TREASE/TRAIES continued...

[gardenerbob]

Hi Kerry,

That is really an unexpected twist. Agatha Christie couldn't do better. The good news is that in July I finally will get the time to go to LMA , Exeter Records Office etc., and do the research that might help solve this conundrum. The bad news is I can't do anything before then, even accessing the Internet may be problematical.

Keep up the good work,

Regards,

Bob

[oldmanriver]

she has been to the Hackney Archives and has seen the marriage record for James Traies and Ann Sutton 1818 and the record for James Traies and Martha Looker 1831 and the signatures are the same.  So could our James have married Ann in 1818. 

Hi Kerry and Bob

I am a bit puzzled by your recent message, Kerry.  I thought the original parish registers for Hackney would have been in the Metropolitan Archives (the original Greater London Record Office GLRO).  Where are the Hackney Archives?  I just wanted to confirm she did see the original registers and not just Pallots Index at the  Library in Hackney.  As you probably know, Pallots index are a collection of cards each containing a single marriage, hand written, with the name of the church where the event took place just put on with a rubber stamp.

As the same person probably wrote all the cards in the index they would have been in the same hand.  I just wanted to make sure your contact had seen the original parish register entries and there was a signature for James TRAIES and it was not just these hand written cards. 

If you wish I could send you copies of the two cards in Pallots Index showing the marriages of James TRAIES to Ann SUTTON and James TRAIES to Martha LOOKER and you will see that all four names appear to have been written by the same person.

I did mention in an earlier post (on page 7 of original thread) that there is a 'b' written after Jas. (James) TRAIES marriage to Ann SUTTON, meaning he was a bachelor.  The 's' after Ann SUTTON means spinster.  That is why I do NOT think that 'our' James could have married Ann SUTTON.  As 'our' James had been previously married to Hannah it would have a 'w' after his name meaning widower.

At the marriage to Martha LOOKER,  he is described as a widower and there is a 'w' after his name. 

I have not seen the original records for either marriage, but if transcribed correctly our James did NOT marry Ann SUTTON.  The  marriage to Martha LOOKER, COULD be that of 'our' James OR of course it could be the James who married Ann SUTTON, we haven't really proved which one it was - we just know that the husband of Martha was already a widower, at the time of the marriage.

If your contact did see the original records and it did actually say 'w' for widower at the time that the marriage to Ann SUTTON  took place, and not 'b' for bachelor, then the transrciber got it wrong and there probably was just one James marrying all these people and not two as I suggest.

Hope you can understand what I am trying to say, and don't mind me being a bit unconvinced at present!!

Best wishes

Bernice

[kerryb]

Hi Bernice

I don't mind you be unconvinced at all, I read through again the email I received from my contact last night, and noted that it does say bachelor and he should be a widower. 

I think I have heard of the Hackney archives before and think they are separate from the LMA. 

I still think the clincher will be (apart from a marriage for James and Hannah) the baptism records of James, Henry, Jane, Emma and Hannah. 

However we need to bear in mind that none of is have found trace of another James Traies in London at the time. 

Kerry

[oldmanriver]

Hi Kerry

Glad you don't mind me expressing my doubts concerning the marriage of  James TRAIES and Ann SUTTON.  If it is our James he certainly was not a bachelor at the time.   I agree with you that no other James has been discovered apart from 'ours'.  As you say it would be so good to find some of the missing baptisms wouldn't it!!

Regarding the Hackney Archives, I've just checked and they are part of the Rose Lipman Library situated in De Beauvoir Road, Hackney - nowhere near the LMA.  I visited the LMA on many occasions when we lived near Bedford and was an hours train journey away.  I also used to go to the Guildhall Library as I had ancestors who lived near St. Paul's Cathedral.  Some members of this line lived near Bishopsgate, so I used the Bishopsgate Institute a lot too - no computers to help us in those days!  I knew of the Rose Lipman Library in Hackney but Hackney was just a bit further out than the region where my ancestors lived and I had no occasion to visit it. 

Best wishes

Bernice

[deb usa]

Hi guys

Nothing to add ...and will read your posts ...

I have not been receiving thread emails...so thought I would just say hi , so that maybe i will get some .

deb

[kerryb]

There's not been much going on the Traies at the moment Deb, too busy with the Faulkners 

Kerry

[deb usa]

errr would that be HANNAH Faulkner ? 

what's with your missing Hannahs ...rather bizarre , don't you think   

[kerryb]

I'm beginning to think I'm being persecuted by a crowd of Hannah's 

Kerry

[deb usa]

just noticed something ...Hannah is one of those words that can be spelled left to right or vice versa ....    hope this helps you on your Hannah quest ... LMHO