RootsChat.Com

England (Counties as in 1851-1901) => England => Sussex => Topic started by: Mumfy on Sunday 21 August 16 06:30 BST (UK)

Title: Muddle over Muddle Ancestry in early 1700's
Post by: Mumfy on Sunday 21 August 16 06:30 BST (UK)
I am interested in the Sarah Muddle who marries William Hider in 1729 in St Michael's Church in Withyam.

I have been unable to find any record of her birth and there seems to be much confusion between this Sarah Muddle and another Sarah who is baptised in 1718. (The latter would appear to be the daughter of the clockmaker Thomas Muddle and his wife Mary.)

But records for the Sarah who marries in 1729 are proving hard to find.

Does anyone know what records are available for Withyam?

Cheers
Mumfy



Title: Re: Muddle over Muddle Ancestry in early 1700's
Post by: BumbleB on Sunday 21 August 16 08:01 BST (UK)
According to Sussex Records Office, they hold the BT's for St Michael & All Angels, Withyam from 1606.  Please these have been transcribed.  They don't appear to hold the original registers.

https://www.westsussex.gov.uk/media/2510/list_of_parishes.pdf

Title: Re: Muddle over Muddle Ancestry in early 1700's
Post by: jonwarrn on Sunday 21 August 16 09:31 BST (UK)
Parish registers and bishops transcripts for Withyham are available to view on the Family Search website, if you register with them.
Marriage was 13th April 1729
William Hider & Sarah Muddle both of Rotherfield.
Marriage was by Licence. Perhaps someone can give you more info on that.
John
Title: Re: Muddle over Muddle Ancestry in early 1700's
Post by: Mumfy on Sunday 21 August 16 09:53 BST (UK)
Thank you BumbleB and John for your incredibly prompt replies and useful information.

Are the Withyam records only available by visiting the local records office?

Cheers
Mumfy
Title: Re: Muddle over Muddle Ancestry in early 1700's
Post by: BumbleB on Sunday 21 August 16 10:02 BST (UK)
I can't see Sussex records on either FindMyPast or Ancestry, but it might be an idea to contact the Record Office and ask them.

Whilst the transcribed entry for the Withyam marriage appears on Family Search (with or without registration), it is always good to see the original entry for possible extra information.

Title: Re: Muddle over Muddle Ancestry in early 1700's
Post by: jonwarrn on Sunday 21 August 16 10:04 BST (UK)
are available to view on the Family Search website, if you register with them.

These are the images of the parish registers and BT's on digitized microfilms

If you want to see them, you can create a free account
https://familysearch.org/register/1

PR of 1729 marriage is available here, if you are signed in
https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:S3HY-XCQQ-MNH?i=55&cat=244587

BT
https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:S3HY-DTS3-FN8?i=247&cat=586259

John
Title: Re: Muddle over Muddle Ancestry in early 1700's
Post by: BumbleB on Sunday 21 August 16 11:54 BST (UK)
My apologies, John, I stand corrected.  I did try signing in, and came up with the transcript only.  :-[

For Mumfy:

The register says that both parties are of the parish of Rotherfield.
Title: Re: Muddle over Muddle Ancestry in early 1700's
Post by: artifis on Sunday 21 August 16 13:05 BST (UK)
Sussex Family History Group have Withyam baptisms from 1651 to 1900 and burials from 1663 to 1900 on their web site.  Marriage on their Sussex Marriage Index - I assume other Muddles from Withyam too.
Title: Re: Muddle over Muddle Ancestry in early 1700's
Post by: artifis on Sunday 21 August 16 16:53 BST (UK)
The Marriage Index indicates that Sarah was from Rotherfield and William from Withyham, marriage by licence as noted above by jonw65.  Probably one of the couple a minor.

Looking at Rotherfield, the only baptisms recorded for Muddles in the time period all children of Thomas & Mary are:

01 Sep 1707  Thomas
16 May 1709  Edward
09 Apr 1711  Mary
24 Feb 1712/3  Anne
03 Oct 1714  Elizabeth
21 Jun 1716  Nicholas
10 Aug 1718  Sarah

No Hilders in that period.

Checked Withyham and no Muddles or Hilders in that period.

Puzzling.
Title: Re: Muddle over Muddle Ancestry in early 1700's
Post by: artifis on Sunday 21 August 16 17:28 BST (UK)
The Marriage Index has Thomas Mudle (transcribed spelling) marrying Mary Dodswell on 26 June 1705 at Withyham both of that parish.

Thomas and Mary obviously moved to Rotherfield post their marriage.

Looking at the marriage date and their children baptised at Rotherfield there is room for a child older than Thomas born in wedlock.  Wonder if they went to another parish from Withyham before settling at Rotherfield but if it is them why two Sarahs unless one of the other girls had Sarah as a second forename and preferred that.

Rotherfield burials:

Mary bap 1711 bur 11 May 1713 d/o Thomas
Thomas 27 Mar 1756 clocksmith
Mary 27 Dec 1756 widow
Thomas 16 Feb 1785 clocksmith - presumably s/o Thomas & Mary bap 1707
Edward 10 Apr 1788 - presumably s/o Thomas & Mary bap 1709
Title: Re: Muddle over Muddle Ancestry in early 1700's
Post by: artifis on Sunday 21 August 16 17:41 BST (UK)
There is a Sara Muddle bap 18 Sep 1714 at Maidstone in Kent d/o John & Mary.

If it is her it would explain the licence as she'd have only been 15y/o.

Mudle/Muddle seems a pretty uncommon surname so were John and Thomas related - no record at Withyham.
Title: Re: Muddle over Muddle Ancestry in early 1700's
Post by: Little Nell on Sunday 21 August 16 20:42 BST (UK)
Have you checked out this site?

http://www.muddlefamilies.info/buxted/030js.htm#MUDDLEsarah1718

It might provide some clues or other possibilities to check out.

Nell
Title: Re: Muddle over Muddle Ancestry in early 1700's
Post by: artifis on Monday 22 August 16 09:43 BST (UK)
What a fantastic site, wish there was something similar for some of my ancestors.

A lot for Mumfy to research.  Seems the family was wealthy so would explain how Thomas was trained as a clocksmith which must have involved an apprenticeship and significant cost to set up a shop on Rotherfield, metals used in clocks not cheap especially as good quality ones would be needed plus cost of the cases.  I would imagine that a clocksmith at that time was a highly respected 'trade' selling to the gentry of the area and also 'servicing' their clocks so well connected.
Title: Re: Muddle over Muddle Ancestry in early 1700's
Post by: Mumfy on Monday 22 August 16 12:57 BST (UK)
 :) Several thank you's!  :)

John - after initial problems I gained access to the microfilmed copy of the Withyam registers; wonderful to see the original document online. I probably need to do the same detailed search on the Rotherfield registers.

Artifis - thank you for taking the time to do the searches and for your valuable suggestion that one of the couple might have been a minor. I'll keep in mind the Sarah from Kent.

Little Nell - thanks for the Muddle family website which is truly wonderful.

Sarah Muddle, daughter of Thomas the clockmaker, who inherits ten pounds from his will, is I'm sure the 'second' Sarah who is baptised in 1718 and still single at the time of his death. She can't have married in 1729 and I can't see that there would have been a late baptism when all her siblings appear to have been baptised not long after birth.

The website http://theweald.org doesn't attribute any parentage to the Sarah Muddle who marries William Hider.

However, the Family Search website has trees that attribute Sarah Hider (née Muddle) to the clockmaking family, as do several trees on Ancestry. On the latter this Sarah is sometimes referred to as 'Sarah Elizabeth' but no source documents are noted. I suppose it is possible there were two children named Sarah...

I'm left wondering if there are clues in the names of William and Sarah's children: their first three children are named Sarah and Edward and Mary.

Also wondering if a marriage by licence would have determined the church? A Joseph Hyder (sic) and Mary Ralph, both of Rotherfield, are married in Withyam by licence on 13 Jan 1730. Perhaps once again a minor involved in the marriage?

Cheers
Mumfy
Title: Re: Muddle over Muddle Ancestry in early 1700's
Post by: artifis on Monday 22 August 16 16:40 BST (UK)
Hi Mumfy,

I'm sure you're aware that family trees on line frequently contain wishful thinking links that are not substantiated by documentation, best to treat them with a deal of scepticism until you can verify their claims through your own researches.  On two such they had listed one of my ancestors still having children in her sixties!  The later half of the children listed were in fact her eldest son's who had the same forename as her husband and had married a girl with the same forename as hers.  A few simple checks with actual records revealed the truth.

Couple of thoughts. 

In Thomas Muddle's will did he refer to Sarah just as Sarah or did she have a second forename?

Did he leave anything to the remainder of his children and if so how did he describe Elizabeth, i.e. did she have a second forename of Sarah - could lead to the Sarah Elizabeth you've seen.

If you've not seen the full will it might be worth getting a copy.
Title: Re: Muddle over Muddle Ancestry in early 1700's
Post by: Mumfy on Monday 22 August 16 17:33 BST (UK)
I have truly found some most fanciful trees online: a second marriage whilst first husband still alive, sudden uprooting of fictional children to far flung countries etc etc.

With regard to the will for Thomas Muddle that was proved in 1756, it would appear from the muddle families.info website that Thomas bequeathed money to his wife Mary, his son Edward, his daughter Ann who was the wife of William Foreman, his daughter Elizabeth, his son Nicholas and to his daughter Sarah.  In addition to leaving his son Thomas the residue of his personal estate.

I think I will write to Derek Miller,  the author of this website, to see if he has any idea who the Sarah who marries in 1729 might be, although the website makes no mention of her.

Cheers
Mumfy
Title: Re: Muddle over Muddle Ancestry in early 1700's
Post by: swebby on Monday 22 August 16 18:56 BST (UK)
And do remember a baptismal date is not necessarily a birth date, all the children could have been baptised late, I did have a family who made a habit of it.
I have had a look at poor law records for the Muddle names, all of them seem to be situated around Rotherfield. None for the lot in question though.

Sean
Title: Re: Muddle over Muddle Ancestry in early 1700's
Post by: artifis on Tuesday 23 August 16 09:13 BST (UK)
A good point about the baptism-birth dates Sean, I found a number of my Hastings' ancestors having their children 'done' in batches and the same for other families I've helped with the research on.  With sea side towns where the fathers were fishermen you can understand it if they were away from home for extended periods or couldn't commit to times due to the nature of the fish 'runs' - pilchards, sardines etc. - when they just had to drop everything to go to sea.  I've also come across the same batch baptisms with a few of my inland ancestors and further research indicated that there wasn't a full time incumbent at the parish church, one incumbent spent pretty well all of his time teaching theology at one of the Oxford unis so when he did visit the parish there were a lot of baptisms and marriages to catch up with, not sure how they dealt with burials, maybe a priest from an adjacent parish visited for such.  He did have a curate at the parish from time to time but I'm not sure if he could officiate at baptisms and marriages or whether it was the absent incumbent who dictated that only he would officiate at such events - he appears to have been a kindly, caring and benevolent  person but a little bit of a dictator coming from a wealthy landed gentry family, his wife then his daughters after her death lived in the parish rectory whilst he was away.
Title: Re: Muddle over Muddle Ancestry in early 1700's
Post by: jonwarrn on Tuesday 23 August 16 10:12 BST (UK)
The original will of Thomas Muddle of Rotherfield, proved March 1756, can be viewed on Family Search. We have to be signed in of course! Describes himself as a whitesmith.

https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:S3HY-6MZQ-8YX?i=649&cat=685691
Title: Re: Muddle over Muddle Ancestry in early 1700's
Post by: jonwarrn on Tuesday 23 August 16 10:28 BST (UK)
We need more Muddle wills!
Title: Re: Muddle over Muddle Ancestry in early 1700's
Post by: jonwarrn on Tuesday 23 August 16 10:41 BST (UK)
Re the marriage licence.
The bond may no longer exist.
Calendar of Sussex marriage licences recorded in the Consistory Court of the Bishop of Chichester for the Archdeaconry of Lewes, August, 1670, to March, 1728-9
https://archive.org/stream/calendarofsussex00chicuoft#page/264/mode/2up

(We can also see the register on FS)
Very frustrating. It ends with the licence for Thomas Bridger and Elizabeth Long, who married at Withyham, 17th March 1728/9. Just a month before the Hider-Muddle marriage.
It then says that no bonds are in existence between the years 1729 and 1763 inclusive. What happened to the allegations?
John
Title: Re: Muddle over Muddle Ancestry in early 1700's
Post by: Mumfy on Tuesday 23 August 16 13:43 BST (UK)
Sean - I take your point about late baptisms. I had a number of ancestors all baptised on the same day and of varying ages. But all of the other children in Thomas Muddle's family seem to have been baptised in a timely manner at a young age. Could you please give me a link to finding the Poor Law Records? The more Muddle sources the better!

John - that link to the will is jaw dropping. Wonders of modern technology and the Family Search Website!  :D

I am busy learning about marriage licences: gather that the fact a licence was issued didn't mean a marriage took place. But what's the bond? And the record I found on FS (on page 55) of the Withyam Register (Film # 004426931) is that not necessarily the marriage of William and Sarah in 1729?

I think some of these original records haven't been indexed and looking at them you can see what a task that would be, especially as some records barely legible.


Title: Re: Muddle over Muddle Ancestry in early 1700's
Post by: jonwarrn on Tuesday 23 August 16 23:11 BST (UK)
Hi
Yes, you are looking at the marriage in the parish register. They could either be by banns (called on three Sundays preceding the marriage), or by licence. A lot of those Withyham marriages seem to be by licence.
With licences, what we see today (if we are lucky, and they survive) are the bond and/or the allegation.
Finding a record of banns being called or a licence being issued doesn't in itself mean a marriage took place, you are right. But William and Sarah certainly married.
Here's an article on marriage licences by the great Anthony Camp, former Director of the Society of Genealogists -
https://familysearch.org/wiki/en/Marriage_Allegations,_Bonds_and_Licences_in_England_and_Wales

EDIT - Another possibility is that Sarah might have been a widow. I'm not sure that they were noting if any of the brides and grooms were widowed in the Withyham register. There is scant information in these marriage records pre 1754. Having said that, I haven't seen any other sign that this might be the case.
John
Title: Re: Muddle over Muddle Ancestry in early 1700's
Post by: Mumfy on Wednesday 24 August 16 14:48 BST (UK)
Thank you John for the link to Anthony Camp's article on marriage licences. It reveals why both of these marriages: Sarah Muddle to William Hider and Joseph Hyder to Mary Ralph may have required licences.

There were two periods where banns were not read: Advent (30 Nov to 13 Jan) and Lent (specifically the 3rd Sunday before Lent to the first Sunday after Easter.) However as the article outlines: "If good cause could be shown, however, a license to marry in one of these periods might be issued."

Joseph Hyder and Mary Ralph marry on 13 Jan 1730 and William Hider and Sarah Muddle marry on 13 April 1729 just four days before Easter Sunday in that year.
Title: Re: Muddle over Muddle Ancestry in early 1700's
Post by: swebby on Wednesday 24 August 16 18:36 BST (UK)
I used the poor law records bought from the SFHG.
However, you can get a flavour of what they are using Discovery Online.
http://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/results/r?_q=muddle+rotherfield

This comes up with all the records held by various archives and a snippet of what they contain so that may lead to some new discoveries. If you want to follow any of them up you would have to visit the relevant archive. Some of them have them digitised online if you are lucky.

Sean
Title: Re: Muddle over Muddle Ancestry in early 1700's
Post by: Mumfy on Thursday 25 August 16 12:30 BST (UK)
 :D Thanks Swebby and everyone else who has provided such valuable information!

Mumfy