John Scot/Scott 4 X G Grandfather

[borobabs]

Name - "official" name and what they were known as
John Scott

Date and place of birth
??? think Norfolk daughter born Kelverton so she says ;;

Thread here http://www.genealogistsforum.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?t=9726

Names of parents
???

Date and place of baptism - if applicable
???

Details of each of his or her marriages - if any
To Lydia Gay carnt find marriage though

Occupation(s) - if any
???

Addresses where they lived (including county if in UK) - and please list which censuses you have or haven't found him/her on (if s/he lived in census times!)
???

Date, place and cause of death
???

Date and place of burial.
???

Details of will / administration of their estate - if applicable
Memorial inscription - if any
???

[borobabs]

What Im wondering is after searchig for his marriage on new site LDS found this marriage ;;

• spouse:Ann Turner

groom's name: John Scott
bride's name: Ann Turner
marriage date: 11 Sep 1776
marriage place: Ashford, Kent, England
indexing project (batch) number: M01967-0
system origin: England-EASy
source film number: 1736523

as daughter went by by Turner |Scott if this is it and the trees on ancestry are wrong about him Marrying a Lydia Gay

[kiterunner]

as daughter went by by Turner |Scott if this is it

Babs, I don't know where the name Turner-Scott has come from; she is just Ann Turner on her children's baptisms. I wonder whether someone misread the abbreviation for "spinster" on one of the baptisms as Scott? (the Norfolk baptisms often give the marital status of the mother from when she married the father, e.g. Stephen Murton son of John Murton and his wife late Ann Turner spinster). Her father is likely to have the surname Turner.

See this post:
http://genealogistsforum.co.uk/Forum/showpost.php?p=149510&postcount=16

[borobabs]

Oh in that case I would have her father down on ancestry trees , I am doubtful as lots of them have her as america Norfolk but with ancestry you dont know and seems to me no one has checkedthis far back properly no proper sources well not for this coutry