RootsChat.Com
England (Counties as in 1851-1901) => England => Sussex => Topic started by: bitzar on Tuesday 09 June 20 11:42 BST (UK)
-
Hi all
Does anyone have access to the 'actual' marriage register for Thomas WEEKS and Hannah AKEHURST, 21 Apr 1822 at Heathfield?! I'm wondering if it states anything about their ages, etc.
Looking at censuses they seem quite young to be married!!! The 1841 has them aged 35 and 30, and the 1851 has Thomas aged 38 so born c1811...
As usual, online tree's have made up all kinds of ridiculous stories.
It seems their last child was born in 1842, mmn AKEHURST. No baptism that I could find.
Many thanks,
bitzar.
-
Marriage was 10 May 1822, at Heathfield
Thomas Weeks was of the parish of Wadhurst.
Both marked, Mary Akehurst was a witness.
Parish register on FamilySearch
https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:S3HY-DR83-TNK?i=346&cat=691091
-
The BT is in poor condition and faded image
https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:S3HT-6FMQ-C5?i=720&cat=1021977
Throw in the banns, no improvement in handwriting!
https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:S3HT-6RQ3-Z39?i=759&cat=691091
-
Baptism at Wadhurst, 20 Oct 1822
born 15 July 1822
William
Son of Thomas and Hannah Weeks
abode Wadhurst
father a Labourer
https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:S3HT-DT83-N8M
-
Many thanks,
I've managed to squint enough to work out the writing... :o
Nothing stands out for her birth... The 1814 is not possible, is it! Haven't started on him yet.
bitzar.
-
Thanks for the baptism. I did see it but there are also WICKS baptised at a similar time. I need to work out if there are two families or not. Some of their children are definitely baptised as WICKS at Burwash.
bitzar.
-
Baptism at Wadhurst, 20 Oct 1822
born 15 July 1822
William
Son of Thomas and Hannah Weeks
abode Wadhurst
father a Labourer
https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:S3HT-DT83-N8M
There is also a baptism 26 Jul 1822 but the surname is WICKS. I wonder if its a private baptism for the same child!
bitzar.
-
St Bartholomew Burwash- Baptism
Parents Thomas and Hannah. Father an ag lab.
Thomas Weeks 13 November 1825
James Wicks 19 December 1830
Harriot Wicks 8 February 1835
Mary Ann Weeks 8 April 1838
-
amondg
jonw65 also found a William at Wadhurst 1822. There are 2 other's I've found, Frances 1828, and Lois 1842. I'm descended from Harriot/Harriet/Harriett.
Their ages at marriage concerns me!
Many thanks,
bitzar.
-
In 1851 he should be 48 not 38.
There are several baptisms in Wadhurst for Thomas Weeks, the likely is 15 May 1803 to parents James and Mary.
He had children James ad Mary.
The alternatives are parents Samuel and Jane or William and Hannah.
-
I'm actually looking at James as a father right this moment :o
bitzar
-
Hi all,
Sorry to ask for this marriage under the Heathfield Subject when this one is in Kent, but it's for the same Thomas WEEKS/WEEKES. Could someone please check for the register for who he names as his father when he married again. I can't find the cert anywhere.
Thomas WEEKS to Frances Mary REED.
Jun qtr 1863 Tunbridge RD
Volume: 2a
Page: 745.
Many thanks.
bitzar.
-
Info only, in 1871 Thomas was born Wadhurst sussex c1803
SS
-
Thomas Weeks bpt 15 May 1803 Wadhurst, Sussex
Parents James & Mary Weeks
SS
-
Thanks softly.
There are ALOT of Thomas' born in a close time range. I'm confident the Thomas you mention is correct but I'm hoping the MC is about where he names his father.
bitzar.
-
Marriage registers before 1 July 1837 do not name the fathers, unless either the bride or groom are under age and they give their permission.
Ian C
-
Marriage registers before 1 July 1837 do not name the fathers, unless either the bride or groom are under age and they give their permission.
Ian C
I think it's the second marriage in 1863 that Bitzar means.
-
the likely is 15 May 1803 to parents James and Mary.
alternatives are parents Samuel and Jane or William and Hannah.
Thomas son of Samuel may be unmarried and living with his father in 1851
https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:SGJK-65H
Thomas son of William may be the chap who married Caroline Richardson at Mayfield, 26 December 1840?
https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:S3HT-D47Q-WR4
-
Marriage registers before 1 July 1837 do not name the fathers, unless either the bride or groom are under age and they give their permission.
Ian C
I think it's the second marriage in 1863 that Bitzar means.
I do, thanks Lizzie. I can't find the MC anywhere.
bitzar.
-
the likely is 15 May 1803 to parents James and Mary.
alternatives are parents Samuel and Jane or William and Hannah.
Thomas son of Samuel may be unmarried and living with his father in 1851
https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:SGJK-65H
Thomas son of William may be the chap who married Caroline Richardson at Mayfield, 26 December 1840?
https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:S3HT-D47Q-WR4
Thankyou. This is why I'm confident I have the correct Thomas but his fathers name on the MC would be ideal.
bitzar.
-
I think that it might be a registry office marriage, the page no. on the index reference is quite high which often indicates a RO. Thomas was much older than his second wife and she had been living with him as housekeeper before their marriage, so a quick, quiet marriage some distance from home is not unusual in this circumstance. If RO you would have to order the certificate.
-
I think that it might be a registry office marriage, the page no. on the index reference is quite high which often indicates a RO. Thomas was much older than his second wife and she had been living with him as housekeeper before their marriage, so a quick, quiet marriage some distance from home is not unusual in this circumstance. If RO you would have to order the certificate.
Thankyou for the tip. I found her baptism today too, potentially even more of an age gap!
bitzar