Early genealogist - or was it for another purpose?

[LizzieL]

I was browsing baptism and burial records for Ashdon Essex, when I came across a letter to the vicar stuck at the front of the 1756 - 1812 book.
It read:
44 Hague Street, Bethnal Green, London, Feb 15, 1893
The Rector,
Dear sir,
Will you kindly look for the baptism certificates of James and May Peters at your church. If you succeed in finding them I will pay you one pound each for them. James Peters born 1769, May Peters born say 1770 to 1784.
I remain yours truly, G Peters.

I wonder if he was just researching his family or he needed to prove a relationship for an inheritance or similar. A pound seems like a lot of money in 1893, so it must have been important to him.

I've found George T Peters of 44 Hague street in 1901 occupation glass beveller born about 1841 Middlesex. Going back to 1851, George is son of James Peters (widower) born Bethnal Green abt 1804 occ weaver. In 1841 there is a Mary Ann in the family of right sort of age to be George's mother. GRO index gives birth for George Thomas Peters Q1 1841 Bethnal Green district mmn Phillips. James Peters bach married Mary Ann Phillips sp at St Leonards Shoreditch on 25 Dec 1826 (bet you couldn't get married on Christmas day now!) witnesses John and Elizabeth Peters.

The only Peters baptisms I can find are George s/o George and Mary Peters 1868 and Sarah 1775 d/o George and Mary Peters.

I wonder how George T connects to the Ashdon family and why he is trying to find the two baptisms. Any ideas?

[LizzieL]

May be a coincidence but at same church St L Shoreditch a John Peters married Elizabeth Clark on 25 Dec 1821, one witness was Elizabeth Peters. So were witnesses to James's wedding his brother (older) and his sister in law. And was the Elizabeth who was witness to John's marriage his mother or possibly sister?

[pinefamily]

There is no obvious baptism for James, which makes it hard. Successive census records list him as being born in Bethnal Green, or just Middlesex.
It is a curious letter.

[LizzieL]

I've found a baptism of a James Peters in Ashdon in 1775 son of Mary Peters. I think it is his burial in Ashdon in 1843 indexed as James Peters or Kitteridge on FindMyPast. Age is 68 on parish record, but 78 on GRO index. Death Registered as James Kitteridge. Burial record gives his name as Peters with a footnote to say his name was really Peters but he was always known by his father's name of Kitteridge.

[LizzieL]

Marriage record: Stanton Kitteridge bach married Mary Peters sp  at Ashdon on 5 Jan 1778. Not sure whether Stanton was natural father or just stepfather and James assumed his name, I think that if he was the natural father a marriage would be sooner than three years after the birth.

[familydar]

Perhaps Stanton Kitteridge was a minor and his parents forbade the marriage so he had to wait till of age or they died

[LizzieL]

Stanton was baptised in 1753, so would be 25 when he married. His father was John and mother was  Burgess Simons. His father died in 1779, buried 8 August. Stanton inherits most of his father's estate. Burgess died in 1790

[LizzieL]

If James Peters was usually known as Kitteridge, there is a record of reading of Banns of James Kitteridge bach and Ann Kitteridge sp botp on 28 Dec 1794. But only read once and no marriage following. Maybe an objection. The register is the type where the banns record is just above the marriage record. Records which have banns but no marriage record following, would have one party (usually bride) from another parish, and the marriage takes place in the other parish. In this case both are of Ashdon.

[smudwhisk]

I've seen something similar reported in the newspaper write up for a court case where the plaintiffs were disputing the distribution of an estate some years earlier and claiming they were relatives.  The request made to the parish clerk was to confirm that the deceased grandparent of the plaintiffs was not the person mentioned in the Will but just somebody of the same name, in spite of a lot of claims made by witnesses.  The case itself got dismissed due to this.