Susan & Hannah BOXER, b1722 Folkestone COMPLETED

[johnxyz]

I am trying to resolve the parentage of Susanna BOXER who married Thomas MORFORD at Folkestone in 1745. There is also a  marriage of Susanna BOXER in 1744 (Thomas SPEARPOINT) and hence some possible confusion.

IGI has twins Hannah & Susan BOXER christened in 1722, but a burial for Hannah in 1723.

I have just noticed that an alternative set of Folkestone data http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~folkestonefamilies/BMD.htm
does not have the Hannah burial. Can anyone check the burial register please?

[johnxyz]

Replying to myself to leave a complete trail!

Burial for Hannah d of Richard BOXER 9 Jul 1723

[casalguidi]

There is some information here http://ryeland.com/getperson.php?personID=I13964&tree=Ryeland

Although it is all rather contradictory thus a muddle still, if Thomas MORFORD became a freeman of Folkestone upon his marriage then that would mean that he married a daughter of a freeman and the records should say who her father (the freeman) was.

The Folkestone freemen records have been printed and are available in old books in the Heritage Room at Folkestone Library http://www.kent.gov.uk/KCC.Libraries.Web.Sites.Public/LibraryDetails.aspx?aid=0&lid=32

Ask them if they can check for any details of the Thomas MORFORD who became a freeman by marrying Susan(nah) BOXER.

Casalguidi

[johnxyz]

The question of whether Susan BOXER bapt 2 Mar 1721/2 daughter Richard & Margaret BOXER married either Thomas SPEARPOINT or James MORFORD is resolved by Margaret BOXER's will, written 1773 probate 1778 PRC 16 / 450b /12.

"my daughter Susan the wife of James Morfit, Folkstone, Baker"

Most on-line trees have opted for her marrying Thomas SPEARPOINT. The flaw in the logic at your first (Ryeland) link is that whilst Susan Boxer Spearpoint was aged 80 in 1702 and hence the right age, there is no evidence to say Susan Boxer Morford was the wrong age. Its not reported there, but in fact her burial in 1783 gives no age. So although it had been used as a discrimator, it is not.

Thanks for the Freemen data link - I'll certainly follow that through