Profile | Posted by | Options | Post Date |
|
Sarah
|
Report
|
24 Jul 2015 15:54 |
I have come to a grinding halt with my search. I am looking for information on Mary Rook from Awre, Gloucestershire born c1796-98. I believe if I can trace her family I may be able to get some answers. If anyone has any suggestions I would be grateful!
Thanks,
Sarah
|
|
+++DetEcTive+++
|
Report
|
24 Jul 2015 17:13 |
What is the latest record you have found? Are you focussing in the UK or America?
To see if anyone else is researching Sarah, use the Search All Member trees function on this site, and send any tree owners a message.
|
|
BeverleyW
|
Report
|
24 Jul 2015 17:51 |
Is this her marriage?
Name: Thomas Heyett Spouse's Name: Mary Rook Event Date: 17 Nov 1827 Event Place: Awre With Blakeney, Gloucester, England
Where do American Indians come into the picture?
|
|
malyon
|
Report
|
24 Jul 2015 18:06 |
cant find a birth for mary but found the marriage beverleyw put on above
|
|
malyon
|
Report
|
24 Jul 2015 18:16 |
could be their children
Reuben Hyett England Births and Christenings Name: Reuben Hyett Gender: Male Christening Date: 17 Aug 1829 Christening Place: AWRE WITH BLAKENEY,GLOUCESTER,ENGLAND Father's Name: Thomas Hyett Mother's Name: Mary
Rachel Hyett England Births and Christenings, 1538-1975 christening: 15 September 1833 BLAKENEY, GLOUCESTER, ENGLAND father: Thomas Hyett mother: Mary
Simon Peter Hyett England Births and Christenings, 1538-1975 christening: 30 August 1835 BLAKENEY, GLOUCESTER, ENGLAND father: Thomas Hyett mother: Mary
|
|
MargaretM
|
Report
|
24 Jul 2015 18:38 |
Who is supposed to be related to American Indians?
|
|
BeverleyW
|
Report
|
24 Jul 2015 20:14 |
1841
Name: Thomas Hyett Age: 45 Estimated birth year: abt 1796 Gender: Male Where born: Gloucestershire, England Civil Parish: Dean Forest Hundred: St Briavells County/Island: Gloucestershire Country: England Registration district: Westbury on Severn Sub-registration district: Newnham Piece: 364 Book: 5 Folio: 27 Page Number: 26
Thomas Hyett 45 Rueben Hyett 12 Rachel Hyett 6 Simon Hyett 5
Mary isn't there but in 1851 Thomas still says he is married.
Is it possible that Mary was previously married and Rook was not her maiden name? Getting on for 30 was fairly late for a first marriage in those days.
|
|
malyon
|
Report
|
24 Jul 2015 21:01 |
if mary was married previously this might be her
Mary James England Births and Christenings Name: Mary James Gender: Female Christening Date: 17 Jan 1796 Christening Place: AWRE WITH BLAKENEY,GLOUCESTER,ENGLAND Birth Date: 28 Nov 1795 Father's Name: Philip James Mother's Name: Mary Wanklyn
|
|
Cynthia
|
Report
|
25 Jul 2015 11:07 |
Welcome to the Community boards Sarah.
(I will let Sarah know how to find her replies) :-)
|
|
Cynthia
|
Report
|
25 Jul 2015 11:49 |
Looking at the Gloucestershire parish records for the baptism of Mary ROOK, there are just these two.
1777 ROOK Mary Henry Alice Baptism Littledean
1808 ROOK Mary Thomas Phillis Baptism Littledean
However, there is this......and there could easily be a mistranscription of the surname along the way.
1796 ROCK Mary daughter of Richard and Sarah Baptism Blaisdon.
Blaisdon is about 7 miles from Awre.
|
|
malyon
|
Report
|
25 Jul 2015 12:58 |
cold this be mary's death
Deaths Jun 1850 (>99%) HYETT Mary Westbury on S. 11 370
|
|
BeverleyW
|
Report
|
25 Jul 2015 13:35 |
In 1851 Thomas states himself to be married.
|
|
Cynthia
|
Report
|
25 Jul 2015 20:26 |
1796 HYETT Thomas Robert Sarah (nee Summers) Baptism Awre Baptised privately in the Blakeney chapel.
|
|
Sarah
|
Report
|
27 Jul 2015 09:48 |
Hi All,
Thanks so much for the replies, I really appreciate it.
I will try to answer all of the questions if I can.
There are numerous people I have contact with on this site who all have Mary Rook listed on their trees - which I have access to and in most cases have had contact with. Everyone can find Mary's children Marriage etc, but everyone reaches a dead end when trying to access any information about her earlier life or birth/baptism. Thankyou to those of you who have listed some baptism records - I will have a look at those.
The American Indian connection - sorry but this is a long story.... basically I am a direct ancester of her son Simon Hyatt/Hyett (even Heyett at times!) Simon was born in Gloucester (1835) but moved to Stoke-on-Trent for work (coal mining). However while in Stoke he opened a Herbalist shop, claiming to have the knowledge of a medicine man, he was well known in the area and reported to have cured a number of aliments. He was of darker complexion and claimed that his family was from a 'mulatta' American Indian tribe (mulatta - usually means mixed race american indian/white or even black slaves) My great-grandmother (Simon's grand-daughter) passed on numerous stories about her grandfather, and she herself had incredibly thick jet black hair and slightly darker complexion.
While I have proved that Simon himself was born in the UK and so was his father, paternal grandparents etc, I concluded that the connection may have had something to do with his Mother, Mary Rook - and as no one I could find could find a record of her birth or parents - I wondered if she could be the missing link.
I have spoken to numerous other branches of the Hyatt family - and there are lots of them as Simon had 15 children - a large number have heard similar American Indian stories.
My Grandfather - was always fascinated by the stories of his great-grandfather and was always desperate to find the truth - I started this to find the truth for my Grandad - and although he is now no longer with us I am still determined to get to the bottom of it - but seem to have got stuck in a rut! :-(
Thanks again everyone for your support!
Sarah x
|
|
MargaretM
|
Report
|
27 Jul 2015 10:59 |
I believe the term mulatto refers to a child born to a white parent and a black one but not American Indian.
|
|
ArgyllGran
|
Report
|
27 Jul 2015 19:14 |
I agree with Margee. There may well have been a black ancestor, but not American Indian - sounds like a family myth. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mulatto
http://www.gloucestershire.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=26307&p=0 (Mentions George Bristol, "a black" baptised in Awre in 1733.)
http://tinyurl.com/ppjzsht
|
|
ArgyllGran
|
Report
|
27 Jul 2015 19:27 |
This will be that George Bristol - just for interest:
George Bristol England Births and Christenings Name: George Bristol Gender: Male Christening Date: 03 Oct 1733 Christening Place: AWRE WITH BLAKENEY,GLOUCESTER,ENGLAND Indexing Project (Batch) Number: C02330-2 , System Origin: England-ODM , GS Film number: 91511
|
|
MargaretM
|
Report
|
27 Jul 2015 22:11 |
Actually Native North Americans do not have jet black hair, brown yes, but not jet black and their complexion is not much darker than yours or mine.
Also the title Indian has become derogatory. I used the term Native North American but the proper term is First Nations People. (I just didn't know if you'd know what I meant)
|
|
SylviaInCanada
|
Report
|
28 Jul 2015 04:10 |
I agree with Margee and ArgyllGran
Mulatto was a term given to children of a white and a black parent ............ most commonly of course that would be a situation where a white man had children with one of his slaves as whites and blacks were not allowed to marry.
You should perhaps be looking for a slave owner in either America or possibly the Caribbean islands.
and I agree with Margee that the acceptable description in North America is First Nations ............. Indian or Eskimo are considered derogatory terms. Eskimo is correctly called Inuit.
|
|
Sarah
|
Report
|
28 Jul 2015 15:40 |
As you can imagine I have completed a large amount of research in this area. Mulatto was a term more widely used to describe those of mixed race. There were numerous tribes created known as mulatto tribes often consisting of Native American/black slaves as I previously stated, see the quote below taken from a Native American site,
"Mulattos may also be an a mixture of Native American, South American native and African Americans according to Henings Statutes of Virginia 1705, which reads as follows: “And for clearing all manner of doubts which hereafter may happen to arise upon the construction of this act, or any other act, who shall be accounted a mulatto, Be it enacted and declared, and it is hereby enacted and declared, That the child of an Indian and the child, grand child, or great grand child, of a negro shall be deemed, accounted, held and taken to be a mulatto." Read more at http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com
As far as I am aware the term 'Indian' is not viewed a derogatory by most Native Americans, it is used in the website above, however thanks for raising the point.
To clarify didn't state that anyone was 'dark' skinned, but merely said had a 'slightly' darker complexion. I find it odd to think that the artefacts owned by the family such as the herbal remedies book are 'made up'!
Thanks to all those who have offered help and advice!
Sarah
|