The world-famous SNOOKs of Lymington

[dee-jay]

What evidence do you have that the FIELDER children of Edward/Mary changed their name to SNOOK?

I can assure you there is no mistake about the date of Widow Mary FIELDER's marriage to George SNOOK.  She did not re-marry before Edward's 1814 burial!  However, George's marital status was not recorded so it is possible he had children elsewhere?

There are also these Boldre marriages:
02 Jan 1815 Charles THOMAS to Fanny FIELDER with witnesses James HARRIS and A.W. FIELDER

18 Feb 1819 Thomas WALLIS to Harriett FIELDER of Lymington with witnesses Michael PHILLIPS and Elisabeth FIELDER

15 Jan 1822 William FIELDER to Elizabeth TINSLEY with witnesses Thomas WALLIS and Jane FIELDER
[William FIELDER joined Hampshire Constabulary 1840, resigned 1860 on medical grounds and retired to Beaulieu Rails where he died 1865.]

I extracted the last marriage first, as a specific date was recorded by Shrubb, but I have only scratched the surface of the Boldre marriages and hope to complete my search of the 1813-1830 register at next visit.  I don't envisage a search for George SNOOK's burial in the near future, so you might consider it advantageous to request a look-up in the HBI?

[Elizabeth Revel]

Thank you dee-jay for the Snook and further Fielder information.

Beth

[bearkat]

There is a burial for George SNOOK (aged 68) on 14th October 1826 at Beaulieu.

[dee-jay]

Thanks for that, bearkat.  I'll check the entry for any further details next time at HRO, as you've given a specific date.

In the meantime, would it be possible to let me have a PM with details of FIELDER burials (if any) prior to 1783 in Beaulieu/Boldre as I'm trying to ascertain whether they were local in origin or came south with Adams from Deptford in 1749.  The FIELDER shipwrights, with the exception of Benjamin, appear to have headed for Limehouse after the Adams' Company went bankrupt in 1818.

[B.E.]

Evidence that the Fielder children changed their names to Snook?

I thought Comyn listed Mary Snook (but not George Snook) with Zipporah Fielder and then a bundle of Snooks, including William b.1798. This appears to tally with William Fielder (son of Edward and Mary) baptised in 1798. We also putatively have William repeated and living further up the road with his own family in 1817. That was what I was going on.

So I'm confused about George Snook. Current data has him marrying Mary Fielder in 1816 but not living with her in 1817 and not dying until 1826 (aged 68). So he was a 58-year-old widower when he married. The new Mrs Mary Snook and her kids moved in? Zipporah retained her birth name, but the others took on their stepfather's name? And then Mary kicked the old man out? H-E-L-P!!

[Elizabeth Revel]

From the IGI I have found an Edward Fielder, christened 17 Feb, 1757, Hursley,Hants. Parents, Edward Fielder and Zipporah Cook who married in Hursley 13 Oct, 1755.

Edward married Anne Potter, also of Hursley in 1781. No record found of her death but no evidence either of any living children from the union.

It all fits together and seems unlikely to all be coincidence.

If you seek more Fielders, there appear to be a clan of them in Hursley over quite a time span.

Beth

[dee-jay]

Jude James, in Comyn's 1817 Directory, did not list any of the children after Zipporah FIELDER with a surname, so it's unsafe to assume they took on the SNOOK surname.   The marriages so far found for the girls have them recorded FIELDER and I note that the witnesses to the William FIELDER [Police Constable]born c1800/Elizabeth TINSLEY marriage were Jane FIELDER [possibly his sister] and Thomas WALLIS [possibly brother-in-law who married Harriett FIELDER].  William FIELDER's Will was witnessed by the Baptist Minister BURT and his wife.

Thanks, Beth, for the information on the Hursley FIELDERs.  I'll keep them on the 'back-burner' until the Beaulieu Estate Archivist has responded to a request that I hope will turn up the Settlement Examination for the 'Zipporah' of the boundary dispute.  According to Widnell, author of The Beaulieu Record, Zipporah refused to attend the hearing and had to be fetched in the night as her evidence was crucial.  My instinct suggests that was more likely the obstinacy of a crone than a recalcitrant young girl.  The footnote of Jude James concerning Zipporah: 'This woman, as a girl of 12 years of age, seems to have been the catalyst in the boundary dispute ....' does not rule out my theory.  I continue to reserve judgment .....

[B.E.]

OK, I'm only getting the Comyn information via this thread, so I have to rely on those of you who have the document in front of you.

My own previous assumption was that William Snookes at the top of the hill and William Snook/Fielder living with Mary Snook were one and the same bloke - and the duplication was an inadvertent error made by Comyn or Shrubb, probably because he'd moved out between the two versions of the survey.

Henry Snook (b.1924) was the son of William & Ann. Comyn has William Snooks' other half being Ann nee Picket, and the children at Beaulieu Rails at that time as Elizabeth and Sarah. Their baptismal records suggest the same parentage as Henry's. So I'm sure they're my family.

If William Snook(s) isn't William Fielder, then who were his parents?

[dee-jay]

Unfortunately, I don't have a copy of Comyn's Directory in front of me but I do have accurate FIELDER extracts from the copy held at HRO.

Mary (Harris, Fielder) SNOOK was shown as the principal occupier of BRS 23 in 1817, which suggests she held it in her own right.  It is interesting to note that the only other 2 properties in which FIELDERs had an interest were consecutive:  BRS 24 - principal occupier Joseph PECKHAM [whose mother appears to have been a TINSLEY and, after 1822 marriage to Elizabeth TINSLEY, William & Betty FIELDER were listed there by Shrubb but whether as lodgers is unclear] - and BRS 25 with principal occupier John FIELDER, Shoemaker, wife Mary (White) and children.

I haven't researched the baptisms of any SNOOKs but if I encounter any during my subsequent PR searches I'll extract them for you.  However, it appears that widow Mary FIELDER was past child-bearing age at marriage to George SNOOK.

I note that in 1841 Thomas PICKET 78 was recorded in the Furzy Lodge h/h of William & Ann SNOOK, both recorded aged 40, with the remaining children at home:  William 15, Moses 7, Ann 5 and Alfred 3.  In 1861 Widower William SNOOK [Father-in-law in the h/h of Edward & Sarah BOUND] gave his age as 67, so it appears you should be seeking his baptism c1794-1796 at Beaulieu.