RootsChat.Com
Beginners => Family History Beginners Board => Topic started by: Fitz1 on Sunday 26 July 20 07:45 BST (UK)
-
Baptism records for at least 8 children indicate his wife's name as Ann / Anne.
I am trying to locate the surname of his wife Ann / Anne.
Any information would be appreciated.
-
Can't see a marriage to an Anne
-
Hi garstonite,
The name Nancy was originally a form of Anne or Ann.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nancy_(given_name)
Will check it out.
Thanks for the information.
-
Hi garstonite,
The name Nancy was originally a form of Anne or Ann.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nancy_(given_name)
Will check it out.
Thanks for the information.
I removed it - the date was too late ? he would be far too old ???
-
Thanks for looking anyway
-
Not sure if that date of 1686 is when you think Richard Willets was married, his date of birth or his date of death.
Have you seen there are at least a couple of references to a Richard Willetts in Rowley Regis/Staffs on The NAtional Archives CAtalogue around the right dates, which could be him, or at least a member of his family.
https://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/C5370803
https://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/4d7c75d6-2d41-4afc-b8b7-ce777c00e
https://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/906f0165-9156-4ca1-a4cd-2c2d55659cda
Although TNA give you a precis of each one, you never know what gems might turn up in the full document.
-
Hello goldie61,
He was baptised 13 Feb 1686 in Rowley Regis Staffordshire,
Thanks for the information, will check them out.
-
Hello goldie61,
He was baptised 13 Feb 1686 in Rowley Regis Staffordshire,
Thanks for the information, will check them out.
1687 - not 1686
https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:V5KW-8YB
-
Ancestry has 1686 as well as 1687!
Screen shots as attached
Thanks for information.
-
Forgot to add this file
-
It will be the same baptism.
One of them will be dated 1686, as February came before the end of the year in April at this point in time, and the other will be because somebody has 'modernised' the date, and said that Feb was in 1687 (starting the new year Jan 1st as we do now, instead of in April as they did then).
That's why the old transcription of the register you posted gives the date as it would have been in the register - 1686. I suspect if you go a little further down the page, you'll see it change to 1687.