Genealogy Forum UK

Charles Hackett who married Sarah Hateley
now this Charles his father is james a nailer I think it is the one with wife Catherine White

but on marriage this Charles is age 20 so b 1827
and yet the Charles to that James and Catherine is b 1824
on the census his age varies
so I think that is the correct one
but just to make sure
can we find any other Charles with father James in 1841 in Borough ( halesowen)
http://bcconnections.tribalpages.com/tr ... =932200544

I couldnt see one.
Jo

grangers14 wrote:I couldnt see one.
Jo

thanks Jo
I think that is the correct James
anyone any thoughts

There is a James Hackett Christened 20 April 1788 St Johns Halesowen son of James Hackett and Mary
James Hackett Sr married Mary Gould 30 Nov 1778 St Johns Halesowen
James Hackett otp Bach
Mary Gould opt Spin
Wit: Betty Oler? Joseph Chandler

Thanks Kaye, think Joseph Chandler was a Church Warden? I know there were two lines of Hacketts, one from Halesowen and one from Colwell Herefordshire. They were Thomas and think Elizabeth, have got the notes somewhere, they arrived in Halesowen circa 1760. Best Wishes from Linell.

kdw wrote:There is a James Hackett Christened 20 April 1788 St Johns Halesowen son of James Hackett and Mary
James Hackett Sr married Mary Gould 30 Nov 1778 St Johns Halesowen
James Hackett otp Bach
Mary Gould opt Spin
Wit: Betty Oler? Joseph Chandler

So are we saying that this James father of Charles who married Sarah Hately could be the James with parents here...

http://bcconnections.tribalpages.com/tr ... =787690913

so many James Hacketts!

and there is this one I have put in the notes
JAMES HACKET Christening: 20 SEP 1786 Halesowen, Worcester,Parents: Father: THOMAS HACKET Family Mother: ESTHER Extracted

so we could add the one above as another possible?

The Sarah Hateley is now on bcc
http://bcconnections.tribalpages.com/tr ... =752748791

with Charles Hackett with father James

if anyone wishes to add to the notes on that James please do as an alternative bapt
only in the notes though as we need more proof


unless we wish to run more with this I will archive