Baptisim of Samuel Noakes Pursglove in Mayfield East Sussex

[TrevorFranklin]

I havd had a puzzle in my Pursglove research for some time.
I do know that a Samuel Noakes Pursglove married Annesly Killick in Dartford kent and all the subsequent Census and descendent details of the family in Buxted in Sussex (so do not require any of this).
The marriage certificate I have states his father was Samuel Noakes Pursglove, and the father's occupation was farmer.
This was a lie and I have been trying to find who Samuel that married Annesly was.

I have been handed a note that someone had in their research notes of a SAMUEL NOAKES PURSGLOVE baptised 01 August 1816, Wartling - Mother: SARAH PURSGLOVE, but I have not been able to find this recorded on any online source.

Does anyone have access to battism records of this area at this time and could check this for me?

Thanks
Trev

[Darksecretz]

erm trev can you make your text abit bigger please it is very tiny....

[Darksecretz]

LDS have his bapt: 2nd one down..

https://www.familysearch.org/search/records#count=20&query=%2Bgivenname%3Asamuel~%20%2Bsurname%3Apurseglove~%20%2Bmother_givenname%3Asarah~

[TrevorFranklin]

That's really weird, as IGI was my first place of checking and it did not come up on the results when I put it in :-~

Shame it gives no father.
I have a good assumption who Sarah was and if it is correct here parents were not poor, so there was no need for registering the father with the parish for support payments

[Christine in Herts]

You're saying that the father's name is the same as the groom's name?

This is not unusual in cases where the father's name would accurately have been given as "unknown". In the context of a wedding, admitting illegitimacy was very embarrassing and people would invent or tweak their information to meet social expectations. I have an ancestor, John STRATFORD, whose father's name, at the time of his marriage, was (apparently) also John STRATFORD - a farmer. At his baptism in 1820, the description of his parentage was encompassed by: "This child is believed to have been born in the parish about three years ago. Mother's present residence unknown."

Christine

PS - I hope you don't mind me tweaking your font-size in post #1. I found it hard to read, too, and was on the point of giving up the task as too much like hard work, when it's supposed to be a fun activity.

[Darksecretz]

which LDS site were you looking at Trevor? was it the 'old' search that begins with http? or the new that is https?

[Darksecretz]

the reason I ask is that the new site ONLY has extracts on it, whereas the old site has both submitted/extracted., makes me wonder if this is why Hugh Wallis site is 'down' as they have moved all the extracted entries to the new LDS site??

[Darksecretz]

and I have just found it on the 'old lds' site too.... though it was right at the bottom of the page, (and the font is soo tiny now its unreal on LDS old site.)

[Jill on the A272]

SFHG also has Samuel's baptism transcribed exactly as you have it already.

[Olde Crone Holden]

Doesn't matter if they were rich or poor, the parish had an interest in knowing who the father was. Fortunes can change overnight.
If you went to the actual parish register, it might say who the father was, although I expect his surname was Noakes!

OC