Pages: [1]

Author Topic: James Saunders Bussell  (Read 602 times)

Offline cannylad

  • RootsChat Extra
  • **
  • Posts: 29
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
James Saunders Bussell
« on: Thursday 10 December 20 16:34 GMT (UK) »
Hello,
I am trying to find out details of the ancestry of James Saunders Bussell who was born to John and Sarah in Little Gaddesden in 1814. I believe that John and Sarah also had William in Watford in 1802, Elizabeth in Watford in 1805 and Thirza in Ivinghoe in 1817. However, I cannot find John and Sarah's marriage or any info on their ancestors. Can anyone help?
Thanks.

Offline ColC

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 5,607
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: James Saunders Bussell
« Reply #1 on: Sunday 13 December 20 12:02 GMT (UK) »
The only marriage I can find?

John Bussell
Marriage Date:   17 Feb 1795 both signed.
Marriage Place:   St George, Hanover Square, London, Westminster
Spouse:   Sarah Chapman One witness John Tinker, the other signed all marriages in period.

St Marys,Watford

William Bussell 18 Jul 1802, Elizabeth Bussell 10 Mar 1805

Little Gaddesden

James Saunders Bussell 26 Jun 1814

On freereg the record for the above shows John’s occupation as Joiner.

No other marriages that seem to fit 1795 – 1814

No births that cannot be accounted for 1805 & 1814

Colin
Clarke, Trickett, Orton, Lawless, Norton, Detheridge, Kirby, Goodfellow, Wagstaff, Lowe, etc.

Offline cannylad

  • RootsChat Extra
  • **
  • Posts: 29
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: James Saunders Bussell
« Reply #2 on: Sunday 13 December 20 15:24 GMT (UK) »
Hello,
Thanks for your reply. I previously noted that marriage to Sarah Chapman and wondered if that was them. It may be that their marriage has not been picked up by genealogy websites or perhaps they just lived together. The Bussell/Chapman marriage is a good possibility, the only trouble is, it is just a possibility. Thanks again, very kind of you to reply.
Brian
Pages: [1]