Author Topic: How to fill in the gaps  (Read 416 times)

Offline Stricklands

  • RootsChat Extra
  • **
  • Posts: 23
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
How to fill in the gaps
« on: Wednesday 11 May 22 13:54 BST (UK) »
I am looking for some suggestions on how to fill in some (possibly) missing names.

I am researching Mary Temple, born in Frankton, Warks in 1616.
In 1642 Mary, her sister, brother-in-law and other family members were forced to flee Frankton after their house was was threatened by royalist forces.  The last positive evidence I have of Mary is an archived letter written from her brother-in-law's house in London on 18 August 1642, describing the events.

I have been looking at another letter from the archive which appears to have been miscatalogued and may be from Mary to her niece.  The letter does not have the name of the sender or recipient (just aunt, niece - and I know these were more flexibly used in those days) and is undated but there are references to some other family members (brother, uncle) which could match.  To my untrained eye there are similarities in the handwriting, although that could just be standard early modern writing.

If this letter really is from Mary then it could help extend my knowledge.  In the letter she mentions her 'dafter addams' and 'dafter whatams' which I have assumed refer to married daughters and their surnames.  She also refers to other children - Edmund and Moll.

My problem is knowing how to fill in the gaps.  I do not know Mary's married name, I have tried searching for marriages of Mary Temple in Ancestry but not found anything that seems to match.  Although her brother had returned to Frankton by 1645, Mary could have married in London, Warwickshire or through family contacts in Sussex or Buckinghamshire, or other places.  Without their maiden names or even first names or locations it is difficult to trace the daughters - Addams or Adams is a common name and Whatams seems to be a misspelling of something else, but again I have not traced it.

I would guess the date of the letter is between 1660 and 1665 - based on the existence of married daughters when Mary was unmarried in 1642 so 1660 is probably the earliest, and a name given in the letter of a girl who married in 1665 which suggests a latest date.

Any suggestions on how to fill these gaps?

Offline spendlove

  • RootsChat Aristocrat
  • ******
  • Posts: 2,279
  • I've not edited my PROFILE yet
    • View Profile
Re: How to fill in the gaps
« Reply #1 on: Wednesday 11 May 22 16:14 BST (UK) »
Hi

You have a tight time line for marriages to possible daughters of Mary.

Mary born 1616

Unmarried 1842 aged 26 - per letter and she is named in her Fathers Will 1642

Then married and produced 2 daughters who were married by 1660-65.

I can find the letter extract of 1642,
https://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/07c84fa9-f2d1-41f2-a563-ed192fd2106d

Can you give a connection to the second letter you mention?



Census information is Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk

Spendlove, Strutt in London & Middlesex.

Offline Stricklands

  • RootsChat Extra
  • **
  • Posts: 23
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: How to fill in the gaps
« Reply #2 on: Wednesday 11 May 22 16:48 BST (UK) »
Hi

the second letter is https://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/1f865feb-38c8-4a02-aa59-1911a6ba9bfa

I believe this is wrongly attributed to Anna Busbridge and incorrectly dated 1630.

My reasons are:
1 - Anna did not have a niece in 1630 and when she died in 1652 her eldest niece was Elizabeth Hammond, aged 14, who is an unlikely recipient of the letter due to the reference to the funeral of 'sister Hammond's eldest daughter'.  Elizabeth is known to have lived to 1683.
2 - Anna Busbridge did not have a married daughter when she died

I think the 'sister Hammond' mentioned could be Thomas Hammond's second wife who was left with three daughters aged under 12 when Thomas died in 1658
The letter mentions a 'Nan Temple' at the funeral wearing a dress made of fashionable material.  This could be Thomas Temple's daughter Anne (born 1649) who was also Mary's niece.
The recipient is probably Anne (Busbridge) Farnden

Offline spendlove

  • RootsChat Aristocrat
  • ******
  • Posts: 2,279
  • I've not edited my PROFILE yet
    • View Profile
Re: How to fill in the gaps
« Reply #3 on: Wednesday 11 May 22 19:21 BST (UK) »
Hi,

Assume you have seen or have copies of all these letters.

Is it possible that the Anna Busbridge, mother in Law of Anna nee temple, was th writer of the C1630
Letter.  In which case they may be relations from her side of the family.

Sorry do not know Anna B  Seniors name prior to her marriage to Busbridge.

I would call the record office and ask which Anna B, the letter is attributed to and why.

Census information is Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk

Spendlove, Strutt in London & Middlesex.


Offline Stricklands

  • RootsChat Extra
  • **
  • Posts: 23
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: How to fill in the gaps
« Reply #4 on: Wednesday 11 May 22 20:39 BST (UK) »
Hi

yes I do have copies of the letters.

To give some more background

Generation 1 I have Anne Temple who married John Busbridge, Susannah Temple who married Thomas Hammond, Thomas Temple and Mary Temple and one other

Generation 2 Anne and John Busbridge had children Anne who married Peter Farnden, plus 8 others
Thomas had children Anne, not married before 1665, and six others
Susannah died in 1643 leaving one child.  Thomas Hammon then married Martha and at his death in 1658 left her with at least 5 additional children
Mary - not sure trying to resolve.

Just to add to the confusion ...
John Busbridge's mother had married Alexander Temple - uncle to the generation 1 Temples so was now Lady Temple
and John Busbridge's sister Mary had married her stepbrother James Temple, son of Alexander

So when the letter mentions 'my brother Temple' there are many options but from the context it is probably Thomas Temple