Working from the transcribed sources listed on Genuki Wellington site, I have extracted the following entries. Some are clearly linked, others are subject to conjecture. The name Philip Thorne features frequently. Philip Thorne/Mary Tomes married 29 Dec 1784. Children of Philip and Mary - Susannah 15 Mar 1790. Samuel 20 Mar 1792. Is it safe to assume this is the same family? Philip Thorne married Lydia Stradling 11 Aug 1792. Is this the same Philip? If so, when did Mary, his first wife die? Children of Philip and Lydia. - Hannah, 22 Aug 1793, Nathaniel, 5 Feb 1797, Elizabeth, 11 Sep 1799, Mary 2 Jul 1809. Jane, born 21 Aug 1812, baptised 23 Jul 1828. Susan, born 21 Aug 1815, baptised 23 Dec 1827. ( both " late Philip and Lydia") John, born 26 Dec 1817, baptised 25 Jun 1837. (Late Philip and late Lydia) When/where were Philip and Lydia born and buried? Hannah Thorne married James Winter 21 Nov 1815. As Hannah Winter, married John Ingram 4 Sep 1829. In 1841 Hannah aged 48, in 1851 aged 37/57? Death registered Mar Q 1856, age 63. Was she Hannah, daughter of Philip, born 1793? I would appreciate any help to consolidate/ contradict what seems could be one integrated sequence of events.
FMP has a transcription and it states Philip is a batchelor and Lydia a Spinster. There does seem to be more than one Philip Thorn[e] in Wellington There is another marriage 19/3/1773 for a Philip Thorne to Sarah Stradling both are spinster and batchelor
Family Search has the baptisms of the children of Philip and Lydia and claim them to be from the 'non conformist indexes 1588-1976' There is this little extra snippet but with no indication of where it came from
Molly May. Thanks for your input. So the Philip Thorne/Mary Tomes marriage can be eliminated from the sequence. As for the other queries the choice seems to be between "probable" "possible" and " anyone's guess". The search continues.
Witnesses Mary Stradling, John Fouracre, John Lucas (transcription of BT's) He a batchelor, she a widow witnesses William Glass, Ann Stradling (transcription of BT's) So makes these a probable rather than anyone's guess
Thank you, Molly May. I was reasonably happy with Hannah's parentage and marriages - I had noticed the Standling connections - but it is good to have your independent scrutiny and concurrence. It is so easy to see what you want to see and overlook/disregard any thing that does not "fit".
