RootsChat.Com

It's either three or four letters.

The first is long-s.  The last is e.

It could be she.  I think this is most likely.

I'm not sure the first letter is a long-s.  If you compare it with the name Ursula in the next line, it looks much more like the l than the s.  Even if it is an s, it's hard to see how the word could be she – t doesn't make sense in that position, and an h would normally have a descender in this period, which this word does not have.

I also don't think an abbreviation of senior is all that likely, and not just because I don't think the first letter is an s.  It would be normal only to differentiate when there was another adult of the same name.  There was a younger Francis, but he was no more than 15 years old – probably quite a lot younger, as I have a theory that the child baptised in 1627 died young and there was a later child of the same name.  But the more serious problem is that I've not found the words senior and junior to be not at all common at this time in England – the more usual term would be the elder.

The father, Francis Stedman, was the vicar of the parish, and even if he was often absent (as many priests were), his name will have been familiar to the clerk who wrote up the register.  So I don't think it can be the case that this word is actually part of the surname.  A qualification or occupation seems most likely.  None of his other children's baptisms that I've seen have a similar word there, but there is a word there on Ursula's burial record (attached) which fairly clearly reads Cler with an overline denoting an abbreviation.  This word clericus was commonly used in Latin at this time to mean a priest, and the entry is partly in Latin. 

My best guess is that the word in the baptism entry also says cle^r with the loop before the l being a vestigial c.  But I admit it's not at all clear, and I cannot see anything that looks similar elsewhere in the register.  I'm not too concerned that it is written very differently to the cler in the burial entry – that was 31 years later and is fairly clearly written in a different hand.

Regarding the word before "and sicklie", if it wasn't for the fact that the word is not recognisable, I don't think there would be any doubt about any of the letters in the word, which are clear and exactly like other nearly letters.  I don't think the final letter is a 'd', even though that would make more sense. Nor do I think the first letter is a 'Q'.  I'm sure the word must say Ceasie.  It's not a word I've ever seen before but I can only assume it means 'seized up'.

Criminal registers for that period are available on Ancestry.  Using location as Cambridgeshire 1867-1871 does not show any entry for that name but there are 15 entries where initial were J S - Smith mainly but also other surnames beginning with S

Possibly not tried in Cambridge

Oh, I didn't know it was possible to do a wildcard search in Ancestry to find people with the initials JS. That's very useful to know.  Thank you.

I've just done a search of the criminal registers on Ancestry for Cambridgeshire, 1867–71, and got 18 hits, none with a German-looking name.  However they all seem to be records from the quarter sessions.  I can't see anything from either the assizes or the petty sessions.  I imagine cases at the assizes were rare enough that they're unlikely to be relevant here, but what about the petty sessions?  I assume justices of the peace had the power to imprison someone, as magistrates do today.  Are there likely to be any surviving records for the petty sessions?

I see that it says on both Knightroots and Family Search that Alicia Roberts was married at St Marys Church, Southampton, rather than St Michaels.

Sorry, you're quite right.  And that is what I have in my tree – I wasn't being careful enough when I typed that message yesterday.

It also says both of this Parish, so presumably Alicia was working/living in Southampton with ? Roberts until his death, at the time of her marriage.

Yes, I would assume so too.  I did look for burials in Southampton for men in the 15 to 35 age range with the surname Roberts in the mid 1820s, but found no great matches.  There's a Rev E F Roberts, aged 38, in the St Mary's Extra parish register, but he strikes me as the wrong social class and also too old.  And there's a John Roberts buried at St Mary's on 15 May 1828, aged 26, but that's less than two months before her remarriage which seems indecently rapid.

Found Burials for both a Thomas and Joseph Munday at Fawley Church. Thomas buried 16/1/1858 aged 66 years, which if correct would mean born about 1792 ( there is a baptism Fawley Church for a Thomas Monday 17/4/1791, so this could be him-parents, William and Mary.  Joseph buried 3/3/1843, aged 49 years, so born about 1794. That fits nicely with them possibly being brothers. 1792 and 1794. It says for Joseph that he died in the New Forest Union Workhouse.

Yes, I'm fairly certain Thomas is the son of William and Mary.  Joseph's age on the 1843 burial does not match the age on the 1841 census (40, meaning 40 to 44), but i think it is quite probably 'my' Joseph despite this.   To complicate matters further, there are two Joseph Mundays of similar ages.  The other one was buried 15 Mar 1873 aged 79, and family wills make it clear that he is the son of John and Elizabeth Munday, baptised on 17 Sep 1799, even though the dates don't match up perfectly.  As you suggest, I think 'my' Joseph is quite likely another child of William and Mary, and if we trust his age on the 1841 census (40-44) over the age on the burial, he falls neatly into a seven year gap in the sequence of William and Mary's known children, though with Thomas being older than William.