how do I progress?

[Darksecretz]

I have John BEESTON/BEESON b.1772 Eakring Notts.. he marries Elizabeth ? b. abt. 1788

they are living in Hucknall Torkard, Notts in 1841, they have 9 known children the first being bapt abt 1810 and the last being bapt 1830.

Elizabeth dies and is buried 27th Jan 1850. John her husband dies/buried 20th Apr 1851. I have no idea when or where they married or where Elizabeth comes from OR her maiden name.

can anyone suggest a route I can go down at all? [head is rather foggy today]

1841: http://search.ancestry.co.uk/cgi-bin...iv=1&ml_rpos=2

Source Citation: Class: HO107; Piece: 858; Book: 1; Civil Parish: Hucknall Torkard; County: Nottinghamshire; Enumeration District: 4; Folio: 14; Page: 22; Line: 18; GSU roll: 438905.

1851:http://search.ancestry.co.uk/cgi-bin...iv=1&ml_rpos=1

Source Citation: Class: HO107; Piece: 2127; Folio: 594; Page: 34; GSU roll: 87757.

any help gratefully appreciated thank you.

[SmallTownGirl]

I have John BEESTON/BEESON b.1772 Eakring Notts.. he marries Elizabeth ? b. abt. 1788

they are living in Hucknall Torkard, Notts in 1841, they have 9 known children the first being bapt abt 1810 and the last being bapt 1830.

Just checking! Married in 1788, first child baptised 1810 (i.e. 22 years later), doesn't sound right. Is there a generation missing, perhaps?

[Janet in Yorkshire]

STG - isn't 1788 the year of Elizabeth's birth, rather than the marriage???

Jay

[SmallTownGirl]

STG - isn't 1788 the year of Elizabeth's birth, rather than the marriage???

Jay

Oh yes, so it is! Silly me! :(

[Darksecretz]

Just checking! Married in 1788, first child baptised 1810 (i.e. 22 years later), doesn't sound right. Is there a generation missing, perhaps?

sorry STG, it was my wording!! I meant that Elizabeth ? who married John Beeson/Beeston was born/bapt abt 1788.. [told you I was having a fuzzy day!!]

I *think* I may well have found Johns baptism [Eakring] and his parents marriage in Kirklington in 1777 [is looking like he was born out of wedlock, though the parents both have the same surname of Beeston [Beeson] :conf:

[Darksecretz]

hmm just checked on FS and the marriage there states that Elizabeths MN was STENSON.. not Beeston as I have it on my disc..

[Elaine]

The only one I can find so far is at Beeston St John The Baptist 5 Aug 1807
John Beeson to Elizabeth Jepson

[Darksecretz]

The only one I can find so far is at Beeston St John The Baptist 5 Aug 1807
John Beeson to Elizabeth Jepson

thanks Elaine.. not sure as of yet... I seem to have found another Elizabeth Beeson with the family in 1841 aged 20 so she may have been b. abt 1791 but, if that is so then Elizabeth [the mother] couldn't have been born in 1788 could she?

[Elaine]

There was one before in Trowell but am sure you have that too and younger, wondered if those 2 are related as we are the wrong side of town.

Did you pick up an Elizabeth Beeson marrying Samuel Harvey, Hucknall Torkard St Mary Mag. 1843

[JudithM]

thanks Elaine.. not sure as of yet... I seem to have found another Elizabeth Beeson with the family in 1841 aged 20 so she may have been b. abt 1791 but, if that is so then Elizabeth [the mother] couldn't have been born in 1788 could she?

Elizabeth aged 20 will have been born somewhere between 1816 and 1821 allowing for the rounding down of ages, so I can't see a problem with the mother being born in 1788.

[Darksecretz]

There was one before in Trowell but am sure you have that too and younger, wondered if those 2 are related as we are the wrong side of town.

Did you pick up an Elizabeth Beeson marrying Samuel Harvey, Hucknall Torkard St Mary Mag. 1843

yes I am in touch with a descendant of this Elizabeth/Samuel family, he too is like me and hasn't a clue where her mother comes from.. :(

I think I have got back another generation with John Beeson/Beestons parents going back to Kirklington, just the lack of a flaming marriage that's doin me head in...lol...

[Darksecretz]

Elizabeth aged 20 will have been born somewhere between 1816 and 1821 allowing for the rounding down of ages, so I can't see a problem with the mother being born in 1788.

sorry Judith, my head just hasn't been with it, I don't know why I was thinking what I was, [having a moment!!]

[Darksecretz]

I *think* I may well have found Johns baptism [Eakring] and his parents marriage in Kirklington in 1777 [is looking like he was born out of wedlock, though the parents both have the same surname of Beeston [Beeson] :conf:

I have today had confirmation of this marriage 9th September 1777 @ Kirklington, Notts between John BEESTON & Elizabeth STENTON

thing is now, I have another problem... the 'son' I have paired to this couple.. he is bapt 1772 at Eakring, Notts [I am awaiting confirmation of this bapt from Familysearch] though I do have a record of it in my Baptism disc and it is also on Familysearch site.

how likely would it have been for a child to have been baptised with the parents 'pretending' to be already married??

[ozgirl]

I would have thought it quite common as long as the vicar wasn't aware - they seem to have married in a different parish than the one their son was christened in.

[Darksecretz]

I would have thought it quite common as long as the vicar wasn't aware - they seem to have married in a different parish than the one their son was christened in.

mmmm still not sure, I can't seem to find any other children born to this couple either!.. Kirklington is praps five miles from Eakring.

guess I need to have another look around to see if I can spot any more bapts..*sighs*