Lucy MARSH

[garlands]

OK. I'll see what Hants has to offer.

[garlands]

I've searched Hants 1794-1804 and found only one baptism of Lucy MARSH - 1801 in Farley Chamberlayne, which is over 40 miles from Guildford. I think she can be ruled out on the grounds of age and geography.

[rosie99]

Does that mean I can assume that Lucy's parents are Phoebe & James? If so, that's fine by me as it enables me to see if I can get any further back.

No.  .  It was just a suggestion that as we could not locate her baptism it might be worth researching the rest of the family in case something linked her to them.

If she was part of that family it is strange that she is not baptised as they appear to 'do' the other children.

[amondg]

There is an Absolem Marsh buried 29 May 1850 age 51 from Stoke next to Guildford. I cannot see him in 1841, the whole family seem to have been missed.

[amondg]

James Marsh and John Marsh could be brothers.

Henry Marsh married Ann Wheatley 1 November 1764 at Worpleston
children found so far
*Mary bap 6 January 1765
Henry bap 10 April 1767
*Sarah bap 17 March 1769
*Hannah bap 27 January 1771
James bap 22 August 1773
William    buried 1776 infant possible
John bap 24 August 1777
*Ann bap 6 February 1780
*Elizabeth bap 31 August 1783
Martha bap 6 November 1785 buried age 10 1796

With the exception of Martha, Lucy could be the daughter of one of their sisters.
 

[garlands]

Many thanks; the MARSH tree is expanding at a great rate!

If Lucy was the illegitimate child of one of the MARSH sisters, why was she not registered either as such or as the daughter of her grandparents, Ann & HENRY? The MARSH families made frequent use of the Church's Baptismal services so surely would not have omitted a new family member, even though they might have ascribed her to her grandparents rather than her natural mother?

Unfortunately, the sites I use provide only transcripts of the Registers. An examination of the original might clear-up some of the apparent anomalies.

[rosie99]

Many thanks; the MARSH tree is expanding at a great rate!

If Lucy was the illegitimate child of one of the MARSH sisters, why was she not registered either as such or as the daughter of her grandparents, Ann & HENRY?

Baptism was not compulsory

[garlands]

True, and, if that's what happened here, Lucy's parentage will forever remain a mystery.

Where did her name originate, and why was her first daughter named Phoebe?

A  Phoebe MARSH died in Q3, 1847 in Guildford; which one is she? The 1841 has James (aged 65) and Phoebe (aged 60) living in Stoke next Guildford.

In 1851, James is a widower, living with his daughter, Charlotte, in Stoke next Guildford, which leads me to believe that the Phoebe who died in 1847 was his wife, not his daughter.

[rosie99]

If you use the GRO index to look up the death it gives the age as 70
https://www.gro.gov.uk/gro/content/certificates/login.asp

MARSH, PHOEBE       70 
GRO Reference: 1847  Sept Quarter in GUILDFORD UNION  Volume 04  Page 131