Missing data

[Pauline]

St Thomas' is where Sarah was baptised and therefore her 'home' parish.

This is another thing that is puzzling me a bit. As far as I can see, Peter and Eleanor were back in St Margaret Westminster in 1764 as they had appear to have had a daughter baptised there that year. There are also burials there of a Peter Livingstone (1764) and Eleanor Livingstone (1773), and if these relate to Sarah's parents (no identifying details are given), it perhaps seems a bit surprising that Sarah was back in Portsmouth in 1780. Or did she go and live with relatives in Portsmouth after her parents died?

 

[Pauline]

Please tell me if I'm barking up completely the wrong family tree here, but following up on the St Margaret Westminster link, with this being given as Peter Livingstone's residence on his 1746 marriage licence, the child of Peter and Eleanor baptised there in 1764 was an Eleanor Wilmott Livingston.

Eleanor Willmott Livingston married William Diggens at St George Hanover Square in 1795, the witnesses being Alexander and Sarah Cowie. Alexander Cowie married Sarah Livingston in 1789, also at St George Hanover Square. Alexander and Sarah had two daughters whose births were registered at Dr Williams' Library in 1809, at which her father was given as Peter Livingston, and present at the births was Eleanor Diggens.

So is this just a coincidence, or could it relate to the same Peter and Eleanor Livingston(e) who were in Portsmouth?

 

[ann42]

I am sorry if I have upset members by "drip-feeding information", but I do not see how this can be avoided in such a discussion. My basic query was to find the first marriage of Josiah - what is indisputable is that he had been married & widowed before 1780.
I have seriously considered and investigated at length, the possibility of Sarah Livingston/Levingston being the mother of all the children born to Josiah 1770-1791, but on the evidence so far this presents several problems.
1 why wait until 1780 to marry ?
2 what does the name Rummey for the first child signify ?
3 Sarah's birth would have to be prior to 1754 and I have been unable to find any possible candidate in any location. I know one should never assume, but ................

On specific points raised - I mentioned in my original post that the name Wadge had variants and alluded to this in stating Sarah's name. As further records have become available over the years it can be seen that usually by the time someone is apprenticed, joins the military or marries, the correct spelling is used - in James' case, this occurred in 1790 when he was press-ganged at the age of 15. For the sake of consistency I use the correct spelling (with notes in my file about any variations).

 

[peter]

Please tell me if I'm barking up completely the wrong family tree here

Pauline, it all sounds very plausible. In your searches did you notice that there was a James Levingston who had a daughter Mary (1751) and son James (1756) baptised at St Mary, Portsea? Since the surety for the 1780 licence was a James Levington there is a good chance of a family connection. Unfortunately I can't find a Sarah baptised to a James around the right time, but maybe you can.

 

[ann42]

Pauline - I too had Eleanor Wilmot as a possible sister to Sarah - she was defiitely the daughter of the couple I believe to be Sarah's parents.
However, after your latest post I am really puzzled at the appearance of another marriage for a Sarah Livingstone. There was one b 1765 to John & Sarah in Westminster, but you say the one married to Alexander Cowie had he father recorded as Peter.
Not sure what to think nor where to turn now ....................

 

[Pauline]

In your searches did you notice that there was a James Levingston who had a daughter Mary (1751) and son James (1756) baptised at St Mary, Portsea?

No, I was focussing on Peter and Eleanor, but as you say, the James from the licence was quite likely connected to Sarah somehow. I’ll try and have a look later and see if anything catches my eye.

 

[ann42]

I also believed that James was connected to Sarah but have been unable to find any evidence of a family conection.
Pauline - as you mentioned, a query arises as to why Sarah "returned to Portsmouth". I thought it likely that as her parents both died when she was a child, she may have gone to live with her relative James ?

 

[Pauline]

This all seems to come back to the questions Peter and I were asking yesterday (#18 & 19) - is there any corroborating evidence that the 1760 baptism relates to the Sarah Livingstone who married Josiah Wadge?

 

[Susan48]

Peter and Eleanor Livingstone had 4 children baptised at St Thomas's Portsmouth between 1756 and 1762, at 2 year intervals, so it seems likely that the children were baptised soon after birth. This is clutching at straws, but is it possible that Sarah was born before 1760 and baptised later rather than soon after birth?

 

[peter]

Peter and Eleanor Livingstone had 4 children baptised at St Thomas's Portsmouth between 1756 and 1762, at 2 year intervals, so it seems likely that the children were baptised soon after birth. This is clutching at straws, but is it possible that Sarah was born before 1760 and baptised later rather than soon after birth?

It's something I initially considered, but thanks to Pauline's efforts the evidence is stacking up that they aren't the parents of the Sarah who married Josiah.

 

[ann42]

This all seems to come back to the questions Peter and I were asking yesterday (#18 & 19) - is there any corroborating evidence that the 1760 baptism relates to the Sarah Livingstone who married Josiah Wadge?

I have replied to this - that the reason I had them as Sarah's parents is because I could find no other likely candidate which I realise is assumption, but not evidence.
The father of Sarah b 1760 was a Captain in the Marines

 

[peter]

I am sorry if I have upset members by "drip-feeding information", but I do not see how this can be avoided in such a discussion.

If you refer to the Masterclass Before you ask for help by Dr Janet Few, you will see an example of how to set out the information you have.

the reason I had them as Sarah's parents is because I could find no other likely candidate which I realise is assumption, but not evidence

One of the reasons we can run up against a 'brick wall' is because we have made incorrect assumptions. The Masterclass How to overcome 'brick walls' warns:

"we always have to have in the back of our minds the possibility that what we've been told, or what we've read in a register or on a certificate isn't true - at least until we have found so much supporting evidence that we have to accept its veracity "

The more difficulty we have knocking down a 'brick wall', the more likely it is that we have made an incorrect assumption.

My basic query was to find the first marriage of Josiah - what is indisputable is that he had been married & widowed before 1780

There are plenty of examples of women who claimed to be widowed when they married for the first time, so I wouldn't rule out the possibility that a man might do the same.

Of course, it's very difficult to be as objective about our own research as we are about the research of others, which is why it can be so beneficial to collaborate with or ask for help from other experienced researchers. Even the process of setting out the information clearly as Dr Few recommends can lead us to question our assumptions, or suggest additional avenues for research. But even if you don't solve the problem that way, when you do ask others for help they will be in a much better position to assist you.

 

[ann42]

"There are plenty of examples of women who claimed to be widowed when they married for the first time, so I wouldn't rule out the possibility that a man might do the same."

I think that possibility is remote - as the couple eventually married however, would this be beneficial ?

Another query results from this marriage - supposing Sarah was less than 21 & parents were indeed both deceased and she had no official guardian to give their consent, what would she do ?

 

[Pauline]

I have replied to this

Yes, I appreciate that mostly you have, but not to my specific question as to whether Sarah was given as a minor on the 1780 marriage licence. You said her age was not given but earlier you had implied she'd been given as a minor, and I just wanted to clarify this.

I'm happy to keep looking at things to see if I can find any answer to your original question, if you would like me to, but it would help to know whether or not Sarah was a minor in 1780.

supposing Sarah was less than 21 & parents were indeed both deceased and she had no official guardian to give their consent, what would she do ?

With no parent or guardian to give permission, then normally she would have been able to marry without consent. There was someone in my family who was in that position and he married as a minor. There was a licence but I'm not sure if that was necessary or just that her family wanted it.

 

[ann42]

Thanks for clarifying that last point Pauline.
Apologies for the confusion earlier - poorly expressed, I was assuming I had her baptism correct. There are now serious doubts about her parentage and to that end I have decided to research both Sarah & James anew.
One interesting thing has already arisen - on 10 April 1791, James Wadge s/o James and Refraim Livingstone was baptised at Bursledon, Hants. They had married there 24 Dec 1783.
Too much of a coincidence ??? Wadge was a name virtually unknown in Hants then.

 

[Pauline]

Too much of a coincidence ???

Certainly worth investigating, as you never know what you might find until you look. Sometimes these things do turn out to be just coincidence, but you never know.

Looking at the James Levingston (spelt variously) who had two children baptised at St Mary, Portsea in the 1750s, I didn't spot any more than Peter has already mentioned, except: a James Levingston was buried there in May 1780. (I don't think that's been mentioned before, has it?)

I don't know what the date on the licence was but this burial was before Josiah and Sarah married in December 1780. Unfortunately there are no clues in the burial register as to which James was buried - maybe the father, maybe the son, maybe another James Levingston altogether, but it may be something to keep in mind.

 

[peter]

supposing Sarah was less than 21 & parents were indeed both deceased and she had no official guardian to give their consent, what would she do ?

She wouldn't have been able to marry by licence if she was under 21 and had no legal guardian, but she could have married by banns. It would make the decision to marry by licence perverse.

With regard to the licence, are you relying on the summary in the book that's online at Ancestry & Findmypast, or have you seen the actual document.

 

[peter]

Wadge was a name virtually unknown in Hants then.

If that's the case I would suggest making a note of this burial:

Ann Wodge
Burial
13 Apr 1780
Southampton: South Stoneham

 

[Pauline]

She wouldn't have been able to marry by licence if she was under 21 and had no legal guardian, but she could have married by banns. It would make the decision to marry by licence perverse.

My relative was not quite 19 when he married by licence, despite having no legal guardian to consent.

EDIT: that was in 1826

 

[ann42]

With regard to the licence, are you relying on the summary in the book that's online at Ancestry & Findmypast, or have you seen the actual document.[/QUOTE]

I saw the actual document many years ago & have a copy of it somewhere - will try & dig it out.

Re Ann Wodge burial - I had that & looking at the image, think it was Ann Wedge - there were a number of Wedge entries for that area of Hants but I investigated & found no sign of a connection with the Cornish Wadges. There was also an Anne Wedge buried in March 1780 in Bosham Sussex, but again I spent time researching this Bosham family in the past & found no connection.