Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - eppleton

Pages: [1] 2 3 4
1
Cumberland / RADCLIFFE and NOWELL and KELSICKE of Cumberland - lookup request
« on: Thursday 02 May 19 16:02 BST (UK)  »
Richard Radcliffe 1726-1793 of Cockermouth, merchant. Bankrupted 1784; Cumberland Pacquet of 7 Jan 1794  (p3 col a) reports his death "lately, in London, aged 67" - any info on date and place of death please?

RR's mother was Mary Kelsicke bap Whitehaven, Cumberland 1 Sep 1703: her death, please?

RR's wife Maria Dorothea Nowell 1733-1777, bap Brampton Cumberland 20 Sep 1733, bur Cockermouth 13 Nov 1777. Actual dates of birth and death please?

Their daughter Elizabeth Radcliffe 1765-? marr Francis Mascall 1762-1848 of Eppleton, Durham; one child (Francis Mascall born Eppleton 14 Oct 1789, d 1857). She died before 1848 - not mentioned in husband's will - but we can't find where: could have been Eppleton, Durham, or Red Lion Square, Holborn?

2
Colin -
guessed wrong in my last.

Anne Glyde and Edward Coxhead of Marlborough had 7 children from Elizabeth 1783 to John 1794, but no Mary.
Only feasible son to be father of Mary (b1806) is William Glyde Coxhead but he seems to vanish after 06.02.1785 baptism (died infant?).

So Mary Coxhead/de Combe isn't first cousin of SHWaldron/Wells.
I bet they're still related, but at present I can't see it.

Mike

3
Colin - I'm a bit slow today....

Mary Coxhead (de Combe) is surely Sarah Hayward (Waldron)'s cousin.

Sarah Vivash = a) William Glyde
dau Ann Glyde = Edward Coxhead
dau Mary Coxhead = Abraham de Combe of Geneva/London

Sarah Vivash/Glyde = b) William Hayward
dau Sarah Hayward = Richard Waldron
dau Sarah Hayward Waldron = Geo Wells of Bedford

Works for you?
Mike

4
Colin -
Mary de Combe does seem to be some sort of relative of Sarah Hayward Waldron.

Sarah HW's (presumed) mother Sarah Vivash married
a) 14 or 15.06.1760 William Glyde ?-1762 (either at Marlborough St Mary, or in Hampshire, records say both)
b) 03.11.1767 William Hayward at Marlborough St M (she already widowed with 2 small children)
(By the way - what's the convention on family trees, re name of a previously married wife? Should she appear as Vivash in the Hayward ancestry, or as Glyde?)

The lease I sent earlier refers to
"Edward Coxhead of Marlborough, alehousekeeper, and Ann, his wife, (formerly Glyde)".
This couple married 17.02.1782 at Marlborough St M.

If Mary Coxhead (later de Combe) was child of this marriage then her mother would be a bit elderly but not impossible - conceivably a generation in between?

Like Sarah HW, MC/de C is a Marlborough girl, and they're slightly related through SHW's mother's first husband. Enough for SHW to be living with her in London in 1837 anyway.

Mike

5
Colin - I should have been Googling! First result on "William Hayward Marlborough" (Sarah HW's presumed father) is

https://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/1f231d58-bb58-411b-9881-c7d44ec98294

Looks as if it holds clues to who Mary Coxhead really was, and why SHW's husband moved to Marlborough to be a baker. Must look at it properly later.

Mike

6
Thanks Colin. It's good to have a pdf of the 1822 Pigot of Marlborough for our files.
I hope we don't disprove sometime my assumption that RW the baker is the same RW who was SHW's father! Her 1812 birth after his 1811 Marlborough marriage makes it probable I think.

I suppose a tradesman such as RW might have left some other mark beyond the 1822 Pigot - lease of bakery or something. If we do ever get to Marlborough Records Office, could you recommend other possibilities?

Thanks for the data on Mary Coxhead. Seems clear she's not a relative so if the marriage signature was just as friend or employer there may be little to find. Unlikely she started as a Hayward, for instance, if she married De Combe so young.

Mike

7
Thanks Colin.

An Ancestry tree (without sources, grrr) has Abraham Jeremie Decombe 1798-1852 (parents and many generations of ancestors named, hmmmm...) marrying in London
a) 25.12.1824 Martha Neale 1800-1827
b) 24.12.1827 Mary Coxhead 1800-1843 (our 1837 marriage witness)
c) 26.11.1844 Sarah Morrell ?-?, with whom he at last had sons, hence the family tree I suppose.
Agrees with your latest finding so i expect it's credible.

As to why Mary de C signed: I see the scenario as follows.

Sarah HW was orphaned in Marlborough at 18, without siblings (that we can find) - though many cousins etc no doubt. Inherits whatever the bakery's worth, as only child.
Abraham Dymock, Lambourn neighbour and good friend of her father, becomes guardian, officially or informal.
SHW moves to London for work as housekeeper or companion - something a bit middle-class, as
a) she had inherited, though perhaps not much
b) she married a distinctly promising Bedford merchant, who I suspect wouldn't have married a servant.
By 1837 she's a good friend or in household of Mary de C, about 9 years older than SHW: who comes to the wedding because SHW has no close family in Marlborough and none at all in London, and signs register.

The Clerkenwell register does have a number of signatures x4 or even more, so perhaps it was the vicar's quirk to encourage extra people to sign, particularly for an orphan.

Does that work for you?

There are a couple of feasible Mary Coxheads born 1801 (none 1800 that I noticed) who are not ruled out by being elsewhere in 1841 or alive after 1843, but it's probably not something that needs pursuing.

Mike

8
Sorry, I wasn't being clear.

Name on 1841 Marylebone census is Abraham de Combe with Mary ditto, no others in household. So no Dymock connection I think. I think it says Indt next to him under Occupation (= Independent Means?) i.e. feasible couple for SHW to be working for before marriage, in some capacity. The only 1841 census page I've yet seen where adult ages are actual and not rounded down.

I've found several Ancestry trees with lots of Waldrons but am trusting none of it, they're short of sources and at least one has obvious wrong connections.

Re your Marlborough burials from Sunday:
I found a Thomas Waldron bap Lambourn 04.08.1776 to John Waldron & Sarah. Right age and place in birth order to be a brother of RW the Marlborough baker and of the Mary W and Sarah W you found.
Provided he was baptised late - or age at death is a year out -  he could match your Marlborough St M burial:
"Thomas Waldron 67 (1775) 13 Oct 1842 –(Ancestry trees suggest born 1779 Ogbourne St Andrew)" - (see above remark about Ancestry trees!)
Could have worked at bakery with brother, or had another reason to live in Marlborough?

His youngest sister was Sarah b Lambourn 1781 (the one you found). On Saturday Ciderdrinker produced father John's probate to this Sarah, wife of John Dangerfield, which matches a tree that I do believe. Someone's been busy with the Dangerfields.

Mike

There seem to be so many Wiltshire Waldrons I doubt we'll get a watertight descent. Fun trying though.
Mike

9
Colin,
re John Waldron (= Sarah Henley at Lambourn 27.04.1770), father of Richard Waldron 1773-1831 of Lambourn, father of the Marlborough baker:

There are suitable JWs in Ogbourne St George (very close by) at the right period, but I prefer these,
both of Lambourn:
JW, son of Joseph Waldron and Mary, bap 21.10.1741
JW, son of Cheyney Waldron and Elizabeth, bap 11.12.1748.

If you find anything to indicate which, please let me know. Agewise for a 1770 marriage, perhaps the former? We seem to be over-blessed with Waldrons!

Mike

Pages: [1] 2 3 4