Where is this?

annabel said:
I thought that with the birth of the Edwin you found bap 1813 in Hellingly, after James, that made this part of the family less likely to be the same family. Although I can't explain the gap otherwise o_O
Click to expand...

Hahahahaha! Never a dull moment with this family. It's a bit naughty of me to post this now as for the moment it's a distraction, but Edwin is very easy to track through the censuses in Rye and then we reach 1881...! RG 11 Piece 1017 Fol. 50 Page 29:).
 
Flook said:
The Kentish Gazette of 18 August 1807 has the following announcement:

Married: "Aug. 14, at Smarden, Mr James Mitchell, shoemaker, of High Halden, to Miss Hannah Shoesmith, of Smarden".

Their 1841 Census entry is:
HO107 Piece 456 Book 12 Fol. 7 Page 6
Boughton Green, Boughton Monchelsea, Kent

James Mitchell, 68, Shoe-m[aker], born in Kent
Hannah Mitchell, 60, born in Kent
Click to expand...


I think we can extend this family:

James baptised Smarden 12 June 1808 [FMP Kent Baptisms]
Susannah baptised Smarden 10 June 1810 [Family Search] + also possible marriage to William Benge at East Malling 3 April 1836 [FMP Kent Marriages]
Sarah baptised Smarden 2 August 1813 [Family Search]
Caroline baptised Leeds (near Boughton Monchelsea) [FMP Kent Baptisms] 27 April 1817 + possibly married Charles Letham in Boughton Monchelsea 5 June 1836 [FMP Kent Marriages]
William baptised Leeds 14 March 1819 [FMP Kent Baptisms] + probable marriage to Ann Horton, Maidstone, 5 November 1842 [FMP Kent Marriages]
 
Ok so going with the fact that often in my family I have found brothers marrying sisters, this is what I am looking at now:

Brook
William Brook married Mary Mitchell 1794
Son William 1818 lived in Eltham with Mary's sister Sarah Mitchell (who married William's brother James), and in Biddenden with uncle John their brother

Mitchell
James shoemaker married Susannah 1768 High Halden
Their sons James 1774, and William 1772 High Halden
James married Hannah 1807 Smarden
Their son James 1808 Smarden, who was with the Brooks

William Mitchel 1772 married Elizabeth Milton in 1793 High Halden
children include Sarah, Mary and John

So that makes James Mitchell, the subject of this post, the cousin of William Brooke's mother Mary, and his aunt Sarah!

Does that sound right?
 
I'll have a look at that this evening.

In the meantime I think you can add the burials of James and Hannah:

There is a Burial in Boughton Monchelsea of James Mitchell 8 July 1851, aged 77 i.e. born in 1774. [Family Search]
There is a Burial in Boughton Monchelsea of Hannah Mitchell 21 May 1851, aged 75 i.e. born in 1776. [Family Search]

N.B. Hannah Shoesmith was baptised in Smarden, daughter of Richard and Ann, on 2nd August 1778 [Family Search].

I think I may have all their children as well, but that can wait.
 
Am I going bonkers?

Family Search has:
William Brook married Mary Mitchell in Biddenden, Sussex, 29 June 1817.
William Brook married Mary Mitchell in Hellingly, Sussex, 7 July 1817.

Although it's possible they married twice, I'm going to work on the assumption that they married in Hellingly and the 29 June date refers to the 3rd reading of the Banns back in Biddenden (the 29th was a Sunday - the 7th was a Monday).
 
Apologies Annabel, but I'm re-checking everything and doing that rather slowly. I may not get anything to you this evening as the witching hour approaches, but I will get back to you tomorrow.

Happy New Year:)!
 
annabel said:
Ok so going with the fact that often in my family I have found brothers marrying sisters, this is what I am looking at now....
Click to expand...

These are my workings:

Brook
William Brook (probably bap. 24 October 1786 in Biddenden) married Mary Mitchel (bap. High Halden, 27 December 1794) in Hellingly, Sussex, 7 July 1817 (see my post 47).

Their son William Brook (bap 16 August 1818 in Biddenden) married Sarah Larking 7 August 1842 in Lewisham and then married again, this time in Biddenden, on 4 June 1867. His second wife was Sarah Carter.

In 1871 William Brook (bap 1818) and his wife Sarah lived in Pope Street, Eltham, with their son Charles and their daughter Eliza but at the time of the 1871 census they were staying at Brickwall House in Biddenden.

Brickwall House, Biddenden in 1871

John Mitchell and Sarah Mitchell were the brother and sister of Mary Mitchell who was the 1871 William’s mother.

Mary, John and Sarah were the eldest children of what became the Hellingly Mitchells. They were all baptised in High Halden; Mary - 27 December 1794; John - 13 August 1796; Sarah - 13 May 1899.


Note that there appears to have been an older brother William Mitchell, born High Halden c1793 (no baptism found) who married Sarah Parris in Hellingly on 27 December 1814 and became the father of the Hellingly/Rye lot – see e.g. 1861 census RG9 Piece 557 Fol.115 Page 29; 1851 Census HO107 Piece 1634 Fol. 373 Page 23; 1841 HO107 Piece 1109 Book 5 Fol.50 Page 17.

Their children baptised in Hellingly appear to be: Henry bap 28 April 1816; Frederick bap 18 January 1818; William bap 19 October 1819; Julia bap 27 June 1824; Caleb bap 26 November 1826; Charlotte Waters Mitchell bap in Rye, 24 March 1830. William the father seems to have left a will dated 13 May 1871 [Ancestry National Probate Calendar].

Mary, John and Sarah’s parents were William Mitchell and Elisabeth Milton.

William Mitchel was baptised (High Halden, 28 June 1772) and Elisabeth Milton was baptised in Tenterden, 12 March 1775). They married at High Halden 4th April 1793.

William Mitchel (bap 1772) was the son of William Mitchel and Susannah Duvran who married at High Halden 15 August 1768.

As well as William they appear to have had at least 2 other children; James (baptised High Halden 22 May 1774) and Frances, baptised High Halden 18 October 1789) and. [Note here that William and Susannah must have lived elsewhere and had other children between 1774 and 1789].

James Mitchel (baptised 1774) married Hannah Shoesmith in Smarden 13 August 1807. They had at least one son, James, baptised Smarden, 12 June 1808. [See my post 44 for other possible children].

James (bap 1808) is presumed to be the James Mitchell of the 1871 Eltham Census. This would make him the cousin of Mary, John and Sarah and the ‘first cousin once removed’ (I think!) of William Brook of Eltham. ‘Uncle’ seems a far more satisfactory description!

[Note that there seems to have been another Mitchell family in Smarden at the time as there is a James Mitchell bap Smarden 1824/1826 in the 1871 & 1881 censuses – RG10 Piece 1032 Fol.122 Page 44 & RG11 Piece 1029 Fol.61 Page 43].


Sources are mainly Family Search and FMP’s Kent collection of parish records.
 
Flook said:
Am I going bonkers?
Family Search has:
William Brook married Mary Mitchell in Biddenden, Sussex, 29 June 1817.
William Brook married Mary Mitchell in Hellingly, Sussex, 7 July 1817.
Although it's possible they married twice, I'm going to work on the assumption that they married in Hellingly and the 29 June date refers to the 3rd reading of the Banns back in Biddenden (the 29th was a Sunday - the 7th was a Monday).
Click to expand...
Could they have had two marriages to suit families in two areas.---been up a long time possibly past my use by time....
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sis
Ma-dotcom said:
Could they have had two marriages to suit families in two areas.---been up a long time possibly past my use by time....
Click to expand...

I don't think that's possible really as both families were known in Biddenden and the Church would never allow it!
 
Flook said:
N.B. Hannah Shoesmith was baptised in Smarden, daughter of Richard and Ann, on 2nd August 1778 [Family Search].
Click to expand...
Just to add...

Ann was buried in Smarden on 8th October 1792, aged 50
Richard was buried in Smarden on 5th September 1810, aged 61. He was a labourer.

(Source: Smarden Parish Record transcriptions)
 
Wow, Flook, I am really impressed as you have summarised everything found so succinctly and clearly!! Your theory re the first marriage date at Biddenden being the last reading of the Banns seems pretty logical to me as his marriage record at Hellingly states that William was resident at Biddenden so the banns would have to have been read there wouldn't they.

Over to Annabel now for her comments.

Janet
 
That is wonderful, thank you everyone. This sorts out all the funny relationships and people with the same name, it all looks very good to me. That was an amazing bit of detective work. I never would have got the answer. These families don't seem to have been researched much - you can see why!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top