Rebecca Judith Larcher

[jbluj]

Re Susannah...no g'tee that death in 1789 is her, or indeed the marriage is the right one...they just LOOK so promising. If both are ours, then Susannah was 7 or 8 years older than John and John was VERY young to be marrying this older woman!.

That is, if we assume his age at death was given correctly.  Ages on census returns and death/burial records were often inaccurate in the 19th century.  Imagine a grieving son or daughter being asked: "How old was your father?" - how many would know the right answer! For the labouring classes (with varying levels of literacy and numeracy) there was no advantage to being seen as old.  John might have been 77 - we just don't know yet.

Philip

ps - I discounted Rebecca the victualler's daughter (but I can't recall why - I will have to rummage through my notes) and a Rebecca baptised 1785 in Bishop's Waltham Hampshire who seems to have died young.

There are also John/Mary and a John/Elizabeth having children at the same time in same or adjacent parishes. So not yet cut and dried it is John/Susannah.

The problem is we have several snippets of info ....which ones are correct is the question.
She said her father was John; she signed her name Rebecca yet she was obviously known as Rebecca Judith. We instinctively assume she gave her fathers GIVEN name. But what if John was his family name?  We get into the realm of best guessing too easily.

[jbluj]

Ok Ancestry experts explain this entry ....

https://search.ancestry.co.uk/cgi-bin/sse.dll?dbid=1351&h=755653650&indiv=try&o_vc=Record:OtherRecord&rhSource=1351

I am guessing it’s a spurious error outputting datafields from the 1829 baptismal confirmation of Thomas Mark Larcher.....as it’s the only place where the dreaded Martly/Hartly name is mentioned alongside Rebecca Larcher.

I’ve sent a challenge to Ancestry to supply the date and place for that record.

[Kiwi007]

Hi Cuz
That link doesn't help...maybe post the transcript version so we can look it up.
Is it the nonconformist baptism record?
I am curious about Ann ?BENTOTE?
BTW..you did good figuring out the M / H conundrum. I'm definitely with the H
I just spotted another typo spelling of LARCHER so may give that a go to see what might pop up on a fuzzy search.

[Kiwi007]

OK, this time I read the WHOLE document, lol...the 1829 ref is the date his baptism was FILED & REGISTERED as per dissenter custom. Looks the Dissenting Minister dragged his heels somewhat!

[jbluj]

A number of years have passed so previously interested parties may no longer be listening in.

Summarising the points I have come to believe as Most likely…..

John Hartley married Susannah Corke in Southwark in 1760. This is a mere 3-4 miles walk from Wandsworth where the nucleus of Huguenot weavers lived at that time. Over the coming years the Huguenots moved across the river and to the east end….so did John& Susanna.

In fact they lived at the same addresses /locations at various times as the Larcher families.

It’s therefore my contention that Rebecca Judith was a child of John (a weaver) & Susanna and her close association with the Larchers resulted in her marrying Andrew c 1801.

At Rebecca’s death she was called Ann Rebecca. This could have been a confused scribe or Andrew or maybe she was Ann Rebecca? Having their first child named after the mother could have led to confusion as the family grew. Maybe Ann Rebecca snr preferred her second name or with increased religious non conformist fervour preferred to be known by her biblical name …to also avoid confusion with her daughter…so she dropped the Ann? We will never know.

I have no idea why the name Judith came and went throughout her child bearing years or where it originated. Again it may have been a biblically inspired addition? Suffice to say it has all the hallmarks of a chosen rather than a given name.

Ann Rebecca snr recorded age at death could be wrong or quite simply living as they did around the Larchers maybe the resp. families condoned a younger than normal marriage?

As has been noted Rebecca could write. So could this John Hartley (witness at some children’s marriages) Without being cruel, it seems like John Hartley was from a more educated background. Which may put some credence to a family connection with the other more prosperous? Hartleys around in London at that time….William (Vintner) & Rebecca his wife and John (Mercer) with his daughter Rebecca.

It wouldnt be too far fetched to think that Rebecca Judith was homage to an aunt or a grandparent??

One final point on possible origins of John Hartley. The recent Gallows Pole series on tv marks the plight of Yorkshire weavers and their migration to find work and survive as the Industrial Revolution squeezed them out of their manual jobs in Yorkshire. Was John Hartley (a surname also used in the series and common in West Yorkshire) one of the migrants…going to London and to the proximity of the Huguenot community?

Interesting there is a migratory example in Johns family. Flora (his daughter) married lace maker Thomas Peet (a native of Nottinghamshire) in London. The married duo then returned to Nottingham to continue ‘mechanised’ lace making. I also believe they were involved in the transfer of expertise to Calais where a huge community of Nottingham/Derby lace makers went and greatly influenced the mechanisation of French lace making.

[jbluj]

One final final point I missed….

The penultimate child of John & Susanna was Ruth in 1780.
I can find no evidence that Ruth married or died either as a child or in later life. Ruth doesn’t seem to exist after her birth. Although this lost tracking is far too common at this time, is it too fanciful to consider that Ruth was wrongly named and she was actually Rebecca? Now that is perhaps a step too far.

[philipsearching]

A number of years have passed so previously interested parties may no longer be listening in.
...............

I'm still here and most definitely still interested.  Many thanks for reviving this thread.

I haven't looked at the Hartley's jam (sorry! ) for a few years, so it's time I gave it fresh thought.  I have always been pretty certain that Martley is a misreading and am convinced by Hartley.  Placing Hartleys in the same location as Larchers is very significant.  I am intrigued by the idea of Ruth vanishing and Rebecca appearing but I wouldn't be brave enough to put money on it.  At the moment my thinking is: "there is strong circumstantial evidence to suggest that Rebecca is the daughter of the John Hartley who married Susan Corke".