Henry Sworn

[Phoenix]

My note-taking lets me down on this ancestor.

He was baptised Henry Sorne, son of William and Mary 12 June 1778 St Martins, Salisbury, Wiltshire.

(a distant cousin pronounces the surname SWorn, but I assume the adoption of the W was an affectation)

His parents were William S(w)orn(e) and Mary Hodges. Although I suspect they married young, I similarly think their children were batch baptised, rather than being multiple births, so he was probably five or six years old.

A bastardy order was issued against him 23 December 1794, describing him as a labourer of Salisbury.

Henry married Mary White 10 January 1795 at St Martins, Wiltshire. No note, but I think this was by licence!

Eldest child was baptised 20th March.

In 1841, Henry is in the Trinity St Hospital, St Martins, Salisbury, aged 70 and shown as independent.

In 1851, Henry is still there, a widowed recipient aged 80 and described as a porter.

He died in 1857 (I think I have his certificate somewhere) and was buried 13th February in St Martins.

[Phoenix]

This is getting more complicated.

Henry is named in the will of Robert Sworn who died 1840. Robert mentions brothers Henry, Thomas and sister Elizabeth Naish, mother of Joseph.

Elizabeth married Samuel Naish in 1784, https://www.ancestry.co.uk/interactive/61189/45582_263021009496_2013-00018/900465073?backurl=http%3a%2f%2fsearch.ancestry.co. uk%2fcgi-bin%2fsse.dll%3fdb%3dWiltshireMarriage%26gss%3dsfs 28_ms_r_db%26new%3d1%26rank%3d1%26gsln%3dsorn*%26g sln_x%3d1%26msypn__ftp%3dWiltshire%252C%2520Englan d%26msypn%3d5290%26msypn_PInfo%3d7-%257C0%257C0%257C3257%257C3251%257C0%257C0%257C0%2 57C5290%257C0%257C0%257C0%257C%26MSAV%3d1%26MSV%3d 0%26uidh%3d9vh&backlabel=ReturnSearchResults

She was 86 when she died, giving a dob of about 1763: https://www.ancestry.co.uk/interactive/61190/45582_263021009496_2046-00138/664623?backurl=http%3a%2f%2fsearch.ancestry.co.uk% 2fcgi-bin%2fsse.dll%3fdb%3dWiltshireDeaths%26gss%3dsfs28 _ms_db%26new%3d1%26rank%3d1%26msT%3d1%26MS_AdvCB%3 d1%26gsfn%3delizabeth%26gsfn_x%3d1%26gsln%3dnaish% 26gsln_x%3d1%26MSAV%3d2%26MSV%3d0%26uidh%3d9vh&backlabel=ReturnSearchResults

Now the only problem is their assumed father, William Sworne is a widower when he marries Mary Hodges. He was previously married to Ann Silby in 1737.

And they had a son William, bp 11 June 1741:
https://www.ancestry.co.uk/interactive/61187/45582_1831109331_1151-00098/33199?backurl=http%3a%2f%2fsearch.ancestry.co.uk%2 fcgi-bin%2fsse.dll%3fdb%3dWiltshireEarlyParish%26gss%3d sfs28_ms_r_db%26new%3d1%26rank%3d1%26MS_AdvCB%3d1% 26gsln%3dsworn*%26gsln_x%3d1%26MSAV%3d2%26MSV%3d0% 26uidh%3d9vh&backlabel=ReturnSearchResults

William junior survived, as William senior is in receipt of charitable gifts, and by 1777 it is his widow who is claiming them.

So, do you reckon there are TWO Williams, married to Mary, both having children at the same time?

Currently, I have one man, with 16 children baptised over a forty year period, two of them after he died!

Henry's baptism is squeezed in right at the foot of the page:

https://www.ancestry.co.uk/interactive/61187/45582_263021009496_2008-00065/1836159?backurl=http%3a%2f%2fsearch.ancestry.co.uk %2fcgi-bin%2fsse.dll%3fdb%3dWiltshireEarlyParish%26gss%3d sfs28_ms_r_db%26new%3d1%26rank%3d1%26MS_AdvCB%3d1% 26gsfn%3dhenry%26gsfn_x%3d1%26gsln%3dsorn*%26gsln_ x%3d1%26MSAV%3d2%26MSV%3d0%26uidh%3d9vh&backlabel=ReturnSearchResults

[kiterunner]

It could be they were baptised after William's death and the register didn't mention that he was dead. I've seen a few such entries before.

When did William and Mary marry?

[Phoenix]

Okay
Timeline for William Sorn/Soarn/Sworn (e) events in Salisbury:

m Ann Silby 1737
bp s/o Wm & Ann 11 May 1741
m Mary Hodges 28 Oct 1757
bur 22 Nov 1765
bp s/o Wm & Mary 27 Dec 1765
bur 15 Oct 1777
m Ann Lodge 4 Jun 1788
bur 11 Oct 1838 aged 80

On the face of it, it looks as if William b 1741 dies 1765 and the next child is bp William in his honour.

This makes sense and means most Ancestry trees are wrong. Whatever else may have happened, a 16 year old widower is extremely improbable.

It is just unfortunate that the William bur 1777 is described as snr in another record. Unless, of course, the transcript I was looking at misinterpreted another abbreviation?

And yes, I agree that the children could well have been baptised after their father's death - and probably to obtain some form of relief.