Thomas Foley Edward Foley and Martha Dank(e)s More to follow
Posted: Mon May 22, 2023 1:41 pm
Thank you in advance for reading this.
Grail for me is linking the Foley/Cooksey line to the Foleys of Witley Court. As I inch closer to achieving this, I seem to hit further unexpected snags. THis particular conundrum is one of those snags.
Any insight/advice/guidance/help will be very much appreciated.
I have Thomas Foley (born 12th July 1789) identified as the son of Edward Foley (1772) and Martha Dank(e)s
Many Researchers, FTs and the peerage.com have this Thomas marrying Elizabeth Gibson on 23rd December 1804. Unless my basic numeracy is really letting me down, that would mean Thomas was fifteen and a half when he married. This is the first time I've encountered a male marrying this young in this era.
Is this usual/unusual or just incorrect?
The family then emigrates to the US
Thomas Foley and Elizabeth Gibson, both from Staffordshire, England are cited as the parents of Edward Foley (born Feb 4th 1825) on a death certificate issued in Pennsylvania on November 27th 1906
However, I have a Thomas Foley (also born 12th July 1789) marrying Sarah Raybould (although DoB is possibly pot-luck).
I have documentary evidence of a watertight lineage back from the present to this Thomas:
1841 census Thomas Foley 50 born 1791, Sarah Foley 45 born 1796 Belper Row, Dudley
1851 Census Thomas Foley 65 born 1786, Sarah Foley 60, born 1791 Derby End, Belper Row, Dudley
Various children and the mention of a grandson identify this as the same (and correct) family.
In some FTs, this particular version of Thomas has parents identified as Samuel Foley (1739 - 1814) and Hannah (Rhodes)
So, I have two versions of a Thomas Foley born 12th July 1789, who
a) marries two different people
b) has two different sets of parents
I was wondering if anyone else has previously looked into this and hopefully be able to shed some light on this set of relationships before I disappear down even more rabbit-holes.
Or even if you are actively researching this, to be able to collaborate and find some conclusion?
Again, many thanks!
David
Grail for me is linking the Foley/Cooksey line to the Foleys of Witley Court. As I inch closer to achieving this, I seem to hit further unexpected snags. THis particular conundrum is one of those snags.
Any insight/advice/guidance/help will be very much appreciated.
I have Thomas Foley (born 12th July 1789) identified as the son of Edward Foley (1772) and Martha Dank(e)s
Many Researchers, FTs and the peerage.com have this Thomas marrying Elizabeth Gibson on 23rd December 1804. Unless my basic numeracy is really letting me down, that would mean Thomas was fifteen and a half when he married. This is the first time I've encountered a male marrying this young in this era.
Is this usual/unusual or just incorrect?
The family then emigrates to the US
Thomas Foley and Elizabeth Gibson, both from Staffordshire, England are cited as the parents of Edward Foley (born Feb 4th 1825) on a death certificate issued in Pennsylvania on November 27th 1906
However, I have a Thomas Foley (also born 12th July 1789) marrying Sarah Raybould (although DoB is possibly pot-luck).
I have documentary evidence of a watertight lineage back from the present to this Thomas:
1841 census Thomas Foley 50 born 1791, Sarah Foley 45 born 1796 Belper Row, Dudley
1851 Census Thomas Foley 65 born 1786, Sarah Foley 60, born 1791 Derby End, Belper Row, Dudley
Various children and the mention of a grandson identify this as the same (and correct) family.
In some FTs, this particular version of Thomas has parents identified as Samuel Foley (1739 - 1814) and Hannah (Rhodes)
So, I have two versions of a Thomas Foley born 12th July 1789, who
a) marries two different people
b) has two different sets of parents
I was wondering if anyone else has previously looked into this and hopefully be able to shed some light on this set of relationships before I disappear down even more rabbit-holes.
Or even if you are actively researching this, to be able to collaborate and find some conclusion?
Again, many thanks!
David