Moses HARDING of Newton St Loe

[DRH123]

30 years old in 1714 is certainly too old to have been still having children in 1746.

Ormond was christened at Twerton in 1732. Children in things like the removal order are usually listed in order of age so it would seem Moses and John were probably born around 1734 and 1736 respectively.  John and Ann may have had older children who didn't survive, but most likely they were married around 1730 and almost certainly after 1720.

I think John Harden and Ann Grist at Wellow in 1730 looks a good bet. Especially as a William Grist was a witness at the wedding of Ormond (to Sarah Sparkes, NSL, 1759).

David

[Aceh]

Evening David,

Firstly Ive found that the c 1732 birth for my Moses originated a decade or 2 ago from the IGI, but the date makes sense with your proposed marriage of John & Ann at Wello in 1730. I've checked Wello for Moses but no sign. I also I checked Somerset, Wiltshire, Gloucestershire and also Bristol for Mo*** Hard*** with no result.
Does the Removal Order give the ages of the children? Is there an Order from the parish to which John, Ann & family were removed and if so were the ages of the children given?
I have also descovered the existance of the "Somerset Coal Canal" - the exact route is not clear - which might have provided a route of travel towards the Bath area from the Wells area if the latter was a possible origin of the Hardings.

Alan

[DRH123]

The birth date also fits with the burial at NSL in 1806, aged 72.

I think the extant registers of almost all the surrounding parishes have been indexed by one or more of Ancestry, FindMyPast and FreeREG, but there are gaps where nothing survives and I fear Moses' baptism must have fallen into one of those.

I haven't seen the Removal Order, only the SHC catalogue entry

https://somerset-cat.swheritage.org.uk/records/Q/SR/306/175

David Crellin spotted it first; maybe he has more details. Otherwise you can probably order a copy from the SHC.

David

PS. The SHC do seem to have Removal Orders, Settlement Examinations and similar from Twerton. Familysearch have copies but only viewable at a Family History Centre

https://www.familysearch.org/search/catalog/482241

[Aceh]

Trying to get a feel for the possiblities for John & Ann, using FindmyPast I plugged in Baptisms for John Hard*** 1720 +/- 20 with the results: Somerset 71; Wiltshire 120; Gloucestershire 73 and Bristol 31.
Ditto for the John Hard*** & Ann's Marriage 1710 +/- 20, with results: Somerset 4, Wiltshire 4; Gloucestershire 0; Bristol 4. Of the 4 Somerset marriages 1 was Wellow and yes. I agree, this seems to be the most likely. The bride in the Wells area turned out to be Hannah.

Moving on to the children:
Ormand was baptised at Twerton in 1732. But Moses was born c 1732 as per igi and also by back-calculation from his age at burial in 1806, so, were they twins? There was another pair of twins, John and Esau, baptised at Newton st Loe on 25 March 1743 as per baptism register, so another pair of twins is a possibility. However, you don't quote Ormand & Moses baptised Twerton and believe Moses' baptism has been lost, therefore perhaps Moses was actualy born in 1731, somewhere between Wellow and Twerton. 
I then have John, baptised 1734 (from age at death) I know not where, who married a Sarah Briggs from Bradford on Avon at Freshford, Wiltshire, but close to Bath. He was killed aged 62 in an accident at the Newton St Loe quarry 1n 1796, as per NSL burials. I'm not at all sure that this John was son of John & Ann - there is only his burial at Newton to tie him in.
And there follws the 2 Janes, one buried at Newton st Loe on 30 January 1738 (baptism unknown) and her sister, named Jane in her memory, baptised a year later at Newton St Loe on 26 January 1739.
And then the twins John and Esau Harding baptised Lady Day / New Years Day, 25 March 1743 at Newton St Loe. John married Sarah nee Sparkes, the widow of his elder brother Ormond.
Lastly there was Sarah Harding, baptised at Newton st Loe on 16 January 1747.

Do you have any views on this. It doesn't realy get us any further forward with parents John & Ann.

Alan

[DRH123]

It's unlikely that a pair of (living) twins would not have been baptised together, so I think Moses and Ormond were not twins. I slightly misquoted the Twerton baptism date, it was 7 Nov 1731, Ormond son of John Harding, so Moses could have been born 16 months later and it would still have been in 1732. Anyway, people were often quite uncertain of their ages in those days.

There seems to be some muddle over Jane Harding. FreeREG seems to have missed the burial completely. FindMyPast gives two dates for the burial but that's because of confusion over the dating style.  I think there was only the one girl, baptised 26 Jan 1738/39 and buried 30 Jan 1738/39, 4 days later.

If the first John was still alive, it would be strange to call another son John. The age of the one who died in 1796 is tantalizingly close, but there were other Hardings about. I can't see the marriage to Ormond's widow but I don't suppose it actually says that the groom was her first husband's brother, or which possible John he was.

David

[Aceh]

I'm using the the copy I made in 2011 from the typescript of the Newton St Loe Combined Register held at the SOG, shelfmark SO/R/12. This contains Baptisms 1739 - 1812; Marriages 1642 - 1802 and Burials 1738 - 1809.
Your revised baptism for Ormond at Twerton, makes Moses the 2nd son as per the 2nd child listed in the Removal Order of 1738.
As for Jane yes, my 1st thought was this is a perinatal death; a baptism followed by a burial of a child. However, such baptisms are usually described as "private baptisms" ie emergencies where the clergyman is rushed to the place of birth to ensure the sickly child will go to the hereafter without complications. This classification has not been used. Also, in the SOG transcript the baptism of "Jane Harding, daughter of John and Ann" is dated 26 January 1739. In the burial section of the register  the burial of "Jane Harding, daughter of John and Ann" is dated 30 January 1738. This implies that that there is year between the burial and the baptism. In both baptism and burial Jane Harding is the first entry in the register, so in the case of the burial, the baptism would be found in the previous register, if it survived.
My study has been invaded by fruit flies so I will send this, shut down, deal with the invasion and return to deal with John tomorrow!

Alan

[DRH123]

I have a copy of what I suspect is the same transcript (originally made by the Rev. W. Shickle). It only has one baptism and one burial for Jane Harding, on 26 and 30 Jan 1738 respectively. In both cases the context implies the date is old-style, 1738/39.

David

[Aceh]

I'm putting Jane to one side at the moment.

Regarding the question of which John was the son of John & Ann, we know from the baptism register, that John, twin of Esau baptised 25 March 1743 definately was.

Ormand was buried at Newton on 6 August 1764 (Gregorian). On 8 April 1772 the baptism register at Newton has: "William Harding, son of John, bachelor, and Sarah Harding, his late brother's widow*      Married". Looking at how the entry is laid out (possibly in the margin) I suspect "Married" was added later- we cannot say for certain without seeing an image of the original register entry. I believe that William's mother was Sarah Harding nee Sparkes. There are subsequently 3 female baptisms for this John and Sarah at Newton between 1775 and March 1781.

Now for the John Harding aged 62, who was killed by a falling rock at the Newton stone quarry, buried at Newton on 17 July 1796, making his birth circa 1734, but this did not appear in the baptism register at Newton. However, I also found the baptism of 2 daughters of John & Sarah at Newton: Mary Harding in 1767 and Dianna Harding in 1769, both after Ormond had died.

The Removal Order dated 13 December 1738 included parents John & Ann, with children Ormand, Moses & John. Of the 2 Johns, both sons of John & Ann, only this elder John was alive.

So John 1734 - 1796 married Ormand's widow Sarah nee Sparkes, but in view of the note "Married" mentioned above, this may not have been before the birth of Mary and Dianna, but they are not noted as being "base born". The subsequent children: William in 1772, Martha in 1775, Lydia in 1778 and Lydia in 1781, initially thought to have been fathered by John, Twin of Esau as above, would all appear to have been legitimate from birth.

We now have nothing on the twins beyond their baptism and the same goes for their younger sister Sarah baptised 1747 as we don't know where their parents John and Ann were after 1747.

You can imagine how many scratchings-out there have been getting to this conclusion. I have had to correct my tree last worked on in 2011, but all to the good. 

[DRH123]

As I said before, the book catalogued as DD/new.s.l  2/1/9 is not the official register, although it is the only one from the period in question to have images on Ancestry. It appears to have been kept by a James Baker and often contains extra comments that are not in the official register. One of his habits is to add indications of the later life of the people recorded. Most commonly he put "D" when they died, but also "wn" or "withdrawn" if they moved out of the parish, and "m" or "married" if they married. It is clear in the image that the "married" after William's baptism record was added later so it almost certainly means that William himself later married, not that his parents did.

It is possible brother John and widow Sarah went on to live together although they never officially married and that the later children baptised by a John and Sarah couple are theirs. But those born before William are unlikely to be, since John was described as a bachelor in 1772. They are more likely due to the couple who married at Bradford on Avon in 1762. The later ones may be as well.

I have come across families with two living sons called John but it is very rare. So I think it most likely that the first John son of John and Ann died and they recycled the name. Although I suppose it's even possible that the John and Esau baptised together were not twins but John was the older brother who had missed being baptised at the usual age. Then the John who died in 1796 could be either of the two who had children with a Sarah.

Sorry that I keep pouring cold water on your ideas. You've got a very difficult family, with a common surname in an area with patchy records. I'm afraid it may be impossible to completely sort them out.

David