RootsChat.Com

England (Counties as in 1851-1901) => Dorset => England => Dorset Lookup Requests => Topic started by: Hobbit Frodo on Thursday 16 June 11 20:48 BST (UK)

Title: Stuck with the Smiths again!
Post by: Hobbit Frodo on Thursday 16 June 11 20:48 BST (UK)
Hi,

I am still on the hunt for various members of my long distant SMITH family and despite various searches (in person at local Dorset history centre as well as online) I have been left stumped about my great great great great grandfather and mother! What I have (from Family Search website mainly) is:

John SMITH (b. 1785 Poole Dorset) marries Diana ??? (b. 1789 Poole) in 1810

They then go on to have:

Margaret Viney SMITH baptised 12/01/1814
William SMITH b. 25/01/1811

Margaret goes on to marry James GALLOP in 1837 (Great Canford)
William marries Sarah HORE (b. 1821) in Great Canford

William and Sarah both live with her parents John HORE (who must have had some presence in the community as he was a publican briefly, owned land for a short period of time and was made Burgess of Poole in 1871....he died in 1874 recorded in Parkstone records - aged 96) and Jane HORE (nee COOKMAN)

I have no death dates for John and Diana and cannot find any marriage records other than the very basic statement on FamilySearch that has been put on by someone at some point...I have been trawling through a lot of microfische all day but to no avail.

I do not know who their parents were or what Diana's maiden name was, though I have tried looking using 'Viney' (daughter's middle name) but that didn't come to anything. The only two Diana's recorded in the area for births / baptisms (that I found) were: Diana b. march 5th 1790 to Thomas and Elizabeth HUTCHINGS and Diana b. 6th June 1790 to George and Sarah HOOPER. But I cannot find any links between these names and John Smith, also the records were hard to read so I may not have got them quite right.


Any help would be very very gratefully recieved as it's driving me a bit crazy and has now become rather a mission to figure out who they all were!

Thanks

Frodo 
Title: Re: Stuck with the Smiths again!
Post by: AMBLY on Thursday 16 June 11 21:21 BST (UK)
Hi

If you subtract 1785 from 1810, you get 25
If you subtract 1789 from 1810,you get 21

This looks suspiciously like the IGI 'formula' for 'estimated' ages that a person would be at the time of a certain event that  they (IGI) have documentation records of.

I can't get into the IGI at the mo - but I'm picking the 1810 marriage is a submission and on it it also says Diana b 1789 Poole and John b 1785 Poole?

If so, I'd bet my hat, that this submission is based soley on the extracted Christening record of son William in 1811.  IGI then neatly estimate:
   1) The parents were married before the birth and this would be   
                     the year before the baby was born  ;)
   2) Average age at marriage for father = 25 (so born abt 1785)
   3) Average age at marriage for mother = 21 (so born abt 1789)
   4) And since the baby was born in Poole, then probably the   
                    parents were married there, and possibly from there ( <of   
                    Poole> )

These 'estimates' may sometimes work out about right. But many do not - I remember one case years ago, when the couple in question were eventually proved to be in their 40's when they married and had one last gasp child. They were born way before the IGI assumed they were!

I'd agree though, that VINEY may be an important clue.

Cheers
AMBLY
Title: Re: Stuck with the Smiths again!
Post by: toni* on Thursday 16 June 11 21:39 BST (UK)
do you have John & diana on the 1841/51 census or their deaths ?
Title: Re: Stuck with the Smiths again!
Post by: toni* on Thursday 16 June 11 21:40 BST (UK)
something to look at

Name:   Diana Smith
Age:   50
Burial Date:   1 Oct 1817
Parish:   Poole
abode: Parkstone
Title: Re: Stuck with the Smiths again!
Post by: toni* on Thursday 16 June 11 21:43 BST (UK)
and

Name:   John Smith
Age:   71
Burial Date:   19 Jan 1837
Parish:   Poole
abode: Parkstone

i know there are a lot of JOhn Smiths but not t Parkstone it would seem
Title: Re: Stuck with the Smiths again!
Post by: toni* on Thursday 16 June 11 21:48 BST (UK)
margaret Viney Smith was christened January 12th 1814 at St James Poole
the daughter of John & Diana Smith abode Parkstone
he was a coalmetor ???
the first bit is def. Coal the second bit is not miner but begins with m.

Title: Re: Stuck with the Smiths again!
Post by: toni* on Thursday 16 June 11 21:54 BST (UK)
i see a JOhn Viney who lived in Wimborne Saint Giles, Dorset left made a will in 1802 he is the only Viney i can see on the will list i am using in Dorset
i don't know if it is any use or not
he left most of his things to his wife Mary Viney and some things to his son either James or Frances Viney first glance james then it looks more like Frances afetr that  ::)

added he was a gardener
Title: Re: Stuck with the Smiths again!
Post by: Hobbit Frodo on Thursday 16 June 11 21:58 BST (UK)
Wow! I run away to watch tv for an hour and come back to all these posts!!!!!  :D

Thanks so much guys, lots to think about indeed.

The John SMITH buriel for 1837 definately needs some looking into I think (I feel another late night coming on  ;) ) and this would make the dob 1766. This could really help lead somewhere as then that would also tie in with the potential guestimates for ages etc.

Thanks so so much! I have been feeling a bit busy from all the microfische reading so really appreciate the help. Also, intrigued about the 'Coal????' will let you know if I find out what on earth it was! His son, grandson and great grandson were all joiners and cabinet makers...wonder where the coal bit got left behind!

Thanks again

Frodo
Title: Re: Stuck with the Smiths again!
Post by: Hobbit Frodo on Thursday 16 June 11 21:59 BST (UK)
Sorry posted before seeing the Viney bit....also worth me having a nose at those details to see if I can find any links....shame he too wasn't a Coal???!

Frodo
Title: Re: Stuck with the Smiths again!
Post by: toni* on Thursday 16 June 11 21:59 BST (UK)
something you have to ask yourself is why they used St KJames at Poole when there was St peter at Parkstone
(maybe it something simple to do with dates of the buildingof the churches or maybe not?)
Title: Re: Stuck with the Smiths again!
Post by: toni* on Thursday 16 June 11 22:04 BST (UK)
as far as i could see the marriages for Poole and Parkstone are not on IGI
although christenings are
Title: Re: Stuck with the Smiths again!
Post by: Hobbit Frodo on Thursday 16 June 11 22:19 BST (UK)
Toni I can't thank you enough for your speedy work! It's given me lots to think about and I hadn't spotted the church bit before. I am going to write a bit of a list from all the things you've found and start again. May even go back to the microfishe (with some sea sickness tablets this time  ;) ) and see if I can find anything with the possible different dates.

Title: Re: Stuck with the Smiths again!
Post by: Hobbit Frodo on Thursday 16 June 11 22:22 BST (UK)
Just looked up Victorian occupations on a website that lists them as part of an 1891 census transcription thingy and they list 'Coalmeter A person who measured the coal' ! So you did read it right! I am now going to see if there's any info about exactly what this entailed!
Title: Re: Stuck with the Smiths again!
Post by: RRYFS on Thursday 16 June 11 22:38 BST (UK)
St Peter's church in Parkstone was built in 1833. Before that, most of Parkstone was part of Kinson Parish (now in Bournemouth) and baptisms, weddings, etc tended to be split between St Andrew's Kinson, St James, Poole and Canford Magna Church.
Title: Re: Stuck with the Smiths again!
Post by: Hobbit Frodo on Friday 17 June 11 00:43 BST (UK)
Well....I have done my usual random putting in of a mixture of names into the internet and ended up on a Canadian website listing people who emigrated to New Foundland. I thought this couldn't possibly be anything to do with my lot as they barely seem to have moved a few inches from their home turf but the names involved have got me wondering as there is a VINEY and a SMITH.

Also, having done a cursory look at any connections between New Foundland and Poole I was amazed to discover that connections were remarkably strong and even some of the pillars in one of the Parkstone churches came from NFLD. So it gives more validity to things...though I can't see John marrying a Diana and this John appears to remain in NFLD...I just can't help thinking there might be a link.

Any thoughts about the following:

(from reocities.com)
George SMITH Rev born in 1766 in Poole, Dorset. He dies about 1832 in Poole Dorset
married 1786 to: Deborah?/Marie? Viney about (1768 - 1795). Children were John SMITH, Nathaniel SMITH, Robert SMITH and Thomas W. SMITH Rev

John SMITH born 1787 in Poole Dorset. Marries Mary (no surname b.1795) in Greenspond Newfoundland Canada about 1810...there's a long list of kids.

Now parts of this seem right but their John seems quite different to the one I'm after: different named wife and no daughter called Maragaret....but George Smith did return to the UK at some point as he died here, his wife would have died when the kids were pretty young so I don't know what that would make him do....or perhaps he came back, got remarried and left the original lot out in NFLD....I dunno!

I'm too sleepy now to figure this out but I feel more digging could be good.

Thanks everyone for all your help!
Frodo
Title: Re: Stuck with the Smiths again!
Post by: toni* on Friday 17 June 11 10:17 BST (UK)
St Peter's church in Parkstone was built in 1833. Before that, most of Parkstone was part of Kinson Parish (now in Bournemouth) and baptisms, weddings, etc tended to be split between St Andrew's Kinson, St James, Poole and Canford Magna Church.
that would explain why they used ST James but lived in parkstone
Frodo i would suggest you look at these PR's for a marriage

(when my sister in law was pregnant in 2004 my son wanted her to call the baby Frodo - she didn't!)
Title: Re: Stuck with the Smiths again!
Post by: Hobbit Frodo on Friday 17 June 11 10:33 BST (UK)
Haha! Frodo is a good name! Though I have to confess...it's not my real name of course  ;)  .....my family do have Hobbit like characteristics though hence always choosing it for things like this!!!

However, establishing whether the Hobbit-like characteristics go back any further than my grandfather is proving interesting! I am pondering a return visit to the local history centre again....or giving the main archives place a call to see if they think they could help.

Frustrating! Perhaps I should put it aside and get on with the decorating I'm avoiding.....

Parish records here we come! (I've checked all online ones but haven't found anything btw and checked a good range on ones on microfische yesterday but still nothing hence the frustration!)
Title: Re: Stuck with the Smiths again!
Post by: toni* on Friday 17 June 11 10:37 BST (UK)
Perhaps they did go to Newfoundland but don’t rush into things take it one step at a time I would concentrate on finding the marriage first as this is something we know happened whereas them being in Newfoundland is just a maybe.

Something else I thought of was Diana burial gives her a suggested birth date of 1767 to be having a first child in 1810 at the age of 43 didn’t often happen in those days which makes me wonder if there are more children whose records are not available online or if they were both previously married.
Title: Re: Stuck with the Smiths again!
Post by: Hobbit Frodo on Friday 17 June 11 10:44 BST (UK)
Yes I was wondering about the ages bit...I think the New Foundland thing seems unlikely to be my gang as they really don't seem the adventurous type. It's interesting to see what close links there are between Poole and NFLD as I never realised before.

I did wonder whether perhaps the NFLD Viney woman had a sister back in Dorset who married another of the Smith family. Bit of a long shot in some ways but not a total impossibility - families did seem to marry off brothers and sisters quite a bit as far as I've noticed so far!

All interesting stuff. Thanks again for all your help and thoughts on the matter. You're right, I need to concentrate on something reasonably concrete and work on from there!
Title: Re: Stuck with the Smiths again!
Post by: toni* on Friday 17 June 11 11:36 BST (UK)
have you tried here?

http://www.dorsetfhs.org.uk/

they may have a searchable database
Title: Re: Stuck with the Smiths again!
Post by: nanny jan on Friday 17 June 11 11:43 BST (UK)
Hi,

Dorset FHS have transcribed many parish registers and these can be searched at the Treetops research centre in Fleets Lane.

They also have access to various other databases.


Nanny Jan
Title: Re: Stuck with the Smiths again!
Post by: toni* on Friday 17 June 11 11:50 BST (UK)
some christenings to consider



 Diana Churchill 5 Apr 1767 Turnworth, d/o James & Elizabeth

 Diana Baker 9 Oct 1768 Toller Fratrum, d/o William & Elizabeth

 Diana Barnes 31 Dec 1766 Symondsbury, d/o Thomas & Alice

 Diana Fiford 27 Mar 1768 Horton, d/o Richard & Ann

 Diana Hiscock 27 Mar 1768 Shaftesbury, d/o John

 Diana Stickland 28 May 1768 Tolpuddle,

Diana Rawles 21 Apr 1765 Turners Puddle, d/o Thomas

 Diana Rebeck 22 Apr 1765 Cranborne, d/o John

 Diana Child 9 Dec 1770 Godmanstone, d/o Robert & Diana

 Diana Jeans 21 Jan 1764 Stalbridge,  d/o Joseph & Mary

 Diana Mortimy 4 Jul 1764 Cranborne, d/o George

 Diana Whiffen 20 May 1764 Shapwick, d/o James and Hellen[sic] 


added

i have looked for marriages for these and found some possibles but can't positively identify them
Title: Re: Stuck with the Smiths again!
Post by: toni* on Friday 17 June 11 12:11 BST (UK)
I don’t think too much emphasise should be put on the Viney name yes it may well be her mmn. Equally however it could the name of a friend, colleague, god parent, someone with high standing within the community, a benefactor or could have been passed down from generations previous
One thing though is if she was married previously to a Viney I don’t think she would have used Viney in the name because this is effectively naming the child after the deceased husband.
Title: Re: Stuck with the Smiths again!
Post by: toni* on Friday 17 June 11 12:37 BST (UK)
We are a bit too early for tithe maps but have you considered this:


 land tax records 1780- 1832 The land tax was a national tax levied on landowners from the 1690s. Only one complete set of returns for 1798 survives for England and Wales (in the National Archives), but many returns are available in local record offices. The returns (or 'duplicates' as they are often known) were made for each township and record the names of owners and occupiers and the sum to which they were assessed.
(book, 1873 Return of Owners of Land)
Land Tax Records should be held at the County Record Office however they are not all there and are not always are complete. TNA can help to locate documents relating tot a particular manor so it would help if the Manor is known, - Manorial Document Register (MDR) a card index in the man search room at TNA is listed by name of manor and includes information about what documents have survived and where they can be found (not at TNA) some of the index cards have been put online, (Yorkshire, Wales, Middlesex, Surrey, Norfolk, Cumberland, Westmorland, Isle of Wight Hampshire and Furness (now Cumbria)) www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/mdr/ also try www.a2a.org.uk

 
 
Title: Re: Stuck with the Smiths again!
Post by: RRYFS on Friday 17 June 11 17:03 BST (UK)
Looking at the Dorset FHS records, I can see both the burials which Toni found. I cannot find the marriage in the same set of records from the DFHS transcriptions. There are two possible Poole baptisms for John Smiths:

7th August 1765, son of John and Jane

23rd April 1769, son of Robert and Jane

Searching the same source for Dianas doesn't find any for Poole, though there is a Diana Ford in Kinson in 1773.

How sure are you of the marriage info? I would have expected to find it in the records if it was at St James.
Title: Re: Stuck with the Smiths again!
Post by: toni* on Friday 17 June 11 18:27 BST (UK)
i am not very good with the geography of Dorset or the land
was there coal mines in Dorset or where would John have been working as a coalmeter?

i wonder also if they or at least Diana came from elsewhere i think having a look for other smith births with parents as john & Diana might be something worth doing
Title: Re: Stuck with the Smiths again!
Post by: RRYFS on Friday 17 June 11 18:41 BST (UK)
No coal in Dorset - too early for railways? Presumably something to do with domestic coal?
Title: Re: Stuck with the Smiths again!
Post by: Hobbit Frodo on Friday 17 June 11 19:22 BST (UK)
Yet again I come back to my computer to discover a wealth of useful info!

I have spent the day in the county records office and am a little confused but think I may (only may!) have found some links between things.

I have also gone back over all the info I have to find out where the John and Diana bit cropped up in the first place and whether it was trustworthy! Basically I am sure from census info of the correct lineage up to William SMITH who married Sarah HORE in 1836. (John and Diana are supposedly his parents.) I have also now got confirmation from parish records and also going back over info just now from similar sources of the following:

William SMITH married Sarah HORE on 18th April 1836
                       witnesses Margaret V. Smith and John Hore (this should be William's
                       sister and Sarah's father) William is listed as Carpenter / Joiner

James GALLOP married Margaret Viney SMITH on 7th Feb 1837 (he is listed as a
                        cordwainer...need to find out what that is!)


A curious thing with the Margaret Viney SMITH thing is that I also found the following....

Margaret Viney SMITH, daughter of John (Coal Metor) and Diana SMITH
                                    Baptised Poole, St James 12/01/1814
Margaret Viney SMITH daughter of John and Diana SMITH
                                    Baptised Poole, St James 25/03/1798
Margaret Viney SMITH, buried 07/01/1814 aged 16

Hmmmm.....so, did they have a daughter in 1798 (when Diana would have been 31 if other records are correct, I'll come to them in a mo), then was pregnant when her 16 year old daughter died....and gave their new little girl the same name? The ages work out for the death and for the new one marrying in 1837.

Interestingly on the MV Smith side of things I also found this record....

Fanny SMITH, daughter of Margaret Viney SMITH (no father recorded) "Spinster" born 25/04/33, baptised 09/01/1834 - this was in the Parkstone parish records. So looks like little Fanny was illegitimate. However....would Mr Gallop have then married Miss Smith with a sprog already around? Wanted to see if I could find the 'Gallops' living with a child called Fanny in any of the census' but ran out of time.

So, the Smiths....from St James's records I have:

John SMITH son of John and Diana baptised: 16/01/1791
Thomas SMITH son of J&D baptised: 13/10/1793
Margaret Viney SMITH dtr baptised: 25/03/1798
Sarah SMITH dtr born: 16/09/1801 and baptised: 30/10/1801
William SMITH son: born: 25/01/1811  baptised: 03/05/1811

Burial Records for St James:
Diana SMITH: Parkstone 01/10/1817 aged 50 (= dob: 1767) this means she would have been 47 when she had the second Margaret which would have been pretty remarkable I would have thought in those days but not impossible...no wonder she died 3 years later she was probably exhausted!

John SMITH: Parkstone 19/01/1937 aged 71 (=dob: 1766)...again this fits with Diana's dob though I know that's not conclusive evidence.

Poole Christenings:

Martha and Mary SMITH twins born to John and Jane SMITH 19/07/1761
Elizabeth SMITH dtr 19/10/1763
John SMITH son 07/08/65 .........(fits with dates / ages)
Margaret Viney SMITH dtr 15/02/1769 (it's that name again!)
Nathaniel SMITH son 05/07/71

So that lots seems right....

I found one marriage for a John SMITH and Jane at St James for:
John SMITH marries Jane FRICKER April 9th 1760 which would be one year before the first kid arrives so again seems the most likely.

Jane FRICKER was daughter of John and Martha (same first name as one of the twins) born 01/05/1741
they also had William, Elizabeth and Robinson.

And that's as far as I got before they kicked me out!

Thanks as ever to everyone for all your help. Going to visit the Treetops place, hadn't heard about that before!

I now need a strong drink and so will any of you who have ploughed through this!
Title: Re: Stuck with the Smiths again!
Post by: RRYFS on Friday 17 June 11 20:07 BST (UK)
First, the easy bit. I'm sure they will have been importing coal into Poole for domestic use, so they would need someone to count it to make sure the Geordies (or whoever) weren't ripping them off!

Next a suggestion. If your 16 year old daughter died in childbirth in 1814, would you not be tempted to have the baby baptised as your daughter and name her after her mother?

And to answer your other question, my wife's many times great Aunt had an illegitimate daughter in Parkstone in 1836, when she was 16, and was married before the 1851 census. It looks like she suffered a problem, as she never had any more children, but she lived with her husband, daughter, and later, daughter's husband and children on Brownsea Island until she was widowed in 1871. Her husband is buried there! So having a child was no barrier to later marriage.

If you have been through the registers at Dorchester ( there is also a copy in the Family History Centre at Poole Museum), the DHFS records at Treetops are transcribed from those. I know where to find them on line, so I will look further now your dates seem to be firming up.
Title: Re: Stuck with the Smiths again!
Post by: Hobbit Frodo on Friday 17 June 11 20:45 BST (UK)
Wow thanks RRYFS!

I hadn't thought about the illegitimate bit but it does make sense....does make it curious that it looks like she might have gone on to have her own illegitimate child later on..hmmm...just  a random observation.

I thought the same about coal. I was looking through some of the old newspapers trying to find a death notice for John Hore (William Smith's father in law who he lived with) as he carried on until he was 94 and was made a burgess of Poole and had all sorts of jobs along the way...whilst unsuccessfully finding anything out about the man I was amused to see small ads asking for tenders for supply of six months worth of coals for Bournemouth Hospital.

I went through various records at Poole and yes, I was at Dorchester today in case I could find anything further. Sounds like perhaps I'm not going to get an awful lot further by going to Treetops.

I'd like to head back down to the museum to have another trawl through newspapers and things to give some more social context.

Thanks again

Frodo (on the wine now!)
Title: Re: Stuck with the Smiths again!
Post by: RRYFS on Friday 17 June 11 21:02 BST (UK)
I think the Dorset FHS website will give you an idea of what records they hold at Treetops (which incidentally is effectively in a basement!), so its worth looking to see what else they have which might be useful.

Looking further back, I still can't find a Diana marriage in Dorset, but looking for John's father, John - there is a burial at St James on 8th April 1804 of John Smith, aged 59 (prob too young), and a baptism on 19th April 1734 of John Smith, son of John and Eliza - could be a possible.

There is a marriage of John Smith and Elizabeth Dewy, both otp, in Bere Regis on 28th March 1725.
Title: Re: Stuck with the Smiths again!
Post by: amazon510 on Saturday 18 June 11 03:24 BST (UK)
Re the coal-related occupation, Poole was of course a major seaport - maybe he worked measuring or reporting coal imports and exports coming in through the harbour?  He might have worked for a coal merchant, or maybe the customs office?

Regarding the daughter with the illegitimate child who eventually married - maybe the man Gallop who she eventually married was the father of the child who decided to finally make an honest woman of her?  Any indication that Fanny eventually became Fanny Gallop?

I'm not so sure about the theory that the older Margaret Viney died in childbirth - there is a large gap between the birth and the baptism.  I would think if the mother died it was probably a hard delivery, and besides the child's chance of survival without mother's milk would have been reduced.  In those circumstances I would have expected to see the child baptized very quickly after the birth.  The long gap (9 months) suggests a healthy baby and mum, but possibly hesitation to bring the baby to church due to the circumstances.

Re the possible Newfoundland link, in this time period Newfoundland was more a place where people went to work than to settle.  People would go over in the spring, stay for a fishing season or two, and then return in the fall.  A man might very well be born, married or buried in England but spend part of his working life in Newfoundland. 

Jennifer.
Title: Re: Stuck with the Smiths again!
Post by: amazon510 on Saturday 18 June 11 03:43 BST (UK)
More re Newfoundland, Seary's "Family Names of the Island of Newfoundland" has an early reference to "Nath. Smith of Greenspond, 1804".  The source is the d'Alberti papers, volume 14 - transcripts of correspondance 1780-1825, between the governors of Newfoundland and the colonial office.  The papers have scanned and put on-line by Memorial University of Newfoundland.  Smith may be common, but Nathanial is less so - might be worth following up.  Nathanial b. 1771 would have been an adult by 1804, could be the same guy.

http://collections.mun.ca/cdm4/description.php?phpReturn=browse.php&cisoroot=cns_colonia

Also, another thought about Margaret Viney - agreed that it would be unlikely for her middle name to be after her mother's first husband.  Unless she was posthumous?  Was there a Viney male buried less than nine months before Margaret's birth?  Maybe Diana was pregnant and widowed when she married John Smith, then gave her baby both her first and second husbands' names.

Jennifer.
Title: Re: Stuck with the Smiths again!
Post by: toni* on Saturday 18 June 11 19:26 BST (UK)
if Fanny was illegitimate possibly there may be bastardy bonds for her it is in the right timeframe but it would depend on if Margaret had parents to support her or other source of income.


A cordwainer  is a shoemaker/cobbler who makes fine soft leather shoes and other luxury footwear articles.
Title: Re: Stuck with the Smiths again!
Post by: toni* on Saturday 18 June 11 20:29 BST (UK)
some observations:

it wouldn't be impossible for Diana to have a child when she was 47 but that is a good point of MV2 possibly being the child of MV1 i don't know how this could be proved.

a Fanny Smith was buried on Aug 20 1853 at Longfleet she was of Poole Union
this could be your Fanny or another it is difficult to tell (at this stage)  with the name of Smith

from the bp's you found it looks as if John & Diana married pre 1791

there is a big gap (10 years) between Sarah in 1801 & William in 1810
what can explain this ?

the John Smith you found with sister Margaret Viney would indeed suggest you have the right family and would also confirm the Viney name didn't come from Diana

Robinson Fricker is an interesting name
this may be a small twig to add later on
i have found a Henry Robinson Fricker bp. 2 July 1828 in Southampton the son of Henry and Margaret Fricker
RG10;  332;  73;  56;
in 1871 he is here
 
Title: Re: Stuck with the Smiths again!
Post by: toni* on Saturday 18 June 11 20:37 BST (UK)
do you have Margaret and James Gallop in 1841 ?
Jersey St Helier Channel Islands
James Gallop   25 .... Booker
Margaret Gallop   25 house keeper
Fanny Gallop   7
Helen Gallop   4
Mary Gallop   2
All born England
 HO107; 1461;  14;  20; 34

there are also some Smiths on the same page born England
Title: Re: Stuck with the Smiths again!
Post by: toni* on Saturday 18 June 11 23:03 BST (UK)
i am racking my brains trying to think of where John & Diana could have married
it was usual (i use the term lightly) for a bride to be married in her home parish and then to set up home in the grooms parish but to return to the Bride's parish for the christening of the first child.
if they stuck to this it would suggest that Diana was not from Poole or Parkstone
which doesnt really help us at all!
Title: Re: Stuck with the Smiths again!
Post by: toni* on Sunday 19 June 11 17:25 BST (UK)
there are 5 days between MV1 death and the baptism  of MV2
MV1 could have died in child birth to MV2 however i wonder who carried out he christening of MV2 was the family known o the vicar / curate etc. surely he wouldn't knowingly put incorrect information in the PR's 
it was a general rule of thumb to have the child christened on the 3rd Sunday after the child's birth but rules were meant to be broken!

Title: Re: Stuck with the Smiths again!
Post by: RRYFS on Sunday 19 June 11 21:32 BST (UK)
Although, here in Parkstone, we're not very far from St James, I can imagine that it was very much "out in the sticks" in 1814. Until St Peter's was built, this area was probably in the Canford Magna Parish, along with Longfleet, while a bit further up the hill would have been in Kinson. On that basis, they were probably not known to whoever officiated at the burial and baptism. It would take another trip to the records to see if they recorded who created the entries - the transcriptions don't include that detail.
Title: Re: Stuck with the Smiths again!
Post by: Hobbit Frodo on Friday 24 June 11 09:46 BST (UK)
Hi All,

Sorry for the slow response....my email didn't notify me that there had been further responses  :( but also I have been trying to get some more facts to go on!

First off though I really must say thank you again for everyone's thoughts on the matter of the Smiths and the Margaret Viney issue, it really has been a great help in different ways to think about things. Also, great find Toni with the Gallop's on Jersey, it surely must be them as all the ages fit etc.

I have pretty much discounted our lot from the Newfoundland connections though there may be something way back when that links the families. I have however, I think, possibly found where the Viney comes from.....just a little worried I may be clutching at straws but Margaret Viney is a pretty specific name to keep cropping up so here goes with what I've found (apologies for repeating a bit but just trying to put it in context!):

So John Smith married Diana ? somewhere somewhen (still no further on this one)
I listed before that I had found the following:

John SMITH and Jane FRICKER married St James 1760 and had:
Mary and Martha 1761
Elizabeth 1763
John 1765
Margaret Viney 1769
Nathaniel 1771

With the dates and the Margaret Viney cropping up yet again this seemed like it was the right family. I have since found......

Nathaniel SMITH of Sturminster Marshall and Margaret VINEY married in the parish of Thorncombe on 20th September 1732

They had:

Thomas 1732/3 (old calendar)
Samuel 1734
John 1736 .............................(so if this is the right one that would make him 24
                                                when he got married to Jane FRICKER)
Mary 1737
William 1738
Henry 1740
Betty 1742
Margaret 1745
Christopher born 1748 died 1748
Deborah 1748(?)

The list of children (and also Nathaniel's death in 1748) were all from The Registers of Sturminster Marshall available through the national archives. So he would have gone to Thorncombe to marry Margaret VINEY then returned to his parish. He died in 1748 and I have now obtained his will from the public records office and he talks about his house in Thorncombe and another one elsewhere and his friends who are to be executors are in Blandford, Maperton and somewhere else, also he talks of a merchant, someone JOLIFFE in Poole who is to be part of the group looking after his assets when he dies, which he did whilst his youngest two were infants and some of his other children were also youngsters (there is a section at the end of the will about how it was carried out after he had died and they are all mentioned). He mentions all his kids and his 'loving wife' within the will...it's very long! He obviously had a bit of money though and did move around unlike his descendents who all seemed to stay stuck in Parkstone.

I have Margaret's parents from the Thorncombe records. Whilst the surnames do vary initially (and this is acknowledged on the annotation with question marks) I am sure they are all Viney's and I also now have Margaret's parents' wills and this confirms the names. So here goes:

William VINDE / VINNE / VINE / VINEY married Margaret ? and had:
Margaret Viney (no record of her birth viewable online)
Anstis VINDE b.1714
Ruth VINDE b. 1714 ............(there's a bit of a twins thing running through the
                                            family.....)
Sarah VINNE b.1717
Betty VINE b.1720
Mary VINE b. 1718
also mentioned in the Will of their mother, as far as I can tell, the names are Susannah and Maria or Hannah. Not all Thorncombe records are complete online but the ones mentioned above (apart from Margaret) are all daughters of William Viney in Thorncombe and later on the marriages of Margaret, Ruth and Anstis are all recorded with VINEY as the surname.

Margaret VINEY senior (in fact she's the 6th one going backwards!) her Will makes interesting reading and again she must have had a bit of cash which makes me wonder whether this has something to do with the name being carried on. She talks about giving her gold mourning ring (William her husband died in 1725/6 whereas she lasted until 1732/3) and her gold wedding ring to her daughters and also her silver spoons and plate...she also gives money and splits up the dwelling house for the twins with mention of dividing up the garden and the access to the water pump! In addition to this she talks about the dye house attached to the dwelling house and leaving cloths. Thorncombe (I have learnt) was a thriving weaving / woollen centre at this time so looks like she was al part of that.

So that's where I've got to, if people think I'm seriously clutching at straws then please tell me! Hope this all makes sense,
Frodo
Title: Re: Stuck with the Smiths again!
Post by: Hobbit Frodo on Friday 24 June 11 09:47 BST (UK)
Oh and I also got the Will for John SMITH who died relatively recently in 1837....makes for interesting and very difficult reading as the writing is tiny....but I think I have seen mention of someone working for him called James GALLOP....this would have been a year before Fanny SMITH was born to his Margaret Viney SMITH and then she happened to marry a James GALLOP 4 years later.....so he was hanging around!

Frodo

Title: Re: Stuck with the Smiths again!
Post by: toni* on Friday 24 June 11 10:39 BST (UK)
thats brilliant Frodo it all makes sense
 :)

just to find that blasted mariage between John Smith & Diana!

 ;D
Title: Re: Stuck with the Smiths again!
Post by: Hobbit Frodo on Friday 24 June 11 11:13 BST (UK)
Thanks Toni! I have to say I'm really pleased to have been lucky enough to find out so much....my Dad is fascinated and only wishes his father was around to hear it all. My poor Mum's side of the family is being sadly neglected at the moment and they're not so easy as they're mainly Manchester and Kent! I'm lucky that I'm local enough to get to places round Dorset.

Want to do a graveyard hunt now....shame I have to go back to work next week, I've had two week's leave hence so much investigating! Won't be stopping now though.

And yes, that marriage between John and Diana is HIGHLY frustrating....I am going to head back to Dorchester though and check marriage records for other areas now I've discovered that there were ancestors back in other areas of Dorset, though they were a while before John was getting married I still think it would be worth a look.

And I'll let you know what I decipher about James Gallop's appearance in the Will....think it could explain a lot! Wel....add to the speculation about Fanny's parentage anyway!

The other thing I found out was in one of the old newspapers (Bournemouth Library give onine access to 19th century newspaper archives)....John and Diana's son William (my great great great grandfather) married Sarah HORE and was living with Sarah and her father and mother for a good length of time. Sarah's dad, John HORE appears to have been quite a character. In the local museum I found mention to him buying land, being on the voting list in 1810 and being made a Burgess of Poole in 1871, 3 years before he died at the age of 94! In the 1841 census he is down as a publican and in the 1834 news I found a whole thing about 'The Riots of Parkstone' where there was a mob formed outside his pub and they pulled down a sign (don't know what it was)....the witnesses are other names I recognise from other areas of the family tree (COOKMAN was his wife's maiden name and her nephew is a witness...there's also a FRICKER) It's all rather amusing!

Anyhow, I will keep on the hunt for Diana...and also try to figure out the other names in Nathaniel's Will from 1748 as I think it could be interesting to see if there are any notes, especially regarding the merchant in Poole as this could help explain the family's move over to this area.

Think I have enough to keep me busy...then there's mum's lot!

Thanks again
Frodo
Title: Re: Stuck with the Smiths again!
Post by: RRYFS on Friday 24 June 11 12:09 BST (UK)
The Jolliffes were one of the wealthy merchant families of Poole, who made their fortunes in the Newfoundland trade. They used to ship out men and supplies to Newfoundland - the men would live there fishing, then the ships transported the salted cod to Portugal, and brought port back to Poole. There are a number of books published by the Poole historical trust about this trade, the families involved, and their houses. Jolliffe House still exists in Poole and is now used as offices.
Title: Re: Stuck with the Smiths again!
Post by: Hobbit Frodo on Friday 24 June 11 12:29 BST (UK)
Wow that's fab, thanks RRYFS!

Nathaniel says in his will (as far as I can figure out);
(He's talking about what he's leaving his friends George Trenchard (?) the younger of Litchet (?) Squire Anthony Latouz (really hard to read!) of Blanford Forum and Gentleman John ?..borne of Maperton)

".....(all previous names) Azariah (?) Vinney Esquire in my said Will mentioned and Christopher Joliff of the town and county of Poole Merchant and to the survivors and survivor of them and the /....../ executors and administrators of /......../ survivors or survivor in trust to and for the said intents and purposes in my said will mentioned and I do nominate and appoint the said George Trenchard the younger, Azariah Vinney and Christopher Joliff together with my wife Margaret Smith joint executors in trust of my said will and I do give to my said good friends George Trenchard, Azariah Vinney and Christopher Joliff and Anthony Latouz a Gold Ring each but the said John .....borne shall have no ring and I do declare this codicil to be part of my said last will and testament...."

I hope I can figure out what the names are but I'm sure Christoher Joliff is right so I hope I can find out where he is in the Joliff line up. Might also explain how some Smiths and Vineys are listed over in Newfoundland if there were these links.

I love finding out all the context around what was going on then!

Thanks again

Frodo
Title: Re: Stuck with the Smiths again!
Post by: RRYFS on Friday 24 June 11 12:38 BST (UK)
I have sent you a PM as Rootschat won't let me cut and paste a web address!
Title: Re: Stuck with the Smiths again!
Post by: Hobbit Frodo on Friday 24 June 11 12:46 BST (UK)
Thanks, just seen it! This site has a few issues with cutting and pasting I think, worried about copyright no doubt!

Thanks
Title: Re: Stuck with the Smiths again!
Post by: amazon510 on Saturday 25 June 11 02:27 BST (UK)
Okay, Seary reference for Jolliffe in Newfoundland, in case it helps:

Early instances:  Elijah Jollieff, proprietor and occupier of fishing room at Old Perlican, Winter 1800-01 (Trinity Bay census); Peter Jolliff, Jr., merchant of Placentia Bay, 1804 (d'Alberti papers vol 14); James, planter of Fogo, 1816 (MUN history); James Joliffe, planter of Joe Batt's Arm, 1821 (soc. propogation of the gospel records). 

There are a few later references but those are probably the ones of interest.  The communities are all over the map.  The only ones somewhat near Nathanial Smith of Greenspond are the two James' - Fogo and Joe Batt's Arm are both on Fogo Island, which is not too far from Greenspond.

Your Smith might have worked as part of the migratory fishery, fishing in Newfoundland for a few seasons, but never settling permanently.
J.
Title: Re: Stuck with the Smiths again!
Post by: Hobbit Frodo on Tuesday 05 July 11 23:49 BST (UK)
This is going back to an earlier Smith problem....an update for those of you who have been very kindly helping me along the way. I have been along to a few family history group meetings and following the last one I went to where I decalred I never thought I would find the mysterious Diana who John Smith married at some point in the later 1700s...one of the group has done some digging for me and has found:

John Smith married Diana Payton or Paeton 9th november 1788 in St James Poole!

I have no idea why I haven't managed to find it before as I thought I'd looked through those records when I went down to the records office but hec, it all fits in date wise so I'm willing to go with it!

Popping back to the records office soon, now on the hunt for more about Nathaniel Smith whose Will I have from 1748...he sounds an interesting character and I want to know more....watch this space!
Frodo
Title: Re: Stuck with the Smiths again!
Post by: toni* on Wednesday 06 July 11 09:47 BST (UK)
excellent  :)
Title: Re: Stuck with the Smiths again!
Post by: Roder51 on Sunday 21 April 13 06:59 BST (UK)
Hello everyone!
   I am Roderick Brentnall of Newfoundland Canada. gggg grandfather was Nathaniel Smith of Greenspond Newfoundland. He had 2 brothers that I know of by the names of Robert and Thomas Smith. He (Nathaniel) married a lady by the name of Sarah Hill @ 1806 at Greenspond. Their children were my ggg grandmother Mary who married John T. Oakley of Greenspond, Ryma married Robert Angel Bellows, Nathaniel 1814-1846, Sarah married Thomas Green of Hampshire,England, Amy married James Pitt, Elizabeth married William Bellows, and George married Elizabeth Unknown.

Funny that you speak of the Viney name as Robert, Nathaniel's brother, had a daughter Deborah Viney Smith who married a Richard Elliot Stroud.brentnalster@gmail.com

Funny that my ggg Grandfather (John T. Oakley) was at St. James Poole in 1861 with his son Aubrey Oakley.

https://familysearch.org/pal:/MM9.1.1/M7LH-913
https://familysearch.org/pal:/MM9.1.1/M7LH-91S
Title: Re: Stuck with the Smiths again!
Post by: Roder51 on Monday 23 September 13 01:59 BST (UK)
More re Newfoundland, Seary's "Family Names of the Island of Newfoundland" has an early reference to "Nath. Smith of Greenspond, 1804".  The source is the d'Alberti papers, volume 14 - transcripts of correspondance 1780-1825, between the governors of Newfoundland and the colonial office.  The papers have scanned and put on-line by Memorial University of Newfoundland.  Smith may be common, but Nathanial is less so - might be worth following up.  Nathanial b. 1771 would have been an adult by 1804, could be the same guy.

http://collections.mun.ca/cdm4/description.php?phpReturn=browse.php&cisoroot=cns_colonia

Also, another thought about Margaret Viney - agreed that it would be unlikely for her middle name to be after her mother's first husband.  Unless she was posthumous?  Was there a Viney male buried less than nine months before Margaret's birth?  Maybe Diana was pregnant and widowed when she married John Smith, then gave her baby both her first and second husbands' names.

Jennifer.

Have searched this Volume 14 totally and cannot find anything in regards to a Nathaniel Smith
Title: Re: Stuck with the Smiths again!
Post by: Hobbit Frodo on Sunday 29 September 13 23:04 BST (UK)
Hi Roder51,

This is really interesting stuff! I had moved away from looking at any possible ancestors having moved over to Newfoundland as I was having enough of a headache just trying to work out the local ones and then I had quite a break form family history. I have recently been back on the case though and this is going to be another interesting lead to follow up. I'll keep you posted!!!

Many thanks again

Frodo
Title: Re: Stuck with the Smiths again!
Post by: Roder51 on Sunday 29 September 13 23:41 BST (UK)
Hello again,
   It was easy to connect on this side of the water but it seems not so easy to have done so on that one. My connection is as follows. George Wm. Brentnall (Dad) B. Gambo>Maria Jane Brentnall B. Gambo> Mary Elizabeth Jenkins B. Harbour Grace, Newfoundland (Robert Brentnall B. New Brunswick,Canada)>Arianna Oakley B. Greenspond(Thomas Jenkins B. Harbour Grace) John T. Oakley (Mary Smith B. Geenspond)>Nathaniel Smith, B. England (Sarah Hill B. England)
See John T. Oakley on the 1st page of this volume. 

http://collections.mun.ca/cdm4/document.php?CISOROOT=/cns_enl&CISOPTR=54&REC=16 (http://collections.mun.ca/cdm4/document.php?CISOROOT=/cns_enl&CISOPTR=54&REC=16)

See ya! BTW I use Roots Chat from time to time so if you'd like to chat let me know what day you are on. I am in Toronto so I'm not 100% sure of the time change where you are.

Title: Re: Stuck with the Smiths again!
Post by: Roder51 on Wednesday 16 October 13 10:08 BST (UK)
More re Newfoundland, Seary's "Family Names of the Island of Newfoundland" has an early reference to "Nath. Smith of Greenspond, 1804".  The source is the d'Alberti papers, volume 14 - transcripts of correspondance 1780-1825, between the governors of Newfoundland and the colonial office.  The papers have scanned and put on-line by Memorial University of Newfoundland.  Smith may be common, but Nathanial is less so - might be worth following up.  Nathanial b. 1771 would have been an adult by 1804, could be the same guy.

http://collections.mun.ca/cdm4/description.php?phpReturn=browse.php&cisoroot=cns_colonia

Also, another thought about Margaret Viney - agreed that it would be unlikely for her middle name to be after her mother's first husband.  Unless she was posthumous?  Was there a Viney male buried less than nine months before Margaret's birth?  Maybe Diana was pregnant and widowed when she married John Smith, then gave her baby both her first and second husbands' names.

Jennifer.
Could you tell me where or what page at the link above is Nathaniel Smith mentioned. The file has 381 pages.