Muddle over Muddle Ancestry in early 1700's

[jonwarrn]

The original will of Thomas Muddle of Rotherfield, proved March 1756, can be viewed on Family Search. We have to be signed in of course! Describes himself as a whitesmith.

https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:S3HY-6MZQ-8YX?i=649&cat=685691

[jonwarrn]

We need more Muddle wills!

[jonwarrn]

Re the marriage licence.
The bond may no longer exist.
Calendar of Sussex marriage licences recorded in the Consistory Court of the Bishop of Chichester for the Archdeaconry of Lewes, August, 1670, to March, 1728-9
https://archive.org/stream/calendarofsussex00chicuoft#page/264/mode/2up

(We can also see the register on FS)
Very frustrating. It ends with the licence for Thomas Bridger and Elizabeth Long, who married at Withyham, 17th March 1728/9. Just a month before the Hider-Muddle marriage.
It then says that no bonds are in existence between the years 1729 and 1763 inclusive. What happened to the allegations?
John

[Mumfy]

Sean - I take your point about late baptisms. I had a number of ancestors all baptised on the same day and of varying ages. But all of the other children in Thomas Muddle's family seem to have been baptised in a timely manner at a young age. Could you please give me a link to finding the Poor Law Records? The more Muddle sources the better!

John - that link to the will is jaw dropping. Wonders of modern technology and the Family Search Website! 

I am busy learning about marriage licences: gather that the fact a licence was issued didn't mean a marriage took place. But what's the bond? And the record I found on FS (on page 55) of the Withyam Register (Film # 004426931) is that not necessarily the marriage of William and Sarah in 1729?

I think some of these original records haven't been indexed and looking at them you can see what a task that would be, especially as some records barely legible.

[jonwarrn]

Hi
Yes, you are looking at the marriage in the parish register. They could either be by banns (called on three Sundays preceding the marriage), or by licence. A lot of those Withyham marriages seem to be by licence.
With licences, what we see today (if we are lucky, and they survive) are the bond and/or the allegation.
Finding a record of banns being called or a licence being issued doesn't in itself mean a marriage took place, you are right. But William and Sarah certainly married.
Here's an article on marriage licences by the great Anthony Camp, former Director of the Society of Genealogists -
https://familysearch.org/wiki/en/Marriage_Allegations,_Bonds_and_Licences_in_England_and_Wales

EDIT - Another possibility is that Sarah might have been a widow. I'm not sure that they were noting if any of the brides and grooms were widowed in the Withyham register. There is scant information in these marriage records pre 1754. Having said that, I haven't seen any other sign that this might be the case.
John

[Mumfy]

Thank you John for the link to Anthony Camp's article on marriage licences. It reveals why both of these marriages: Sarah Muddle to William Hider and Joseph Hyder to Mary Ralph may have required licences.

There were two periods where banns were not read: Advent (30 Nov to 13 Jan) and Lent (specifically the 3rd Sunday before Lent to the first Sunday after Easter.) However as the article outlines: "If good cause could be shown, however, a license to marry in one of these periods might be issued."

Joseph Hyder and Mary Ralph marry on 13 Jan 1730 and William Hider and Sarah Muddle marry on 13 April 1729 just four days before Easter Sunday in that year.

[swebby]

I used the poor law records bought from the SFHG.
However, you can get a flavour of what they are using Discovery Online.
http://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/results/r?_q=muddle+rotherfield

This comes up with all the records held by various archives and a snippet of what they contain so that may lead to some new discoveries. If you want to follow any of them up you would have to visit the relevant archive. Some of them have them digitised online if you are lucky.

Sean

[Mumfy]

  Thanks Swebby and everyone else who has provided such valuable information!

Mumfy