Looking for conformation of surname and parents

[PK-KTK]

  Hi

 There is a tree that gives a marriage of William Heens to Mary Ambridge in Newport Pagnell QT4 in 1841. Mary the daughter of Thomas Ambridge and Susan Wright. Susan 1793-1838 and Thomas 1800-1874. So some more dates to work with.

Tazzie

Thanks Tazzie - shall keep an eye out for that one.

[PK-KTK]

Possible baptism for William?

https://familysearch.org/pal:/MM9.1.1/JML1-26N

Possible death for William:

Death, Jun qtr 1849

William HINES

Newport Pagnell 6 285

thanks avm - will certainly be following this line for a while.

Will look for HEENS in the 1851 census as well, never know what I'll find

[PK-KTK]

I took the plunge and ordered the 1861 marriage certificate for Elizabeth HINS and William MABLEY - the details of William's match everything I already knew, and Elizabeth is listed as a Lacemaker, which matches the census records I'd found for the family after the marriage.

William and Elizabeth married 8 Sept 1861, aged just 19 each, confirming for me their births in c1842 as I'd thought

Elizabeth's father is given as William HINS, Labourer, but is not mentioned as being deceased, so I am presuming he is still alive in 1861.

It is interesting to note that William MABLEY appears to have been able to write his own name, while Elizabeth and the two witnesses (John and Jane AMBRIDGE) could not and all signed with their mark.

I think therefore, the 1861 census record we have previously found is going to be my Elizabeth, and with the father's name of William, perhaps the baptism Cathy found on FamilySearch is my girl.

I think my next step is to pick a birth record that fits for Elizabeth and purchase it.

[avm228]

That sounds like a good development.

The most likely birth reg looks to be that of Elizabeth HINES, Jun qtr 1842 Newport Pagnell.  The reference is variously transcribed on FreeBMD as vol 6 p382 or vol 6 p383.  Looking at the underlying (rather faint) image, 382 looks to me to be the correct one, but I can see why the transcribers have had difficulty with it.

If she was born in the second quarter that would fit with her being aged 18 (not yet 19) in the 1861 census. The other candidate, Elizabeth HINE (Mar qtr 1842 Newport Pagnell 6 403) would already have been 19 by the census date, 7 April 1861. (Of course census ages are not always as accurate as all that!).

NB It is not safe to assume Elizabeth's father was alive when she married. The information that a father was deceased was sometimes volunteered or asked for, but not always - there was no requirement for it.

[PK-KTK]

That sounds like a good development.

The most likely birth reg looks to be that of Elizabeth HINES, Jun qtr 1842 Newport Pagnell.  The reference is variously transcribed on FreeBMD as vol 6 p382 or vol 6 p383.  Looking at the underlying (rather faint) image, 382 looks to me to be the correct one, but I can see why the transcribers have had difficulty with it.

If she was born in the second quarter that would fit with her being aged 18 (not yet 19) in 1861. The other candidate, Elizabeth HINE (Mar qtr 1842) would already have been 19 by census day 1861. (Of course census ages are not always as accurate as all that!).

NB It is not safe to assume Elizabeth's father was alive when she married. The information that a father was deceased was sometimes volunteered or asked for, but not always - there was no requirement for it.

Makes a lot of sense avm - thanks - I think that's the one I am leaning towards myself.
Fingers crossed it's the right one

[avm228]

For what it's worth, the supposed sister (from the baptism details) seems to have been registered as HINES:

Birth, Sep qtr 1843

Susan HINES

Newport Pagnell 6 369

[PK-KTK]

For what it's worth, the supposed sister (from the baptism details) seems to have been registered as HINES:

Birth, Sep qtr 1843

Susan HINES

Newport Pagnell 6 369

Ahh nice one!  Now I just need to work out how to order a cert that I don't have all the details for (due to the page number discrepancy)

[avm228]

two witnesses (John and Jane AMBRIDGE)

From Tazzie's reply #13 it looks as though there's a possibility Mary HINES' maiden name was AMBRIDGE; if so she may well have been related to John.

This may be the couple in Wavendon in 1861 (RG9/872/132/17):

John AMBRIDGE Head Mar 29 Ag lab Bucks Wavendon
Jane do Wife Mar 24 Beds Marsdon
William do Son 4 Scholar Bucks Wavendon
Sarah do Daur 1 Bucks Wavendon

Possible marriage: John AMBRIDGE & Jane BLUNT on the same page, Dec qtr 1855 Ampthill 3b 911.

[avm228]

Possible baptism for the witness John AMBRIDGE:

https://familysearch.org/pal:/MM9.1.1/JML1-23P

...and an older sister Mary?

https://familysearch.org/pal:/MM9.1.1/J3NN-MJL

Familysearch also shows Wavendon baptisms for the following further children to Thomas & Susan(nah):

Matilda 1819
William 1821
James 1824 (died 1827)
Sarah 1826
Frances 1829
Lucy 1831
Thomas 1834