Which Mary Blakemore is my ancestor? (Correcting a possible mistake)

[M_ONeill]

So I think I've made a bit of an error in a recent addition to my family tree and I wondered if other rootschatters could cast an eye over the following before I update my tree with my (believed) correction.

So I'm pretty confident in my tree up until Mary Blakemore, my 8x great grandmother. She married a William Rutter in 1716. Their marriage license documents list her as being of Blymhill and 'around 30 years of age'. This puts her birth at around 1686.

Where I think an error possibly crept in is that I found a 1686 Blymhill parish baptism for a Mary Blakemore, daughter of Thomas and Mary. I thought that was probably the right one and started looking into surrounding relatives to see if I could find any confirmation.

I then found a 1718 will for a Thomas Blakemore - but the listed relations don't exactly match up. For example, he mentions a son-in-law William Blakemore. The only Blakemore marrying Blakemore I can find that matches up with Thomas and Mary's children is a 1713 marriage between William Blakemore and Mary Blakemore. Given that the other children in the will match up with Thomas and Mary's surviving children (William Blakemore, Joseph Blakemore) I'm starting to think this Mary Blakemore may be the one born in 1686, and not my ancestor.

John's wife in the will is different, Cassandra rather than Mary - but I believe this is a second marriage as it seemingly took place in Blymhill in the 1690s. There's also a grand-daughter I can't exactly place - a Sarah Blakemore of Pattingham, but hopefully you can see why I'm starting to doubt the link.

I've since found a baptismal record for a Mary Blakemore in Blymhill in 1682, born the illegitimate daughter of Hannah Blakemore. I have no other corroborating evidence as yet, but I'm starting to think this entry is more likely to be my ancestor.

What do people think? Am I barking up the wrong tree?

[trish1120]

To muddy the waters son in law may also be a step son

[M_ONeill]

Hi Trish! Yeah, I've definitely come across that usage of the word before - I was thrown by the fact he had the same surname as Thomas. For him to be a step-son I suppose that would mean either Mary was also a Blakemore, or William took on his stepfather's surname. Though if that were the case, then I'd be surprised for the couple to name their eldest son William as well.

There is a William Blakemore who acts as Bondsman on the Marriage Bond for William Rutter and Mary Blakemore. I had assumed it was her elder brother, now I'm not so sure. If I am right and this Mary is the daughter of Hannah, then maybe William was a cousin?

EDIT: So taking a closer look through the marriage records, I see that although William Blakemore and Mary Blakemore were married in Blymhill, William was resident in Pattingham. They must have moved there as they have their first child, Sarah, in 1714.They had later children, but none who were born at the time of Thomas' death. I think that pretty much confirms that the Mary born in 1686 is not the one who marries William Rutter.

[M_ONeill]

Ironically, it seems that even though I've moved up a generation, I have the same issue at hand. There are two Hannah Blakemores baptised in Blymhill in 1662, one with parents Edward and Margery, the other John and Eleanor.

That said, with Hannah apparently only baptising the one child in Blymhill, it makes me wonder if that was even her home parish...