John Farley and his wives

[Phoenix]

My ancestor Mary Farley was bp 22 April 1677 in Cranleigh (then usually spelt Cranley) the daughter of John Farley.

John had married Jane Carter probably September 7 1669:
https://search.findmypast.co.uk/record?id=GBPRS%2FSURREY%2FCRA_1_2%2F037&parentid=PRS%2FSURREY%2FMAR%2F0286537%2F2


Jane was buried 2 May 1677
https://www.ancestry.co.uk/discoveryui-content/view/1315190:4790?tid=&pid=&queryId=069dd6f6-ef71-4eff-9d60-14efc7b05368&_phsrc=nUX11835&_phstart=successSource


With a new born baby and small children on his hands, John rushed straight out and remarried, to Joan Ticnor:
https://www.ancestry.co.uk/imageviewer/collections/4790/images/40761_311933-00073?pId=6314657


Okay, the handwriting is challenging, and two pages cover marriages for the same rough period, but this is all in one parish.


I haven't bothered to enter this on my Ancestry tree. Lots of others have plunged in.



At some stage, someone thought that Mary was indeed born in Cranleigh in 1677. 18 May, 1677. When Jane is dead. And they show Joan as the mother. :eek:


I sort of despair. The errors compound. Mary's own marriage is short lived. But she doesn't hike off to Ruislip and pretend her husband is still alive. She is living in Dunsfold, Surrey by this stage and like her father before her, remarries.... though she does leave a decent interval.


Is there any point in explaining this to fellow researchers? Or do I keep the story to myself?

[Merry]

I could accept people deciding that Joan was the mother if they had only seen the July 1677 marriage and that Mary was baptised the April before with no mother recorded - So they assumed the child was born just before the marriage. The bit I struggle with is:

Someone thought that Mary was indeed born in Cranleigh in 1677. 18 May, 1677.

Did they just make this up? It's not as if they chose a date to make her legitimate, so why 'decide' on a date that is still before the marriage? I presume they never looked for more children for John before the birth of Mary?

Would I bother telling anyone? Definitely not!! In the past I might have tried, but most people are unreceptive, so why bother and raise your blood pressure unnecessarily.

[Olde Crone]

I agree with Merry, it's pointless. I have come to the conclusion that those who are genuinely interested in having the correct family tree don't blindly accept other people's "research". The rest are, as I once saw on another site "too stupid to do genealogy" anyway, haha.

OC

[Merry]

lol OC!!

(Every time I look at the title of this thread it reminds me of The Two Ronnies over the rusk company!)

[Phoenix]

Thanks, guys.

I haven't checked the Sussex parish registers, but the reason for an exact date of birth was because one Meary Farlye was bp 4 June 1677, daughter of John and Jonn in Lewes, Sussex. I presume the date of birth was mentioned because the baptism was so late.

Lewes???!! To get there from Cranleigh in the 1670s, even in summer, would be a long and difficult journey. I wouldn't fancy doing it today on public transport.

[Sue from Southend]

I think a lot of American researchers (our members excepted, of course!) have no notion of distances in the UK. I was looking at a tree earlier this week where the father of a man born in Rochdale, Lancashire in 1615, was given a birth in 1587 in Southampton and a burial in 1667 in Northamptonshire! I'll not bother telling the tree owner that I've found a burial in Rochdale for the father shortly after the birth of his son....

[Phoenix]

I think a lot of American researchers (our members excepted, of course!) have no notion of distances in the UK. I was looking at a tree earlier this week where the father of a man born in Rochdale, Lancashire in 1615, was given a birth in 1587 in Southampton and a burial in 1667 in Northamptonshire! I'll not bother telling the tree owner that I've found a burial in Rochdale for the father shortly after the birth of his son....

:eek::rolleyes:

[Janet]

I think a lot of American researchers (our members excepted, of course!) have no notion of distances in the UK. I was looking at a tree earlier this week where the father of a man born in Rochdale, Lancashire in 1615, was given a birth in 1587 in Southampton and a burial in 1667 in Northamptonshire! I'll not bother telling the tree owner that I've found a burial in Rochdale for the father shortly after the birth of his son....

You're so right, Sue. I remember Elizabeth gently asking me many years ago why I was looking so far afield for my family who turned out, of course, all to be born and died within a radius of 5 or 6 miles.

[marquette]

Thanks, guys.

I haven't checked the Sussex parish registers, but the reason for an exact date of birth was because one Meary Farlye was bp 4 June 1677, daughter of John and Jonn in Lewes, Sussex. I presume the date of birth was mentioned because the baptism was so late.

Lewes???!! To get there from Cranleigh in the 1670s, even in summer, would be a long and difficult journey. I wouldn't fancy doing it today on public transport.



The SFHG database gives the dates as

Birth 18 May 1676 and baptism as 4 Jun 1676, to John and Jonn.

John and Jonn (Jone) also baptised John in 1679, Ann in 1675, Thomas 1681 at St Thomas of Canterbury at Cliffe, Lewes.

I don't believe it's the same family.

Don't try to convince anyone, they either won't believe you or won't bother to change their records.

I have one like this, most early on had a baptism in Wantage Berks as for my 4xg grandmother, but that seemed an awfully long difficult journey to meet up with her husband from Sparsholt, Hampshire. I found a better match for her, also in Sparsholt, but I hugged the information to myself for a long time.