I'm sorry to do this to you dear members, but following on from my post of a couple of weeks ago, I have now mapped Souters on a number of spreadsheets and drawn a complete blank on going back with James the first. His parents marriage record has not survived and the whole tribe landed in Burpham Sussex in 1744 with no clue about where theycame from. James 2nd was baptised on 26.12.1753, son of William Sowter and Mary Young in a little place called Amberley, not far from Burpham. I am hoping to knock him off his perch to prove that James the first is the only contender. I cannot find any of James 2nds doings after his baptism. If someone could find a death or a marriage I would be able to cross him and all his forebears off forever.
Sounds like you may just need to do a DNA test Lass.... Do you not know the birth year of James the 1st?
The dreaded Ancestry trees have this James marriage as: Name James Sowter Spouse Mary Humphrey Birth 1750 Marriage 08/07/1775 West Tarring, Sussex, England Residence West Tarring, Sussex, England They have his death as 18 Oct 1824, Lyminster, Sussex. Unfortunately the only source any of them quote is Ancestry trees. The marriage is on Ancestry, but only as a transcription. There's a Marriage Allegation image on familysearch for this couple, but no actual marriage. Couldn't find the death on Ancestry. Not sure if I've helped or hindered here.
Family Search has a burial transcription at Amberley on 26 December 1753 for James son of William & Mary SOWTER (also confirmed by FMP), so could James the 2nd have been baptised and buried on the same day?? Or have they both made a mistake in their transcriptions and shown a baptismal record as a burial? It has been known!! Janet
Just had a further look on Family Search's records for James SOWTER/SOUTER and their marriage record for James SOWTER & Mary HUMPHREY at West Tarring gives an age for them both of 25 - perhaps from the marriage allegation record - therefore giving them both a birthdate of c1750. Just found a burial transcription on FMP for the James SOUTER in Lyminster, Sussex - although they have transcribed it as Leominster - on 20 October 1824, aged 74, giving a birthdate again of c1750 Janet
The actual image for the baptism is on FamilySearch I think they've made a mistake in recording this as a burial, as it clearly says 'baptized'. The heading for the burials follows immediately and has, I think, caused confusion. There is no mention of James being buried in the images of the burials for Amberly which follow on this page. Until I saw this, I thought the same as you Janet
If you are relying on Familysearch, there are quite a number of parishes in the Amberley area that are not on the IGI. I do have most if not all of the missing IGI parishes on individual CDs from the PRTS. I will have a look when I have a little time.
Yes Wedny he was bap 1750 so the death the girls found in 1824 age 74 puts him as born 1750. Im sure he's the right one butbthe other one needs to be eliminated. I cannot find a potential marriage for James 2nd to rule him out.
You can find out which Sussex parishes are covered by FamilySearch by going to Code: https://www.familysearch.org/wiki/en/England,_Sussex,_Parish_Registers_(FamilySearch_Historical_Records) I don't know if images are available for all the records, but all the ones I've looked for do have images
The marriage at West Tarring - 1775 Jul 8 James SOWTER bach of Lyminster & Mary HUMPHRY (HUMPHREE) spin otp lic Peculiar of Pagham & Tarring Marriage License 1775 Jul 8 James LOWTER of Leominster, husb.bach. 25 & Mary HUMPHREY of Tarring, 25 So born circa 1750!
Another point for this James being the one born in Burpham thank you. what I really need is a marriage for his parents Richard and Mary. They had their first child as far as I can tell in 1744 so around then, but all searches have proved blank. Thanks Burt.
Firstly nothing new from CDs of parishes I had listed as not in the IGI,. It seems most have been added since. The key seems to be the name Francis, as before your forebear, born 1786, James, born 1750 has a brother Francis. There is no other Francis anywhere in the family. Which suggests the name came through the wife of James. I have checked the IGI with a search for a Mary, no surname, daughter of Francis during the correct number of years and the only one that comes and shouts at me is Mary the daughter of Francis & Jane KNOWLES 1818 Oct 22 at Burpham. I see there are no marriages entered at Burpham between 1739 and 1746 which is where it would be expected to be. The answer for the poor keeping of the Register may have been the great Typhus Epidemic that reached its height in the winter of 1741 and wiped out francis Knowles, his wife Jane and three of their children, leaving Mary the eldest, and the two youngest aged 13 and 10. This epidemic affected persons over 10 years old apparently more so, I have copies of the MIs for them as well as for James at Lyminster which again gives his age as 74, dying on October 18th. I checked Mr Leeson's Marriage Index thoroughly in every way possible with no result. I will let you digest this before I give you fuller details, and there is much more.
On Wickitree, there's a James Sowter born Amberley 1836, father Clement, mother Ruth Hedger, 12 children altogether, I don't know if he's one of yours but too early I think for the one you want.
Nope too late. My Richard and Mary, who had James in 1750 had their first child in Burpham in 1744, these are their children's baptisms according to Familysearch. , Richard Souter M 24 Jun 1744 William Souter M 10 Jul 1746 William Sowter M 28 Jul 1746 Francis Soutar M 23 Dec 1748 James Sowter M 25 Nov 1750 John Souter M 24 Feb 1754 Jane Souter F 01 May 1757 Thomas Robt Sowter M 01 May 1757.
Thank you for looking Burt, that Mary born 1818 would be too late for the Mary, wife of Richard. Since they were the first family of souters to pitch up in Burpham, Richard must have come from somewhere else. I found these Richards by branching out a bit: Amberley 1717 quite possible as he would have been about 27 in 1744 Amberley 1789 too late Easebourne 1730 too late? Walberton none What do you think?? Oo just checked and you meant 1718 that would fit very very nicely
