Tuesday 19 Aug 1777 (p. 2, col. 4)
MARRIED
Sunday last at Cammerton church, near Workington, Capt. George BURREL of the Commerce, to Miss Molly HARRISON of Seaton.
[According to FamilySearch, George BURREL and Mary HARRISON married on 17 Aug 1777 at Camerton.]
Monday se'ennight at Carlisle, Mr. THOMPSON, dissenting minister in that City, to Miss ROBINSON of the same place.
[According to FamilySearch, George THOMPSON and Susannah ROBINSON married on 05 Aug 1777 at St. Mary, Carlisle.]
Last week, Mr. Jos. WARWICK of Holmegate, to Miss Betty STOCKDALE of Scotby.
[According to FamilySearch, Joseph WARWICK and Elizabeth STOCKDALE married on 11 Aug 1777 at Wetheral.]
DIED
Yesterday se'ennight, in Lowther-street, after a long illness, Mrs. FLETCHER, wife of Mr. Edward FLETCHER, merchant.
[According to the Copeland Registers Index, Faith FLETCHER, wife of Edward, was buried on 13 Aug 1777 at St. Nicholas, Whitehaven.]
Tuesday last in the 73d year of her age, Mrs. Ann MARSH of Workington.
[According to the Copeland Registers Index, Ann MARSH, widow, was buried on 13 Aug 1777 at Workington.]
--
Hit a brick wall? Perhaps another member has the solution. You may never know if you don't ask.
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "GENEALOGY-CUMBRIA" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to genealogy-cumber...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/genealogy-cumberland/001b01dc052f%249a6b0920%24cf411b60%24%40doctors.org.uk.
Thanks, Sue. The speed of my posting the BMDs from the Cumberland Pacquet is slow as it depends on Nev posting the transcriptions of the news first. I don’t want to get ahead of him.
Would you like me to take a sneak preview? I’d need the names of the parties though, and the date if you know it.
Petra
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/genealogy-cumberland/01014699-4CD8-49D2-9DFB-14BABCB53128%40gmail.com.
What? Our beloved NEV is slow posting?
We need to get him a big bottle of Geritol.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/genealogy-cumberland/003001dc054a%24dd37c250%2497a746f0%24%40doctors.org.uk.
What? Our beloved NEV is slow posting?
We need to get him a big bottle of Geritol.
<image001.jpg>
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/genealogy-cumberland/002701dc0561%24f878b8a0%24e96a29e0%24%40gmail.com.
Hi Sue,
I had a look at my transcriptions of the Cumberland Pacquet for November – December 1777 but I am afraid there is no mention of this couple. I also checked the Newcastle Courant but again no luck. Unfortunately there were not many newspapers around in the 1770s – nothing comes up for Lancaster in the way of newspapers in 1777.
I assume you have seen the marriage entry in the parish register or the published PR transcript? In case you haven’t, this is what it says in the transcript:
1777 Nov. 12 Richard JOHNSTON, widower, aged 40 & Frances SEALBY, spr. aged 32; both of this psh.
I couldn’t find a marriage licence bond for them either.
However, searching the burials backwards from November 1777 in the Penrith PR Transcript, I found the following:
1777 Feb. 23 Rachel wife of Richard JOHNSTON, Oastler, aged 34.
There wasn’t a single other JOHNSTON death back to 1770 inclusive.
According to FamilySearch, there was Marriage Notice (i.e. Banns) for Richard JOHNSTON & Rachel WILKINSEN called at Penrith on 11 Mar 1764 but there is no marriage in the PR Transcript, so she must have been from another parish and they married there.
In fact, according to the IGI, Richard JOHNSON & Rachel WILKINSON were married on 15 Mar 1764 at Barton, Westmorland.
I had a look at the Newcastle papers but they reported only very few BMD at that early period, and they did not mention this couple. There was no marriage licence either (obviously not, as they had banns called!).
The following is from FamilySearch: There were two children of Richard JOHNSTON baptised at Barton, Westmorland: Jane 21 Dec 1764, and William 28 Aug 1768. The mother of the children is not named.
They also had a child at Penrith – found on FamilySearch and then looked up in the PR Transcript:
1771 Feb. 24 Richard s. of Richard & Rachael JOHNSTON
So no further information to be gained from those baptisms.
Interestingly, I came across this baptism in Penrith:
1773 Oct. 20 John illegit. s. of Frances SELBY.
I hope there is at least a little bit of helpful information in the above!
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/genealogy-cumberland/85BC6DFC-5B43-4CE5-B5B6-194AC90BA912%40gmail.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/genealogy-cumberland/002701dc0561%24f878b8a0%24e96a29e0%24%40gmail.com.
On 4 Aug 2025, at 20:50, petra.mitchinson via GENEALOGY-CUMBRIA <genealogy-...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
Hi Sue,I had a look at my transcriptions of the Cumberland Pacquet for November – December 1777 but I am afraid there is no mention of this couple. I also checked the Newcastle Courant but again no luck. Unfortunately there were not manynewspapers around in the 1770s – nothing comes up for Lancaster in the way of newspapers in 1777.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/genealogy-cumberland/005a01dc0578%24f83cf0b0%24e8b6d210%24%40doctors.org.uk.
Oh, never ever give up! It took me about 35 years to work out the parentage of my husband’s 3x great grandfather, and then another 5 years to work out to which MITCHINSON family his mother belonged…
As regards banns: If the parties lived in different parishes, then the banns had to be called in both parishes. As far as I am aware, this is still the case today. If there is a Banns register surviving for Barton, I am sure you would find the banns called in that parish as well.
If Richard and Rachel had married in a Quaker ceremony, then no banns would have been called in the C of E church(es). The Quakers had their own hoops through which the couple had to jump. A non-Quaker as a marriage partner was not acceptable. Either the non-Quaker converted, or otherwise they had to marry in the C of E (and thereby the Quaker partner became “not in communion” with the Quaker congregation any more).
In 1773 Richard was still married to Rachel so it is unlikely (although not impossible) that he was the father of Frances SEALBY’s illegitimate child.
Good luck with this interesting family!
--
Hit a brick wall? Perhaps another member has the solution. You may never know if you don't ask.
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "GENEALOGY-CUMBRIA" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to genealogy-cumber...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/genealogy-cumberland/008001dc0615%24e7ff9980%24b7fecc80%24%40doctors.org.uk.