Ticehurst family in Battle

[L]

Hi,

I have had a quick look for your Ticehurst family. It seems that on 18.11.1683 twins, John and James were baptised in Ringmer, as Aptot. A note in the register states that  they were illegitimate twins born in the absence of Elizabeth's husband with whom she has not co-habited for a period of 11 years. James Tishurst acknowledges himself as the father. He also acknowledges the John born in 1685/6. I have been unable to locate a marriage for James and Elizabeth so far.

Regards,
Lesley

[supermoussi]

Thanks Lesley. 

So Elizabeth's maiden name was not APTOT then. There are the following Hamsey/Ringmer bapts which could be her in her first marriage:-

Hamsey 1664 John APTOT s John & Elizabeth
Hamsey 1672 Elizabeth APTOT d John & Elizabeth
Hamsey 1672 Thomas APTOT s John & Elizabeth
Ringmer 1678 Sarah APTOT d John & Elizabeth

You say she was supposed to have stopped living with her first husband c.1672, which doesn't fit with the 1678 baptism but, on the other hand, there is a big gap between the 1664 and 1672 baptisms, so it may be that John and Elizabeths relationship was "on-off", or that he was away for periods, perhaps in the army, navy, prison, etc.

[L]

Hi again,

There is a note in the register for the baptism of Sarah, which says' supposed 6 1/2 years of age', indicating a much earlier birth.

Lesley

[L]

I had another look at the Hamsey baptisms for you. The entries are as follows:

John  04.09.1664

Elizabeth 04.10.1672 'neere 4 yeares old'

Thomas 04.10.1672  'neere 2 yeares old'

Regards,
Lesley

[supermoussi]

Thanks Lesley 

That all fits in quite nicely really and could give the following sequence of events:-

c.1662 John APTOT m. Elizabeth nee ? @ Sussex?
1664 John APTOT s. of John & Elizabeth born
1668 Elizabeth APTOT d. of John & Elizabeth born
1670 Thomas APTOT s. of John & Elizabeth born
1671 Sarah APTOT d. of John & Elizabeth born
c. 1672 John APTOT & Elizabeth split

c. 1681 Elizabeth APTOT nee ? moves in with James TICEHURST
1683 James & John APTOT sons of Elizabeth APTOT nee? & James TICEHURST born
1688 Elizabeth TICEHURST d. James & Elizabeth born
1691 William TICEHURST s. James & Elizabeth born

Could this be a textbook case of Common Law marriage I wonder? i.e. one practice was that if a couple lived together for 7 years, and behaved as a married couple, then they were considered married with no need for a marriage ceremony. Of course, while John APTOT Snr was living then this could not have taken place, but what if he died somewhen imbetween 1683 and 1688. Elizabeth and James could be considered married if they had been living together long enough and this would explain why their last two children Elizabeth and William were baptised as TICEHURST and not APTOT.

Does this sound possible/likely?

[L]

Sorry for the delayed reply. The time line does seem perfectly feasible.

I have had a quick look to see if I could find anything further for John Aptot/Apted. The only burial which I have found was at Hamsey on 13.07.1682.

Lesley

[supermoussi]

Thanks Lesley. That sounds like it's likely to be him as there weren't that many John APTOTs knocking around.

Guess his 4 children would have kept the APTOT name and been sent out to work. My gut feel though is that James TICEHURST's first two sons who were baptised as James & John APTOT in 1683 were quite likely to have switched to calling themselves TICEHURST like their sister Elizabeth 1689 and brother William 1691.

Could the James TICEHURST who married Mary TUTT at Hellingly in 1719 be James APTOT 1683? I am not aware of any other James TICEHURSTs of likely marrying age at that time.

[supermoussi]

although it's interesting that the name Joseph hasn't trickled any further down his line of the family.

Another Battle Ticehurst family using names James/Joseph were also connected to Ewhurst:-

http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/a2a/records.aspx?cat=179-par324-ead&cid=23-1-53&kw=battle%20settlement%20certificate%20joseph#23-1-53