RootsChat.Com
England (Counties as in 1851-1901) => England => Sussex => Topic started by: Vasquez109 on Monday 27 October 25 20:12 GMT (UK)
-
Evening everyone.
Ive found a marriage of a John West to a Sarah Cheesman/Cheesmer? on 23 Sep 1832 in Etchingham. Problem is, all the children to this couple seem to be baptised between 1812 and 1832. Ive checked for all John Wests marrying in Sussex to a Sarah but nothing is jumping out.
Can anyone work out whats going on? Im stumped...
David.
-
Are John & Sarah on the 1841 census? How old are they?
-
All I can see is at Hurst Green, Etchingham.
Sarah West aged 50
Stephen 15
Mary 9
Looks like this is Sarah, so John possibly deceased?
-
Ive found the burial for John. 08 Nov 1839 in Etchingham, aged 72 (1767-ish)
David.
-
Sarah West aged 50
Stephen 15
Mary 9
Is this Mary?
Baptism, 5 Feb 1832, Etchingham
Mary
Base born at Winchester
& Daughter of John West & Sarah Cheesmore
https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:S3HY-DRZH-WMY
Throw in a poor image of the BT
https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:S3HT-DWK9-BFX
-
Did they pretend they were married? Caught out and had to finally in 1832?
Thanks for those references!
-
Bit odd though!
No marital status on the marriage, could it be a second Sarah?
Could Sarah 1 have died somewhere else? It says Mary was born at Winchester.
There is also a quashed removal order re the Wests to Chilworth, Surrey, at the Lewes Sessions, Epiphany 1829
In the list here
https://www.thekeep.info/collections/getrecord/GB179_Q_1_5_50_1829-01-15
And image of order book here
https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:S3HY-DRX7-M3Q?view=fullText&lang=en&groupId=
-
Oh wow! Thank you. I take it the quashed in the margin means they won the case against this happening?
-
Hi
Yes, Chilworth won their appeal.
I guess it's most likely a belated marriage for John and Sarah.
Perhaps they were removed back to Etchingham from Winchester? :-\
There are Cheesmore / Cheesman records in the Etchingham parish registers from about 1835, but before that nothing for 200 years! They include another Sarah Cheesman, who married Henry Hayward in 1835. Then baptisms from 1836 to George & Frances, and from about 1840 to James & Harriet
-
Blimey! That would explain it. Maybe they pretended to be married. I wonder what happened for them to be removed? Do you think it was them wanting to relocate or the parish wanted to move them on?
Thanks.
David.
-
Well it's a possible theory, they were examined in Winchester and it was found out they weren't married. Then removed to Etchingham, who would then know.
But it might not be like that of course.
So are these Cheesmore/Cheesman people in the Etchingham records from 1835 actually some of the children born to John West and Sarah?
The names fit, Sarah, George and James, as per baptisms and the quashed removal order.
If so it would seem to prove that the parents didn't marry until 1832. Perhaps look for them in the census.
-
Sarah Cheeseman is my 5xggrandmother although I am not related to John West.
Sarah was born Sarah Austen in Etchingham in 1778 and her 2 Aug 1778 baptism notes that she is the spurious daughter of Elizabeth Austin, reputed father being John Cheeseman.
Sarah herself had a couple of illegitimate children, the eldest of whom was Isaac Tuppenny Austin b. 1789 in Ticehurst, from whom I am descended.
Although she didn't marry John West until 1832 (and I have found no reason for this) they were having children together during the period 1812-1832 (all except the youngest Mary being baptised in Etchingham). They did however go by a mixture of the names Cheeseman or West or the combined Cheeseman-West.
Pheno
-
Pheno, that would make Sarah about 53 or 54 when Mary was born?
-
Yes but that's what the information offers. Unless, of course, the birth was to one of her daughters but passed off as if the child of John & Sarah - possibly a reason why Mary born Winchester? although she was baptised in Etchingham. Maybe to avoid Etchingham clergy knowing the truth.
Previous child was baptised in 1828 though so she would have been 50 - again same thing might have happened.
Pheno
-
Hi Pheno
That's a plausible theory. Although Mary still gets baptised as illegitimate anyway.
From a quick look at the index, the baptism sequence to John and Sarah West in Etchingham is 1812 (John, who died in infancy), then 1815, 1817, 1819, 1823, 1828 and 1832.
Burial at Etchingham, 14 February 1862
Sarah West, age 84
Looks like she died in the Ticehurst union workhouse
https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:S3HY-DRZH-W7C
John
-
Register of Deaths in Ticehurst Workhouse
9 Feb 1862
West Sarah
Age 79
Parish Etchingham
https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:S3HT-D4CH-7B
Add in the death registration, which goes with 84 for Sarah's age
WEST, SARAH
Age at Death (in years): 84
GRO Reference: 1862 M Quarter in TICEHURST Volume 02B Page 44
-
Thanks for this info Jon - for some reason or other I hadn't followed Sarah any further than the 1851 census. So now knowing that she died in 1862 I need to search her out in the 1861 - possibly just initials in the workhouse at this point.
Do you have a specific interest in Sussex as I notice you seem to be a whizz with Sussex records?
Pheno
-
Hi Pheno
I don't know about being a whizz!
Sicklemore (or Sickelmore), back to the great Tristram, that's my Sussex line!
-
Mine is only this Austin/Tuppenny/Cheeseman line.
Think I found Sarah in 1861 in the Union Workhouse located in Flimwell. There is a widowed 83 year old female inmate with the initials w S noted as born Etchingham (can't read the occupation which is formerly ???).
This would seem to be her. Thanks for your help, Pheno