Author Topic: james Snook/s  (Read 6782 times)

Offline pinkie6

  • RootsChat Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 167
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: james Snook/s
« Reply #18 on: Saturday 19 January 08 09:30 GMT (UK) »
From the dorset history centre, pit rivers family estate archive, fredrick ingram, miller of shillinstone v james and george snook for breaking into Bere marsh mill with brief of george saunders and james snook for assault, summer 1847. 

Offline Valda

  • RootsChat Honorary
  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 16,160
    • View Profile
Re: james Snook/s
« Reply #19 on: Saturday 19 January 08 09:49 GMT (UK) »
The same marriage taken from the BVRI transcription - already posted

TEWKESBURY, William        
Eliza SNOOK widow      
Marriage Date
8 Aug 1830 Buckland Ripers, Dorset

There are two ways of marrying - by banns and by licence, Banns means the announcement of the marriage is made in the church three Sundays before the marriage takes place - the 'banns are called'. This allows plenty of time for people to hear about the marriage and make any objections e.g. if one of them is already married, or under age and marrying without permission.

No father's name will be given on a marriage pre civil registration (1st July 1837) as that detail wasn't asked on the form in the register pre that date. You will only get the two witnesses names which I think have been confusingly given on the transcription you are giving (which I saw but didn't give because I think it has mixed up the names of the witnesses). The two witnesses are Ralph Guy and Elizabeth Bilke (not sure where you get Williams?). Ralph Guy is still alive in Buckland Ripers on the 1841 census aged 75. He gave his occupation as parish clerk. Parish clerks often acted as witnesses on peoples' marriages so you would expect to see Ralph Guy's name occuring as a witness in other Buckland Ripers marriages (I calculate between 1817-1830 he was one of the witnesses in 7 of the 10 marriages which occurred in Buckland Ripers)

It appears William Tewkesbury was under the age of 21 as the marriage required consent of a parent.

There are plenty of Snooks in Dorset so you might expect entries in parish registers there are not necessarily related to your direct line of Snooks - if this is your direct line. You earlier stated you had found this James Snook born Buckland Ripers 1829 before and been able to rule him out. Is this still the case or is he now a possible candidate?

Regards

Valda


Census information is Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk

Offline pinkie6

  • RootsChat Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 167
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: james Snook/s
« Reply #20 on: Saturday 19 January 08 10:00 GMT (UK) »
Hi valda, you can tell I'm no expert :-\ Anyway i am starting to wonder if maybe james from buckland riper is the one i'm chasing!!  Those little things like no mention of him after the 1851 census and buckland ripers being close to weymouth, is it the closest to weymouth?
I have no one to confirm what I suspect and would need to get the details from his regiment papers in england to see if his parents are on them and possibly date of birth etc.

i hope not to have irritated you with my confusion!! :( i expect it will cost a bit of money to get what i need from england, and when starting to seriously search for him there were that many james snook's floating around with close birth dates it put me off! also other descendents had given me stuff which i found was the wrong line, confirmed by descendents of  those particular snooks.

I have e-mailed the online parish clerk for buckland ripers and hope to get a reply on things there also.

I am open to advice to do with this search and thankyou for your help on correcting me on things too.
this site is so cool!

Offline Valda

  • RootsChat Honorary
  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 16,160
    • View Profile
Re: james Snook/s
« Reply #21 on: Saturday 19 January 08 10:07 GMT (UK) »
Shillingstone and Buckland Ripers are about 30 miles apart so it would have been a bit of a distance to go for James and George from Buckland Ripers - you would think if it was them they could have stolen from somewhere a bit nearer.
The village of Child Okeford is adjacent to Shillingstone. On the 1841 census there was a family of Snooks living there which included a James Snook born circa 1821 and a George Snook born circa 1826.

Regards

Valda
Census information is Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk


Offline pinkie6

  • RootsChat Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 167
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: james Snook/s
« Reply #22 on: Saturday 19 January 08 10:28 GMT (UK) »
different snook's again, i guess it pays to check these things, and the birthdate is earlier again for that james snook.  i have posted in the millitary section in case someone has access to regiment bits,  I wondered how far shillingstone was, you can see there are plenty of james snook's around dorset and without his exact birthdate/year, parents etc it has been tedious at times! thanks valda :)

Offline Valda

  • RootsChat Honorary
  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 16,160
    • View Profile
Re: james Snook/s
« Reply #23 on: Saturday 19 January 08 10:38 GMT (UK) »
I would put a post on the armed forces board about the military details that you have for James Snook and ask whether anyone could do a look up in the regimental muster rolls for you at The National Archives or could recommend a researcher.
A look up in the muster rolls may not give you sufficient details and a researcher may be able to find other information in other military records at TNA, for instance if James bought himself out of the army there would be more information, but a look up in the muster rolls would at least be a start.

You need to be as specific as you can about dates for your request, because the musters are quarterly books detailing the names of the men in the regiment and their pay. So to follow a man for a year you have to order four separate books. They will tell you nothing about a man's background. Only the quarter where he leaves the regiment or where he enlists might give you further information. If you can give a specific date for him leaving the regiment you can request a look up in that muster quarter (that one hopefully would also give a date for his enlistment, so then that quarter can be checked). Even if the musters reveal nothing more than when James enlisted if that was pre the date of the 1851 census that would eliminate the James born Buckland Ripers.  

Since there are military experts answering posts on the armed forces board (and some who aren't) they may also be able to give you further advice or be able to tell you further information about James' regiment. If they are able to give further information, please post the link onto this thread so we can all read the information you are given as it may further inform searches in Dorset records for you.


I am not sure what you mean by is Buckland Ripers the closest to Weymouth. Closest in comparison to what other place/s?

Put Buckland Ripers into Google maps and then click the - (minus) button twice to pan further out. You can then compare the distance for yourself, bearing in mind Weymouth will have grown a little since 1851. On the 1851 census James was in nearby Broadwey which is also shown on the map.

Google maps (in its get directions section) states (on modern roads and not as the crow flies) Buckland Ripers is 5 miles away from the central point of Weymouth (which won't have changed since 1851) and that today it would normally take about 12 minutes to get between the two points.

http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1T4HPEA_en-GBGB236GB236&tab=wl

There are death registrations for James Snooks in Dorset after 1851. Since the age on death in the index doesn't start until the 1860s it is difficult to know whether any of those death registrations could be for James Snook born Buckland Ripers, so no mention of this man after the 1851 census doesn't necessarily mean that he is your James Snook. It just means he disappears after 1851 in the English censuses either because he has died, emigrated, changed his name etc.

Regards

Valda
Census information is Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk

Offline Valda

  • RootsChat Honorary
  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 16,160
    • View Profile
Re: james Snook/s
« Reply #24 on: Saturday 19 January 08 10:42 GMT (UK) »
Sorry I was writing my reply and posted as soon as I could and didn't have time to acknowledge your last message. If my previous post further informs the one you have made on the armed forces board I would modify it as necessary to help get a better response.

Regards

Valda
Census information is Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk

Offline pinkie6

  • RootsChat Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 167
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: james Snook/s
« Reply #25 on: Saturday 19 January 08 11:16 GMT (UK) »
yes i had just come back from reading a reply to my post on the armed forces board, as james died in 1898 new zealand, any deaths in england aren't him, someone had replied to say they had found him on a nz medal roll, that would be the medal another descendent has, the info was no: 3253, his number and private james snook, period of service from 27 dec 1854 to 5 oct 1865.
Valda, would the pay details have been  in england, even though the regiment was in nz? that was interesting about the books etc you spoke of, the reply also told me i would have to pay a researcher to look him up at the archives, something i wanted to avoid!!!! anyway shall see if i get anymore replies to my request!

Offline pinkie6

  • RootsChat Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 167
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: james Snook/s
« Reply #26 on: Saturday 19 January 08 11:19 GMT (UK) »
Sorry, he was also discharged with gratuity, i presume that means a good thing!