
John

Offline jonw65

  • RootsChat Aristocrat
  • ******
  • Posts: 2,726
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: Brainteaser trying to work out relationships from a will - Siffleet
« Reply #25 on: Tuesday 23 January 18 23:23 GMT (UK) »
The other FS entry, which gives just the year (1799) must be when they actually got married. Is it unsafe to assume that they were married in January?

Yes, 2 January 1799
Parish register
https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:S3HY-6X1Q-52T?i=114&cat=451893

I have just found a more likely burial for Jane - which puts her at about 35 at the time of marriage, but he was a widower, so quite feasible.

She would be around for the 1841 census!
Could this be her?
https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:M7SZ-GSJ

John

Offline lucymags

  • RootsChat Senior
  • ****
  • Posts: 291
  • Slowly but surely...
    • View Profile
Re: Brainteaser trying to work out relationships from a will - Siffleet
« Reply #26 on: Wednesday 24 January 18 06:21 GMT (UK) »
Thanks again, John - that's fabulous and will keep me busy for a good while yet!

I have just been constructing the Soper family from parents Thomas and Elizabeth (still have to come back to that relationship with the Siffleets) and now have quite a few names and dates.

Jane Soper (c. 1763-1817) marries James Heath (1763-1817) (not yet checked out kids from earlier marriage; I did spot lots of other Heath baptisms in Chichester, 2 different fathers though). No kids.
Elizabeth Soper marries William Sturt in Henfield, 2 kids Christian and Thomas (still under 21 in 1805).
John Soper - as yet no more, but noted that he only gets twenty pounds in the will.

I will have a look at those wills to help clarify and add details to what I have on them; then, apart from finding the proven or most likely relationship to the Siffleets, will leave the Sopers there before I get too bogged down or carried away with all of their family links!