St Michaels Coventry records

[Brian Sc]

Jim ,As for your first answer The daughters I was referring too were the ones from Leek Wootton born 1784 1786 .Would the girls not allow Joseph to be adopted by their husbands
Brian

[jim1]

Hello Brian
I see these as possibilities:
Joseph is the son of one of the daughters but retained his mothers name
after marriage.(unlikely)
or
son of one of the sons wives and changed his name to Scofield on marriage.
You could order the Leek Wootton fiches from LDS and look at Josephs
marriage details as this seems to be the only positive info. there is on him.
Were there any family members as witnesses,did they marry by Banns or Licence.
A licence would give additional info.
You could also email the War.CRO. and ask them to look for you if you give them
the date & place details.
http://www.warwickshire.gov.uk/countyrecordoffice

                                       Jim

[jim1]

From the info. supplied by Leofric I've traced Joseph back to Campsea Ash to his marriage there to Elizabeth Last in 1806,which means he must have been there before the birth of Joseph so I think you can rule him out as a father.

                                              jim

[jim1]

These are the children of Joseph Scofield & Elizabeth Last

EDWARD SCOFIELD - Christening: 07 MAR 1808 Campsea Ash, Suffolk
HANNAH  SCOFIELD -  Christening: 20 OCT 1811 Campsea Ash, Suffolk
KATHERINE SCOFIELD - Christening: 28 OCT 1813 Campsea Ash, Suffolk
JOSEPH EDWARD SCOFIELD - Christening: 23 FEB 1807 Campsea Ash, Suffolk
ELIZABETH SCOFIELD -  Christening: 01 JUL 1809 Campsea Ash, Suffolk
THOMAS SCOFIELD - Christening: 31 OCT 1810 Campsea Ash, Suffolk
 

 

[Brian Sc]

Hi Jim
Thank you for the information .
I think we can rule the Suffolk line out .
The date of Joseph born at Leek Wootton 1782 doesn't seem too match up and uncertain if this is the same Joseph of Suffolk .If not Where did he go ?
Joseph  of 1806 was married at leek wootton by banns and a George Smith and Charlot Sharpe were witnesses. As he was married in 1828 a license would not be given.
I will obtain the death record and see if this is our Joseph .
Thomas and Mary still stick in my gullet as a good possibility however .
Thank you Jim

[jim1]

Just a couple of points.
I believe the Joseph in Suffolk is the same  person.He was born at the same time has the same family occupation & came from Leek Wootton & there aren't any other Joseph Scofields born at that time.
Licences were granted in 1828 it was means of marrying without Banns being read or if they wanted to marry elsewhere.If you come across any that are by licence it's worth getting the info.
I'll have a look at Thomas.

                                                  Jim

[jim1]

Hello Brian
I don't think Joseph is the son of Thomas,it doesn't stack up.
Joseph would have had his mothers surname unless the marriage Banns had been read by the time of the christening (if there was one) whereby the Rector may have allowed him to be christened Scofield.
If Thomas & Mary had been living together I would expect to see other children prior to the 1813 marriage.
The only expanations now as I see it is that Joseph was the illegitimate son of Mary Bull ( but not Thomas) & was given the Scofield name on marriage.
or
was an illegitimate child of one of the daughters but lived with g/parents after marriage as he may have been rejected by the husband.
I suppose there are lots of scenarios you could come up with from being left on the doorstep by gypsies  to being washed up in a reed bed.
I'll still put my money on the daughters.

                              Jim

[Brian Sc]

Thanks Jim I have  emailed for further details on Josephs Marriage and I will order the cert of the death in Birmingham .Hopefully it is the right person .I would be pleased if I could find the results of Thomas and Marys exploit's.
Brian

[jim1]

Thomas & Mary were very boring.Lived in Leek Wootton all their lives.Daughter Susanna had an illegitimate child Philip in 1862 but never married & that's about it.
Now Joseph's family were adifferent kettle of fish,very dysfunctional.