Hello Michael and Grant and Christine anyone else who might be
interested,
Probably not 100% proof but very close to it. Michael do you have a
better counter argument ?
I reckon the evidence that suggests that William and Christopher were
NOT brothers and that Elizabeth and Jane Male were NOT sisters is
overwhelming. We discussed this at tremendous length last July. I
have posted the most pertinent links below which flesh out what I
have said above. I do know that a few webpages have jumped the gun
and actually posted William and Christopher as brothers and the Male
girls as sisters. It would be a very good story and very convenient,
one which I myself wanted to believe for a while.
http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/read/CHANT/2006-07/1152834448
http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/read/CHANT/2006-07/1153003687
http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/read/CHANT/2006-07/1152925039
http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/read/CHANT/2006-07/1152928902
http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/read/CHANT/2006-07/1152929357
http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/read/CHANT/2006-07/1152943820
Regards,
Sean
On 08/07/2007, at 9:58 AM, Michael Cheeseman wrote:
Not sure that's proof
Maybe if both marriages of each William Chant and the one for
Christopher
Chant
recorded in a parish register with full entry details known. That
one stated
William Chant son of Robert
married someone not Elizabeth Male and the other Parish marriage entry
stated William Chant
son of ? married Elizabeth Male daughter of ? and the marriage
entry stated
for Christopher
Chant at ? son of Robert married Jane Male daughter of (different
fathers
name to Elizabeth Male)
that would make a strong case.
Christine could be right, but not sure certainty has been shown.
Pre 1837
born lines are always hard to
state as certain. It's always a problem when we have Chant people
with the
same first names in
numerious places by the 17 and 1800's. They definately moved about
more than
we give credit for
making it even more difficult as we know from examples such as the
Oborne,
Beaminster, Yeovil,
Horsington, Holwell, Hayden etc Chant lines and of course those
that went
overseas.
regards
Michael
-----Original Message-----
From: chant-bounces(a)rootsweb.com [mailto:chant-bounces@rootsweb.com]On
Behalf Of Christine Ellis
Sent: Saturday, 7 July 2007 10:10 PM
To: gvmartin(a)iprimus.com.au; chant(a)rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: [CHANT] Thomas and Henry Chant
Hallo Grant
I presume your comments are directed to me in response to my reply to
Michaels' statement.
I always endeavour to make definite statements based on documented
evidence
and would always mention if my comments were only based on
supposition so
can only say that there is definite proof that there are two different
couples.
Firstly your William and Elizabeth nee Male (born Barrington) who,
as of
course you know, is Widowed by the time she is listed on the 1851
census
with her children and migrates to Australia in 1855.
The second William, of Odcombe, son of Robert and Sarah nee
Kellaway and
brother of Christopher and Jane nee Male (apparently born Shepton
Beauchamp
and from other postings not a sister Elizabeth Male ), was living
in Odcombe
on the 1841 and 1851 census with his wife (born East Chinnock) and
daughter.
He dies in Odcombe and is buried there, as I mentioned, in 1859,
and his
Widow and unmarried daughter continue to live in Odcombe appearing
in the
1861/1871 and 1881 census.
Regards
Christine nee Chant (an Odcombe Chant)
-----Original Message-----
From: chant-bounces(a)rootsweb.com [mailto:chant-
bounces(a)rootsweb.com] On
Behalf Of GV Martin
Sent: Saturday, 7 July 2007 5:03 PM
To: chant(a)rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: [CHANT] Thomas and Henry Chant
What proof to say that he didn't marry as Michael said? What proof
to say he
did marry?
Grant
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database: 269.10.1/889 - Release Date:
6/07/2007
8:00 PM
-------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to CHANT-
request(a)rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes
in the subject and the body of the message