View Full Version : Signature comparision please
Latham marriages (https://search.findmypast.co.uk/record?id=GBPRS/STAFF/007566683/01786&parentid=GBPRS/STAFF/MAR/215350/1)
The first 3 marriages involve people of the surname Latham.
The first two have a witness Samuel Latham and I believe he is the same person.
I am wondering if the third marriage is of Samuel the witness and regardless of whether Samuel the witness and Samuel the groom are one or two people would the 3 marriages on the same day likely mean the 3 Latham people are related?
Thomas Parker Latham is not the brother of Samuel Latham the groom as TPLs brother is too young to get married. I'm just not sure whether Mary is related to TPL or Samuel the groom.
I haven't yet worked out if, or where TPL fits into my tree.
Answered one question - Mary is sister to TPL. She is mentioned by married name in her father's will.
As all three married by licence, if the allegations or bonds survive, these might provide more information.
I'm sure they all are related, but not whether the third marriage is of the witness to the other two. It looks very different - much more like the the writer of the register - but that might be a reaction to the cramped space provided.
I agree the two witness signatures look like they are from the same hand.
At first glace I thought the groom's signature was different because it slopes to the right more. However, looking more closely, is that because he is restricted by having a line above the space where he has to fit his signature? The upstroke on the end of Latham is also flatter, but the childish shape of the 'am' is similar. The groom clearly doesn't usually write his first name in full as the letters are written separately, unlike the letters of his surname.
I don't think I'd want to say for certain he's the same person as the witness, but could be!
Having said that, the witness sig looks a lot like the signature of the father, Samuel, in his 1814 will. The marriage can't be the father's as he was still married to Jane when he died.
As all three married by licence, if the allegations or bonds survive, these might provide more information.
The allegations all survive and show nothing useful. The only interesting thing is that they all applied for the licence on different days. I would have thought they'd have gone together as a job lot.
Having said that, the witness sig looks a lot like the signature of the father, Samuel, in his 1814 will. The marriage can't be the father's as he was still married to Jane when he died.
Samuel who died in 1814 is not the father of Samuel the groom. Samuel the groom did not leave a will as far as I can find.
Thanks for looking. If they are all likely related then I just have to work out the connection. Thanks for the help.
Possibly all the family were gathered together for Christmas, so it seemed a good idea to have a massive knees-up.
So the allegations didn't even state if the parties were single/widowed etc?
Samuel the witness may have been chosen as a responsible family member.
Samuel who died in 1814 is not the father of Samuel the groom. Samuel the groom did not leave a will as far as I can find.
Sorry, no, I meant Samuel who died 1814 was probably the witness at the weddings of his children, Thomas P and Mary. I had wondered if he (Samuel d 1814) was also the 1807 groom, but he can't be because he wasn't ever a widower. I agree that Samuel jr was too young to marry in 1807. So we don't know who Samuel who married in 1807 was, but perhaps a cousin of Thomas P and Mary.
There's a Samuel bap 1783 who could be the groom in 1807. His father is Thomas. There's a will for a Thomas proved 1813 but it only mentions daughters and grandsons as far as I could see from a very quick skim through!
You are spot on Merry, that is who I have as Samuel the groom.
I agree Thomas is his father and I only accept that as Richard Read the executor is the husband of Thomas' daughter Martha.
I've done a bit of a tree for TPL and his sister Mary as I think they fit into the family but not sure how.
Samuel the groom has a father Thomas. Thomas has a father, Samuel who has a brother Thomas of Woore. Samuel and Thomas have a father I have called "related".
TPL and sister Mary have a father Samuel b 1745 who married Jane. Samuel has a father I called "unrelated" until I can work it out. Unrelated has a son Thomas who I think I can now move to Thomas son of related.
I have a question. If a marriage licence states an age of the groom ie 28 and upwards, rather than the standard 21 would that mean the groom was 28? This is in Cheshire but the groom, Thomas, was from Muxton (Mucklestone) so I think he is my Thomas from Woore as his children were born in Woore.
Phoenix the allegations did state single/spinster but it was what I expected so it change anything. I checked the dates as one date of application would have meant, most likely, that they all went together. But you could be right, one applied, told the others over Christmas and so the other 2 couples decided to do the same.
Has anyone heard of Netherstead-hey or Netherstead Hay?
I'm trying to find options for parents for Samuel and Thomas Latham, that I am related to. Given Thomas is born around 1728 it narrows things somewhat.
I have an option of a father John at All Saints, Maddeley but the register says of Netherstead-hey, (or Netherstead Hay) for all the children. Mother Margeret for most children, not mentioned for last 3 incl Thomas and Samuel.
There is another option in Cheshire but I think Staffordshire is more likely. I'll check for wills to see if it helps.
for future reference : John married Margareta Steele 1689 John Latham (https://search.findmypast.co.uk/record?id=GBPRS/STAFF/007566586/00187&parentid=GBPRS/STAFF/MAR/109388/1)
Margaret died 1744 buried Madeley Margaret Latham (https://search.findmypast.co.uk/record?id=GBPRS/STAFF/007566591/00103&parentid=GBPRS/STAFF/BUR/317179) So if this is the right John, his wife Margaret was mother of all children.
John above leaves a wonderful will in 1745 but it does not mention Thomas. A Thomas Latham was buried in 1743 so if that is John's son it means it isn't my family.
*sobs. He named grandchildren, sons and daughters in law.
I have a question. If a marriage licence states an age of the groom ie 28 and upwards, rather than the standard 21 would that mean the groom was 28? This is in Cheshire but the groom, Thomas, was from Muxton (Mucklestone) so I think he is my Thomas from Woore as his children were born in Woore.
How things are recorded will depend on: general rules in place at the time, the instructions of the local church court (bishop, archdeacon etc) and the vagaries of the individual recording the information.
Early allegations often say 40 yrs and upwards, 60 yrs and upwards etc, but the only relevant information post Hardwick's act is that you are capable of committing yourself to marriage, ie over 21.
So...
I would say that the groom probably said he was 28. And as he was literate, he was probably right, as it does not appear to be a rite-of-passage date.
John above leaves a wonderful will in 1745 but it does not mention Thomas. A Thomas Latham was buried in 1743 so if that is John's son it means it isn't my family.
*sobs. He named grandchildren, sons and daughters in law.
Annoying!
I couldn't find anything on Netherstead. Took me a while to realise you were talking about Madeley in Staffordshire not the (much bigger) one in Shropshire which I've been to! lol (takes me back to school - "you didn't read the question through properly before answering" :mad:)
Try Googling Netherset Hey Farm. It's just south-east of Madeley itself.
Took me a while to realise you were talking about Madeley in Staffordshire not the (much bigger) one in Shropshire which I've been to! lol (takes me back to school - "you didn't read the question through properly before answering" :mad:)
I didn't know there were two. Sorry.
Mucklestone is in both Staffordshire and Shropshire (but at one point Shropshire used cc not ck) so I don't think I would have necessarily realised there were 2 places anyway.
Try Googling Netherset Hey Farm. It's just south-east of Madeley itself.
Will do, thanks.
Although it isn't my family. ;(;(
footnote: Pool Hall is a place I love too, Not. That is impossible to google.
Try Googling Netherset Hey Farm. It's just south-east of Madeley itself.
Googling says it is in Cheshire. :eek:
Family should just pick a place to live and never move.
Compare a modern map of Surrey with one two hundred years ago. We have taken a large chunk out of Middlesex (which no longer exists) and lost all our northen parishes to London. The challenge is to find the record office holding the archives for the place - and for Croydon they could be in the local, borough, archives, in Surrey or in London.
All part of life's rich tapestry!
Googling says it is in Cheshire. :eek:
Madeley in Staffordshire has a Crewe (Cheshire) postal code which is probably why it gets listed as Cheshire.
All part of life's rich tapestry!
Sometimes I'd like a poor tapestry. lol
Madeley in Staffordshire has a Crewe (Cheshire) postal code which is probably why it gets listed as Cheshire.
This is very confusing to me. I have no idea of what is where, which does help as I don't rule things out that others that know the country might, but being in one county and having a post code for another is very complicated to me.
I use a Freeware program called Parloc (Parish locator) which is simples to use and gives distances between parishes. You can also ask it for all the parish names within any radius of your starting parish. There are a few other things it can do too, but those are the most useful.
Even then, I often end up looking on a map too as sometimes places are close together, but may have something in their geography keeping people apart such as a wide river with no bridge, or whatever, that Parloc isn't going to tell you about!
I use parloc. I love it but it doesn't include places that aren't parishes.
Then there are times I just forget to use it ...
vBulletin® v3.8.7 PL3, Copyright ©2000-2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.