Shermanbury and Horsham PR check

[MattD30]

I'm hoping someone here might be able to help me track down two possible christenings and confirm the spelling of a surname.

My ancestor Samuel Mathews married Sarah Heaston at Nuthurst on 21 April 1715. On FamilySearch the marriage appears twice, with his name spelt Mathews or Matthews but her name is spelt Heaston on one entry and Heastin on the other.

The parish register entry reads as follows:

"Samuell Mathew of Shermanbury and Sarah Heaston of Horsham"

On the PR Sarah's surname could even be Beaston/Beastin.

I have had a look for a christening of Samuel in Shermanbury but can't see any and the only one I've located takes place in Nuthurst in 1687. I have an feeling this is the right man.

Is anyone able to double check the PRs for Shermanbury and let me know if there is any sign of  Samuel Mathew/Matthew [including with an "s" or "es" at the end] between 1675 and 1695?

Alternatively does anyone else think that the Samuel christened in Nuthurst is probably the same man?

For some reason I can't get the image added to this message at the moment - when I try, the attachment box doesn't appear! If anyone wants to see the image let me know and I will send it by pm. I will see if I can post it on here tomorrow.

Thanks in advance for any ideas

Matt

[Liz_in_Sussex]

Hi Matt,

I can't see a Samuel Matthews (or variants) being baptised at Shermanbury during that time frame - in fact at all!

Nuthurst is not too far - just a little way to cross through Cowfold or West Grinstead... Given that Nuthurst and Horsham are contiguous I wonder if Samuel was from Nuthurst but had gone to work in Shermanbury (good farming land  home to my ancestors) but went back home or at least very near for his bride.

Liz

[MattD30]

Hi Matt,

I can't see a Samuel Matthews (or variants) being baptised at Shermanbury during that time frame - in fact at all!

Nuthurst is not too far - just a little way to cross through Cowfold or West Grinstead... Given that Nuthurst and Horsham are contiguous I wonder if Samuel was from Nuthurst but had gone to work in Shermanbury (good farming land  home to my ancestors) but went back home or at least very near for his bride.

Liz

Hi Liz

Thanks for the reply. I think you are right about Samuel. I haven't found a christening for him in Shermanbury at all, nor have I found any Matthews (of various spellings) christened there!

Now if only I could find a christening for Sarah Heaston/Beaston in Horsham.

Unfortunately Rootschat still won't let me attach anything to this post so I still can't put the image up for you to see!

Thanks again
Matt

[jonw65]

Matt, I can give a link to the parish register entry
https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:S3HT-6RQ9-7SM?i=282&cat=452239

and throw in the BT for good measure!
https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:S3HY-DYQ9-MPN?i=784&cat=581076

On the PR the marriage has been written out a second time and said entry is crossed through. So we get two looks at it!
I thought at first Sarah's surname might be Beaston, but on reflection the first letter is not like the other capital B's on there. However it does look very similar to the capital H in Henry on the first marriage in 1714.

Samuel and Sarah seem to have called their second son Abraham, bap 1719 (first son was Samuel), so the 1787 baptism of Samuel with Abraham as father looks promising.
John

[MattD30]

Matt, I can give a link to the parish register entry
https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:S3HT-6RQ9-7SM?i=282&cat=452239

and throw in the BT for good measure!
https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:S3HY-DYQ9-MPN?i=784&cat=581076

On the PR the marriage has been written out a second time and said entry is crossed through. So we get two looks at it!
I thought at first Sarah's surname might be Beaston, but on reflection the first letter is not like the other capital B's on there. However it does look very similar to the capital H in Henry on the first marriage in 1714.

Samuel and Sarah seem to have called their second son Abraham, bap 1719 (first son was Samuel), so the 1787 baptism of Samuel with Abraham as father looks promising.
John

Hi John

Thanks for posting those, I never though of putting the link to the image in my original post.

I see what you mean about the entry being written down twice which is interesting. Above the second entry of the marriage [the crossed out one] is written the word "Monday". Only the marriage of Samual and Sarah is recorded as the next line states "1716" so I wonder if their marriage took place on a Monday?

With regards to the first letter of Sarah's surname, I'm not so sure it is an "B" now I look closely at other entries on the page. There are two burials on the opposite page which both have surnames starting with "B"

1716
31 March - James Turner/Torner of Beeding

August 28 - Mary Banks

The "B"s in "Beeding" and "Banks" looks similar and closer to the "B" in "Burials" but not as close to the initial letter of Sarah's surname.

There is a burial on 19 June 1714 for a "Joan Henshaw" [I think it is Henshaw] and the initial letter of that surname looks similar to that in Sarah's case. Also at the bottom of the right hand page there is the following marriage:

1718 July ye 10th

John Puttock of Horsham and Mary Potter of Itchingfield

Again I think the initial "H" of "Horsham" looks much like the first letter of Sarah's surname and also close to the initial letter of the surname in the 1714 burial mentioned above.

Whilst these are not identical they do look similar and closer to "H" than "B"

What you think?

BTW I assume that you meant to refer to the 1687 christening of Samuel rather than 1787 lol!

 

Best Wishes

Matt

[jonw65]

Hi Matt
I think the marriage may have been on a Sunday. But I have some doubts as to how well kept this register was. Or at least how quickly events were recorded. Perhaps the chap had started to copy up the wrong notes!

I do agree with you about the B's. And H is the only letter that makes sense at the moment. Sometimes they seem not to use a capital at all.
But, on balance, it looks to me as though the transcriber has it right. Which isn't to say that Sarah's surname was interpreted and recorded "correctly" to begin with? If there was indeed a correct way.
I am struggling with Heaston in Sussex, or anywhere else, what about Easton?

Sorry about the wrong year! Yes, the baptism was in 1687. It looks even more promising in the right century!
John

[MattD30]

Hi Matt
I think the marriage may have been on a Sunday. But I have some doubts as to how well kept this register was. Or at least how quickly events were recorded. Perhaps the chap had started to copy up the wrong notes!

I do agree with you about the B's. And H is the only letter that makes sense at the moment. Sometimes they seem not to use a capital at all.
But, on balance, it looks to me as though the transcriber has it right. Which isn't to say that Sarah's surname was interpreted and recorded "correctly" to begin with? If there was indeed a correct way.
I am struggling with Heaston in Sussex, or anywhere else, what about Easton?

Sorry about the wrong year! Yes, the baptism was in 1687. It looks even more promising in the right century!
John

Hi John

Yes on balance I think "Heaston" is more likely after looking at the entries on both pages. I haven't found any instances of "Heaston" yet myself either. Maybe "Heeston" or "Heasten" would be worth checking too.

I might check the Horsham PRs for the right period to see what christenings there are for "Sarahs" with surnames starting with a "H" to see if anything looks like a possible match. I've not tried "Easton" so I'll give that a try too.

Thanks again
Matt