Etchingham marriage mystery

[Vasquez109]

Blimey! That would explain it. Maybe they pretended to be married. I wonder what happened for them to be removed? Do you think it was them wanting to relocate or the parish wanted to move them on?

Thanks.
David.

[jonwarrn]

Well it's a possible theory, they were examined in Winchester and it was found out they weren't married. Then removed to Etchingham, who would then know.
But it might not be like that of course.

So are these Cheesmore/Cheesman people in the Etchingham records from 1835 actually some of the children born to John West and Sarah?
The names fit, Sarah, George and James, as per baptisms and the quashed removal order.
If so it would seem to prove that the parents didn't marry until 1832. Perhaps look for them in the census.

[Pheno]

Sarah Cheeseman is my 5xggrandmother although I am not related to John West.

Sarah was born Sarah Austen in Etchingham in 1778 and her 2 Aug 1778 baptism notes that she is the spurious daughter of Elizabeth Austin, reputed father being John Cheeseman.

Sarah herself had a couple of illegitimate children, the eldest of whom was Isaac Tuppenny Austin b. 1789 in Ticehurst, from whom I am descended.

Although she didn't marry John West until 1832 (and I have found no reason for this) they were having children together during the period 1812-1832 (all except the youngest Mary being baptised in Etchingham).  They did however go by a mixture of the names Cheeseman or West or the combined Cheeseman-West.

Pheno

[jonwarrn]

Pheno, that would make Sarah about 53 or 54 when Mary was born?

[Pheno]

Yes but that's what the information offers.  Unless, of course, the birth was to one of her daughters but passed off as if the child of John & Sarah - possibly a reason why Mary born Winchester? although she was baptised in Etchingham.  Maybe to avoid Etchingham clergy knowing the truth.

Previous child was baptised in 1828 though so she would have been 50 - again same thing might have happened.

Pheno

[jonwarrn]

Hi Pheno
That's a plausible theory. Although Mary still gets baptised as illegitimate anyway.
From a quick look at the index, the baptism sequence to John and Sarah West in Etchingham is 1812 (John, who died in infancy), then 1815, 1817, 1819, 1823, 1828 and 1832.

Burial at Etchingham, 14 February 1862
Sarah West, age 84
Looks like she died in the Ticehurst union workhouse
https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:S3HY-DRZH-W7C

John

[jonwarrn]

Register of Deaths in Ticehurst Workhouse
9 Feb 1862
West Sarah
Age 79
Parish Etchingham
https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:S3HT-D4CH-7B

Add in the death registration, which goes with 84 for Sarah's age
WEST, SARAH       
Age at Death (in years): 84 
GRO Reference: 1862  M Quarter in TICEHURST  Volume 02B  Page 44

[Pheno]

Thanks for this info Jon - for some reason or other I hadn't followed Sarah any further than the 1851 census.  So now knowing that she died in 1862 I need to search her out in the 1861 - possibly just initials in the workhouse at this point.

Do you have a specific interest in Sussex as I notice you seem to be a whizz with Sussex records?

Pheno

[jonwarrn]

Hi Pheno
I don't know about being a whizz!
Sicklemore (or Sickelmore), back to the great Tristram, that's my Sussex line!