RootsChat.Com

Would appreciate some expert eye to look at this rather poor quality photo and proffer an estimate of year/decade it was taken.

I do not have the original photo, so cannot give any more details other than I know the photo was taken in Australia.

Much appreciated

Earlsdau

It is the only conclusion I can draw despite the lack of evidence.....that there were two couples named William and Mary DREWETT. Both first names being common of course. It makes it excruciatingly hard when there are couples of the same name, same age group, same village/area etc.

 When I said that Mary PHILLIPS is credited with being the mother of Rachel, I mean by others namely on certain website trees. Because of the children and baptism dilemma I have never been comfortable to espouse that theory.

In 2015 I received the following response from a researcher in regard to this matter.

“......I have also searched  both the Oxon. and N. Berks, marriage indexes for a marriage of their parents, William and Mary in order to determine her maiden name, but have failed to find this in either index.  I have also checked the Standlake register for any sign of banns being read there for such a marriage but found none. It would seem that they either never married, or else did so outside the county.

For interest, I have added DREWETT to the family migration map (address below). This appears to show that the DREWETT in the Shiplake/Henley area were incomers, appearing in 1789 with Henry's baptism, which strengthens the view that his parents married elsewhere.”

Spelling variants included in this search (most frequent first) are:
DREWETT, DRUET, DREWET, DRUETT, DREWITT, DREWIT, DRUAT, DRUIT, DROUGHT, DRUITT, DREWEATT, DREWAT, DREWATT, DREWEAT, DRUATT, DREUATE, DREUET, DREUT, DREWST, DREWT, DROUET, DRUEAT, DREWART, DREWATE, DREWETE, DREWIIT, DREWITT?, DREWITT-NUTT, DREWTT, DREWYTT, DROIT, DROUETT, DROUT, DRUATE, DRUETTE.

Another researcher I employed on this same paradox concluded that she couldn't find them and agreed with me that the baptism dates of the children of the Shiplake and Winchcombe couples (as I outlined last night) was untenable if they were one and the same.

Perhaps the parents of Rachel and indeed Hannah (if Hannah is the mother of George) will remain a mystery which is unsolvable.

There was something else I wanted to mention but have forgotten it amidst my angst of Will and Mary!!

Firstly did you mean father or 'brother’? George also did have a ‘brother’ Robert (1815-1888).

Although any Baptismal records for George have (up to when I researched him) not been available online I believe that George is the son of Hannah and Robert WILTSHIRE, which I will explain in a minute.

Robert and Hannah married in London on 6th March 1799 at St Luke's, Chelsea, London just one month after his discharge from the Military. The marriage is said to be between Robert WILKSHIRE and Hannah DURET however Hannah signed her own name as DRUITT. Because of the similarity of the surnames of Hannah (1st wife) and Rachel (2nd wife) then it seems highly possible that Hannah is the sister of Rachel. Added to that, Rachel DREWETT (bapt 24/11/1782) did have a sister Hannah (bapt 11/02/1781). Also a small point but both girls 'signed' at their marriages.

Interestingly like for George there are no records that I can find for any other children born to them between 1799 and 1811. However, neither are their subsequent records for older siblings of Georges definitely linking them. Of course, by the time of the 1841 census any older siblings would have flown the coop.

We know that Hannah was buried on 3/04/1811. The reason I think that George is Hannah's birth child rather than Rachel’s is because George's death certificate states that when he died on 23/02/1874 he was recorded as being aged 62. Now I know that the age stated on death certs is not always accurate but let's assume for the moment that it is true.

1). If Hannah is not the mother then who is, as it seems likely that George was born between 24/02/1811 and 23/02/1812? If Rachel is the birth mother we know that she and Robert were not married until 29/03/1812. We know that there were illegitimate children born all the time so on that basis it’s entirely possible that George was Rachel's birth child. Yes it is unfortunate that the 1841 census didn't reveal relationships but I suspect that it would have said ‘mother’ anyway, rather than aunt, because in most senses of the word she was his mother from his infancy.

2). We know that Hannah died and was buried in April 1811. On her death record it states that she was 'wife of Robert Wiltshire'. The date of Hannah's death falls right within the timeline of George's birth based on his death certificate. So I suspect that Hannah either died during childbirth or puerperal (postpartum) fever in the days following giving birth to George.

Regardless of whether George was Hannah's child or Rachel's (assuming they were full biological sisters) his genealogy is the same at any rate.

No nanny jan, I did not know that resource was available. Many times it would have saved a great deal of frustration in not knowing an age or maiden name!

Thank you very much! Anything else really useful you can tell me - hehe?