RootsChat.Com
England (Counties as in 1851-1901) => Hertfordshire Lookup Requests => Hertfordshire => England => Herts Completed Lookup Requests => Topic started by: jbml on Sunday 11 January 15 14:02 GMT (UK)
-
Richd Ractliff married Susanna Timberlake in Rickmansworth on 25 February 1797.
I have a hunch that this Susanna Timberlake was originally Susannah Thornot, who married Richard Timberlake in Acton, Middlesex on 24 August 1776; but I can find no burial for Richard Timberlake to suggest that she was free to marry again.
Very grateful if somebody could take a quick squint at the 1797 marriage and let me know whether the bride was a spinster or a widow.
:)
-
She is a spinster
-
Thanks for that, Rosie.
Nonconformists, then ...
-
Nonconformists, then ...
Have you checked Buckinghamshire if you are unable to find a Susanna in the Rickmansworth area? There are Timberlakes in the parishes bordering Hertfordshire earlier on in the 1700s and Rickmansworth is on the border.
-
Hi Smud -
Thanks for the thought. Yes, I've been keeping an eye over the border into Buckinghamshire. None of my lot have strayed over there so far, though. A few have dipped their toes into Middlesex (Harefield being a particular favourite) but they always come back to Ricky sooner or later.
And on this occasion, the Census evidence is for birth in Hertfordshire (Rickmansworth) too ...
-
And on this occasion, the Census evidence is for birth in Hertfordshire (Rickmansworth) too ...
This is the Susanna Rackliffe who died 1846 Watford Registration District (the spelling of the surname being the same as on the 1841 Census)? If yes, then all that can be deduced from the census is that she is listed as born in county in 1841. Just because she was living in Rickmansworth at the time of the marriage and on the 1841 Census does not mean she was born there. ;) In any case, the reliability of "born in county" in 1841 isn't especially high, I have several ancestors listed either born in or out of county but of which later census have confirmed was inaccurate. 1841 Census details are not known I'm afraid for their reliability compared to later census.
As to county border hopping, well I have quite a few ancestors who regularly hopped the county borders in this area because of the parishes they lived in. ;D
I also have a Timberlake ancestor in Chenies who is causing me a headache because of issues with the registers in both Buckinghamshire and Hertfordshire in the very early 1700s. :-\
-
Assuming she is the Sarah Rackliff aged 82 years with Richard aged 65 years on the 1841 Census, that puts her birth around 1758/9. There is a baptism in Sarratt in 1758 to Matthew and Mary Timberlake. Sarratt is obviously the neighbouring parish to Rickmansworth.
There are several Matthew Timberlakes in Sarratt and also over the border in Chesham at various times in the 1700s.
-
And on this occasion, the Census evidence is for birth in Hertfordshire (Rickmansworth) too ...
This is the Susanna Rackliffe who died 1846 Watford Registration District (the spelling of the surname being the same as on the 1841 Census)? If yes, then all that can be deduced from the census is that she is listed as born in county in 1841.
You are of course right, Smud ... it was her husband Richard who, on the evidence of the 1851 census, was born in Ricky. Susanna Rackliffe, as you say, died in 1846.
I'm pretty sure we're dealing with nonconformists here in RIchard and Susanna. So far I've only got one child, Hester (or Esther ... it varies from document to document) who was born about 1800, but I can find no baptism.
-
Assuming she is the Sarah Rackliff aged 82 years with Richard aged 65 years on the 1841 Census, that puts her birth around 1758/9. There is a baptism in Sarratt in 1758 to Matthew and Mary Timberlake. Sarratt is obviously the neighbouring parish to Rickmansworth.
If you mean Susan, rather than Sarah, then yes ... she is :)
Many thanks for that baptism, Smud ... not sure how I missed that, but it's pretty clearly the right one. So at least the parents aren't looking like nonconformists ...
Woop woop ... another generation :)
-
Gaaaah ... WAS her mother called Mary??
Or was she Elizabeth, and Mary is a clerical error?
Matthew Timberlake, son of John and Mary, was baptized in Sarratt on 18 March 1704. He married Mary Golder in Chesham Bois on 3 November 1724, and THEIR son Matthew Timberlake, son of Matthew and Mary, was baptized in Sarratt on 4 September 1726.
I CAN FIND NO MARRIAGE FOR HIM ... but starting in 1752 we have children of Matthew & Elizabeth Timberlake being baptized. Lord Hardicke's Act came into force in 1753 ... so theirs COULD have been a clandestine marriage.
Sarratt baptisms of children of Matthew and Elizabeth Timberlake:
29 March 1752: Ann
27 January 1754: Mary
30 May 1756: Richard
9 November 1760: James
11 March 1764: Alice
14 October 1770: Thos. and Elizabeth
Amidst all of these, there is one (and only one) baptism of a child of Matthew & Mary Timberlake: Susannah, baptized on 15 October 1756.
Is she REALLY a child of Matthew & Elizabeth? She SURELY can't be a late child of Matthew and Mary who married in 1724, can she? But these two apart, the only other Matthew Timberlake in town appears to be the Matthew who is (apparently) married to Elizabeth.
So I am suspecting clerical error ... and hoping for a surviving will by which to test it ...
A Matthew Timberlake was buried in Sarratt on 5 July 1768. Was this the elder Matthew Timberlake baptized in 1704, or the younger Matthew Timberlake baptized in 1726?
-
I'm pretty sure we're dealing with nonconformists here in RIchard and Susanna. So far I've only got one child, Hester (or Esther ... it varies from document to document) who was born about 1800, but I can find no baptism.
Rickmansworth:
10 Dec 1797
Esther Rackliff daughter of Richard and Susanna
3 Mar 1799
Elisabeth Racliff daughter of Richard and Susanna
I take it your relying on familysearch or other transcripts then? These are from the original registers which are viewable on FindMyPast.
Assuming she is the Sarah Rackliff aged 82 years with Richard aged 65 years on the 1841 Census, that puts her birth around 1758/9. There is a baptism in Sarratt in 1758 to Matthew and Mary Timberlake. Sarratt is obviously the neighbouring parish to Rickmansworth.
If you mean Susan, rather than Sarah, then yes ... she is :)
Yes sorry my typo, was a bit early Monday morning and had got woken up by an almighty crash in the high wind at 4am. ;D
Gaaaah ... WAS her mother called Mary??
Or was she Elizabeth, and Mary is a clerical error?
I would suggest it was an error by the parish clerk considering there were the 7 other baptisms to Matthew and Elizabeth between 1752 and 1770 in Sarratt and one in Rickmansworth which are all evenly spaced out every couple of years or so, apart from the last two who may have been baptised late.
Matthew Timberlake, son of John and Mary, was baptized in Sarratt on 18 March 1704. He married Mary Golder in Chesham Bois on 3 November 1724, and THEIR son Matthew Timberlake, son of Matthew and Mary, was baptized in Sarratt on 4 September 1726.
I CAN FIND NO MARRIAGE FOR HIM ... but starting in 1752 we have children of Matthew & Elizabeth Timberlake being baptized. Lord Hardicke's Act came into force in 1753 ... so theirs COULD have been a clandestine marriage.
Rickmansworth
30 Dec 1747
Matthew Timberlec and Elizabeth Saunders
As this is pre1754 and the Hardwick Act, the surname variation is going to be down to the parish clerk, unless of course Matthew was illiterate and didn't know how to spell his surname anyway. However, as the other baptisms are all Timberlake in Sarratt and the baptism in Rickmansworth in 1750 is Timberleck I would imagine that the error is the parish clerk's.
I suspect the 1768 burial is Matthew senior as there is also a burial 28 April 1803 in Sarratt of another Matthew Timberlake who is probably the son. There isn't one in Rickmansworth before then either.
-
Thanks Smud - I'm not sure why I've missed all of the things you keep finding for me, because I'm using FindMyPast to search here.
Mind you, I've noticed in general that the accuracy of the results I'm getting has gone down tremendously since they introduced "fuzzy logic".
I used to be able to design very careful exclusion searches, and get a lot of useful information from the "nil" results.
Now, whatever search I do, there always seem to be about 7,603 results, and screening them manually for the right ones is just SO wasteful ...
(Sorry ... rant over. But it DOES get to me sometimes ... )
-
Mind you, I've noticed in general that the accuracy of the results I'm getting has gone down tremendously since they introduced "fuzzy logic".
I used to be able to design very careful exclusion searches, and get a lot of useful information from the "nil" results.
Now, whatever search I do, there always seem to be about 7,603 results, and screening them manually for the right ones is just SO wasteful ...
(Sorry ... rant over. But it DOES get to me sometimes ... )
This is how I search on there:
Click Search Records from the menu at the top
Select Birth, Marriages, Death and Parish Records
Under All Collections, click down arrow and select Birth & Baptisms, or Marriages, etc
Under Record set (towards bottom) start typing Hertfordshire and then select Hertfordshire Baptisms, or Marriages if you've selected Marriages from "All Collections", or burials etc.
Use keyword box to enter parish or parent's names - although it doesn't accept wildcards which is a pain when they've literally entered a name as its written. :-\
You can also use wildcards for the surname rather than soundex. If they have a broad soundex for a surname, this can often be better than using soundex.
That should reduce the number of results down considerably.
You can also use the "A to Z of Record Sets" and select the collection from there.
-
Its worth bearing in mind that FindMyPast have missing records, other than parts of Rickmansworth, Watford and St Albans St Stephens. Kings Langley is missing completely, as is Shenley. I know there are some Timberlake entries in Kings Langley as there are some marriages listed on the Hertfordshire Names Online website from the Records Office. However, I do think your line does go back to John and Mary Lewin, parents of the first Matthew. Prior to that I think the family were in Chesham and there are some duplicate baptisms in Chesham of children who appear to have also been baptised in Sarratt at other times. However, I can't completely prove this ... not at the moment anyway. ;D
-
Wow Smud - your search method looks very different from mine.
Yes ... I was looking at John and Mary Lewin, married in Sarratt on 30 September 1684, and their children.
Their son Matthew was baptized on 18 March 1704, though ... so would have been at least 43 in December 1747. WAS he the Matthew who married Elizabeth Saunders? Or is there another generation in there somewhere??
Either way, I think that the John Timberlake who married Mary Lewin looks like being The John, son of Thomas who was baptized in Ellesborough on 3 February 1655/6
I cannot find his parents' marriage (civil war / Commonwealth) - but their first child is, I think, Thomas son of Thomas baptized in Ellesborough on 10 March 1649/50.
If that is right, then John's father Thomas looks to have started his family very young, as I think HE is the Thomas Timberlake, son of Thomas, baptized in Ellesborough on 26 January 1633/4. THe parents for this baptism are presumably Thomas Timberlake and Ann Kinges who married in Ellesborough (or Edlesborough - the FindMyPast record set has both locations on different records, but it is obviously the same marriage) on 13 August 1632.
This Thomas, in turn, looks like being the Thomas Timberlake, son of John & Elizabeth, who was baptized in Chesham on 24 April 1603.
That's quite a long way back up the tree to get on a Saturday afternoon ... and yes, we have now strayed across the Buckinghamshire border :)
-
Ah but my search method tends to find things without too many results. ;)
Edlesborough and Ellesborough are two different places, admittedly not that far from each other but FindMyPast don't have much on Buckinghamshire anyway. A lot I think of the pre1837 records you will find are from familysearch and therefore not exactly that reliable without checking against other sources. :-X While the Buckinghamshire Family History Society have indexed virtually all of the county's parish records, they are only available from the society and not on any of the pay-per-view websites.
Edlesborough or Ellesborough are both possibilities but I'd like to see a county-wide search for Buckinghamshire for pre1675 (as I've search results for 1675-1775 at the moment only) to see what else there is. I still think that the Sarratt Timberlake family may well have originated in Chesham because it looks quite possible that John and Mary's son William married in Chenies and lived in Chesham. Admittedly without seeing Kings Langley I can't be absolutely 100% certain but this looks very plausible.
I'm going to put a search request in for pre1675 Timberlake Baptisms/Marriages/Burials with the Family History Society to see what appears. ;D
-
Yes ... I was looking at John and Mary Lewin, married in Sarratt on 30 September 1684, and their children.
Their son Matthew was baptized on 18 March 1704, though ... so would have been at least 43 in December 1747. WAS he the Matthew who married Elizabeth Saunders? Or is there another generation in there somewhere??
No I think you'll find that 1704 Matthew is the one who with wife Mary Golder had son Matthew baptised in Sarratt in 1726. The 1726 Matthew is going to be the one who married Elizabeth Saunders in 1747. ;)
-
Oh yes ... got it. I did have that noted down somewhere ... I just need to get these notes organized and written up now. I'll keep the 17th century stuff marked as tentative in view of what you say about Buckinghamshire records.
Many thanks for all your help :)