Unconfigured Ad Widget

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

same person? and another puzzle!

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • same person? and another puzzle!

    I knew that Ann Brownbill married Thomas Crowfoot 26/5/1738 Tarvin,Cheshire. While looking at Family search Record Pilot I discovered that her name is given as Ann Brownbill or Prince.I could only find one suitable entry for a birth,which was Ann Brownbill 4/6/1716,Tarvin,father Johnathan. I decided to look for Johnathan's marriage,thinking that his wife might be called Prince,but the only one I found was Johnathan Brownbill to Ann Baugh 9/6/1715 Tarporley.
    I then had a look to see if I could find any others with this combination of names,and found;
    Ann Brownbill or Prince bur.30/11/1677.Tarporley, father John Brownbill or Prince.
    Hannah Brownbill alias Prince m. Philip Chorley 26/10/1714,Tarporley.
    Hannah Priance or Brownbill m. John Burroughs 27/12/1738,Tarvin.

    I would like to find out;
    1) Is the Ann Brownbill who married Thomas Crowfoot the same one whose father is Johnathan?
    2)Is it the Johnathan who is father to Ann the same one who married Ann Baugh?
    In other words are Johnathan and Ann "my" Ann's parents?
    Fran
    3)What is all this Prince business about?

  • #2
    If you were just referring to a woman having an alternate name then I would say a first marriage and a maiden name but the reference to her father being either or is very confusing. Perhaps there is some illegitimacy going on here starting with Jonathan Brownbill or Prince. Can you see a baptism for him?
    I would also think that John is short for Johnathan so I suspect you are looking at the same people.
    Margaret

    Comment


    • #3
      Thanks Margaret,
      There are two different Anns;one buried 1677 and "mine" born 1716,so I suppose that John is not Johnathan.I'm sorry but at the moment I don'y have any other information.
      Fran

      Comment


      • #4
        I have noticed in my Cheshire and Lancashire families of this era, that when an "either or" surname is given, it is referring to the fact that the person's parents either did not marry in the established church of the time...or they did, lol.

        That makes no sense to you of course, but if the couple married during the interregnum, then the Vicar/Priest would not consider them to be married. If they married in a secret church ceremony during the interregnum, then certain other Vicars would not consider them to be married.

        In my family it is further complicated by the fact that they were known to be secret Roman Catholics and had married in a secret ceremony. The "alias" bit is the nearest the (C of E) Vicar dare come to accusing them of being RC. Memorioes lived long in the country parishes and some of mine were still being called "alias" a hundred years later.

        OC

        Comment


        • #5
          Thanks for that O.C.I have come across some Cheshire records which state that the person referred to is R.C.but had no idea that "alias/or" could mean the same thing.I suppose if I could trace back far enough I would find someone called Prince.
          Fran

          Comment

          Working...
          X