1
Dorset / Re: Benjamin Best c.1775 - 1862 Corfe Mullen
« on: Monday 02 March 26 20:32 GMT (UK) »
Thanks for you comments and suggestions. That's helped me feel more confident about my thinking.
Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
2
Dorset / Benjamin Best c.1775 - 1862 Corfe Mullen
« on: Monday 02 March 26 11:04 GMT (UK) »
I'm looking into Benjamin Best, my 4xGreat Grandfather - who lived most of his life in Corfe Mullen in Dorset. He was married to Ann and they had nine children between 1804 and 1822.
In the 1851 and 1861 census - both Benjamin and Ann are recorded as having been born in Lytchett (not known if this is Lytchett Matravers or Lytchett Minster).
On the findmypast website there is a marriage of Benjamin Best to Ann Bartlett on 5 April 1803 in Corfe Mullen (a Dorset Family History Society transcription). This marriage is also found on the familysearch website but that site also has a record showing the marriage taking place on 20 March 1799 in Corfe Mullen.
Neither of these two marriages, however, appear on the Dorset Online Parish Clerks listing of Marriages in Corfe Mullen.
It is possible that Benjamin was married to someone before Ann - there is a marriage of a Benjamin Best (of Lytchett Minster) to a Mary Cherret of Corfe Mullen on 16 December 1790. There is a burial record for a Mary Best in Corfe Mullen in 1796 (although there is no indication of age), but if it was the Mary married to Benjamin it would be earlier than either of the two dates for his marriage to Ann.
Trying to find Benjamin's baptism in order to identify the next generation back, there is a baptism of a Benjamin Best in Durweston in 1776 and I have seen other family trees that attach this baptism to the Benjamin Best I am researching. However, Durweston doesn't really fit in with a Lytchett birthplace and I have also discovered a burial record for a Benjamin Best born in 1776 in Durweston in 1815 so I think that this is not the match.
There is a baptism in Lytchett Minster on 22 September 1776 of a Benjamin Best Gerrard base born son of Mary Gerrard of Corfe Mullen. - I'm wondering if the middle name "Best" might be an indication of the father?
Any suggestions or comments on my thinking would be appreciated.
In the 1851 and 1861 census - both Benjamin and Ann are recorded as having been born in Lytchett (not known if this is Lytchett Matravers or Lytchett Minster).
On the findmypast website there is a marriage of Benjamin Best to Ann Bartlett on 5 April 1803 in Corfe Mullen (a Dorset Family History Society transcription). This marriage is also found on the familysearch website but that site also has a record showing the marriage taking place on 20 March 1799 in Corfe Mullen.
Neither of these two marriages, however, appear on the Dorset Online Parish Clerks listing of Marriages in Corfe Mullen.
It is possible that Benjamin was married to someone before Ann - there is a marriage of a Benjamin Best (of Lytchett Minster) to a Mary Cherret of Corfe Mullen on 16 December 1790. There is a burial record for a Mary Best in Corfe Mullen in 1796 (although there is no indication of age), but if it was the Mary married to Benjamin it would be earlier than either of the two dates for his marriage to Ann.
Trying to find Benjamin's baptism in order to identify the next generation back, there is a baptism of a Benjamin Best in Durweston in 1776 and I have seen other family trees that attach this baptism to the Benjamin Best I am researching. However, Durweston doesn't really fit in with a Lytchett birthplace and I have also discovered a burial record for a Benjamin Best born in 1776 in Durweston in 1815 so I think that this is not the match.
There is a baptism in Lytchett Minster on 22 September 1776 of a Benjamin Best Gerrard base born son of Mary Gerrard of Corfe Mullen. - I'm wondering if the middle name "Best" might be an indication of the father?
Any suggestions or comments on my thinking would be appreciated.
3
Family History Beginners Board / Re: Probate Records
« on: Sunday 15 February 26 15:20 GMT (UK) »It says the former grant in the name of Albert George not Arthur George so maybe just an error that needed correcting.
Do you know where Arthur was in 1939?
Ah... my eyes had missed that it said Albert not Arthur, so you are probably right that it's just correcting an error.
I was intrigued because I last found Arthur George with his wife Anna and daughter in Shirley, Southampton in 1901. Anna and daughter are still in Shirley in 1911 with Annie recorded as Married not widowed but with Arthur not present.
Annie next turns up in 1939 with her now married daughter in Dawlish.
4
Family History Beginners Board / Probate Records
« on: Sunday 15 February 26 14:43 GMT (UK) »
Can you find details of probates that were granted but subsequently revoked?
I found a probate record for Arthur George Dunford who died in Yeovil in 1952 granted to his grand-daughter Joan Isabel Capel on 7 February 1955 which states that the former grant dated 28 August 1953 was revoked.
I'm interested because in 1939 his wife was living with her daughter and granddaughter but described as Widowed, so something a bit strange was obviously going on.
I found a probate record for Arthur George Dunford who died in Yeovil in 1952 granted to his grand-daughter Joan Isabel Capel on 7 February 1955 which states that the former grant dated 28 August 1953 was revoked.
I'm interested because in 1939 his wife was living with her daughter and granddaughter but described as Widowed, so something a bit strange was obviously going on.
5
Somerset / Re: Susan Ann Stone (1843 - 1911) Yeovil
« on: Saturday 14 February 26 10:25 GMT (UK) »
Wow!
Can I just say an extra big thank you for all of the digging that's be done trying to unravel this family.
I'm going to need a quiet few hours to work my way through it all.
Steve
Can I just say an extra big thank you for all of the digging that's be done trying to unravel this family.
I'm going to need a quiet few hours to work my way through it all.
Steve
6
Somerset / Re: Susan Ann Stone (1843 - 1911) Yeovil
« on: Friday 13 February 26 06:33 GMT (UK) »
Possibly
Has Maud been found on the 1891 census or have I overlooked this on the thread?
SS - Enjoy your coffee tomorrow
No Maud still hasn't been tracked down on the 1891 census.
7
Somerset / Re: Susan Ann Stone (1843 - 1911) Yeovil
« on: Thursday 12 February 26 20:15 GMT (UK) »There is Anne Stone Age 6 with the family in 1871 as a daughter.
Could she be another grand daughter and the daughter of Susan?
The mind boggles
Annie Stone born Jun 1864 Yeovil has no MMN on the GRO index
I'd got myself so confused over all the various perturbations of the family, that I'd forgotten about there being an Ann Stone present in John & Mary Stone's household in 1871.
So again it's another example of two children on the same census return being described as daughter and grandson when they are both, if fact, grandchildren.
Another piece of the jigsaw falls into place. If Annie is in London from 1881 onwards, it presumably makes her prime suspect as the mother of Maud.
8
Somerset / Re: Susan Ann Stone (1843 - 1911) Yeovil
« on: Thursday 12 February 26 13:29 GMT (UK) »Back burner
STONE, WILLIAM EDWARD -
GRO Reference: 1895 M Quarter in YEOVIL Volume 05C Page 42
SS
That is the birth record for the William Stone recorded as Susan's grandson on the 1901 and 1911 census records. He was born on 23 November 1894 and his place of birth is recorded as 4 Dodham Cottages Yeovil - which is where the family are living in 1901. His mother is Annie Stone whose address is recorded as being "The Plough" Giltspur Street London. So it would appear that Annie is another child of Susan. I'm wondering given the London connection whether Annie could also be Maud's mother - but that would make even less sense of the fact tthat Maud is recorded as Susan's daughter and William as her grandson.
9
Somerset / Re: Susan Ann Stone (1843 - 1911) Yeovil
« on: Thursday 12 February 26 10:38 GMT (UK) »
Once again many thanks to everyone for their suggestions, which have helped me clarify Susan's life, though clearly there are some matters that remain a mystery.
I think that I have Susan traced in every census except 1881, recorded as Susan Stone until 1891 and then as Susan Pennell (widow) in 1901 and 1911 passing away in 1911.
I'm assuming that son William (1862) is not the son of the mysterious Mr Pennell as he is recorded as Stone in 1881 whilst his half brother is recorded as Teddy Pennell.
Teddy's birth was registered as Edwin Stone (dob 20 December 1875) and the military record of Edwin Pennell dated in March 1894 aged 18 years 4 months is consistent with this and also shows his mother as Susan Pennell and father unknown.
Whilst I do think that the record for Susan and Sarah Stone in Yeovil in 1891 is the sisters, I'm a bit concerned because sister Sarah's age is massively out with her birth year recorded as 1857 when she was, in fact, born in 1838 and was older than sister Susan.
I was amazed that the children William and Edwin would have been sent for "correction" as far away as Surrey.
I'm assuming that Susan never actually married the unknown Mr Pennell but don't quite understand why she would not identify herself as a Pennell until 1901 - perhaps because she waited until he was dead?
Maud remains a bit confusing. Whilst I recognise that children were often recorded as sons or daughters when they were grandchildren for various reasons, I don't quite see why Susan would record Maud as a daughter in 1901 when she was happy to record another child in the household (William) as a grandson.
Also if Maud was a granddaughter, I assume that Susan had another as yet, unidentified child who was Maud's parent.
Thanks again for you all of your help.
I think that I have Susan traced in every census except 1881, recorded as Susan Stone until 1891 and then as Susan Pennell (widow) in 1901 and 1911 passing away in 1911.
I'm assuming that son William (1862) is not the son of the mysterious Mr Pennell as he is recorded as Stone in 1881 whilst his half brother is recorded as Teddy Pennell.
Teddy's birth was registered as Edwin Stone (dob 20 December 1875) and the military record of Edwin Pennell dated in March 1894 aged 18 years 4 months is consistent with this and also shows his mother as Susan Pennell and father unknown.
Whilst I do think that the record for Susan and Sarah Stone in Yeovil in 1891 is the sisters, I'm a bit concerned because sister Sarah's age is massively out with her birth year recorded as 1857 when she was, in fact, born in 1838 and was older than sister Susan.
I was amazed that the children William and Edwin would have been sent for "correction" as far away as Surrey.
I'm assuming that Susan never actually married the unknown Mr Pennell but don't quite understand why she would not identify herself as a Pennell until 1901 - perhaps because she waited until he was dead?
Maud remains a bit confusing. Whilst I recognise that children were often recorded as sons or daughters when they were grandchildren for various reasons, I don't quite see why Susan would record Maud as a daughter in 1901 when she was happy to record another child in the household (William) as a grandson.
Also if Maud was a granddaughter, I assume that Susan had another as yet, unidentified child who was Maud's parent.
Thanks again for you all of your help.