Thomas Weller 1632

[Richard Weller]

Hello Connie,

I am replying to your post under a new subject title, to separate your
Thomas from Thomas L WELLER.

Thanks for allowing me to view your tree, which I have just done. I
believe Thomas 1632's first wife was Mary SAXBIE, who he married in
1656. (I can't for the moment find my source.) She was buried 5 Sep
1659 at Tonbridge. (PR just has 'ux Mr Thos.') Their children were
baptised at Tonbridge:
4 Jan 1657/8 Thomas.
1 Sep 1659 Richard. Buried 8 Nov 1666.

I wonder whether Thomas b 1657/8 is the one you have as b circa 1668.
I am afraid I have not traced his children or descendants, so cannot
help you with their details. Perhaps someone else can?

Incidentally, Thomas 1632 married his second wife Mrs Elizabeth LEGAT
at St Olave's, Hart Street, London, by licence on 27 Jun 1661, but
although she is described as widow his marital status is not recorded.

Richard

[Jule...@aol.com]

Hi, again!

Re Connie's tree, Thomas Weller was baptised 26 Aug 1668, Tonbridge, Kent, the son of Thomas Weller and Elizabeth Legate.  He married Ann Saxby 1 Apr 1695 in Sevenoaks and had 4 children there - Thomas in 1698, Daniel in 1702, Sarah in 1705 and Richard in 1707.  I am descended from Thomas Weller 1698 and so have his descendents, but not any of the others.  I am happy to provide more info if needed.

Regards, Jules

[Richard Weller]

Hello again.

Almost as soon as I had pressed 'Send message' I remembered my source
for Thomas WELLER 1632. A great deal of research of this family was
done by descendant Major Paul WELLER, with whom I had correspondence
by snail mail over many years until his death in December 2007. Paul
was himself trained in the legal profession as well as being a career
soldier.

Re: Thomas WELLER 1632, Paul wrote:

Thomas WELLER of Tonbridge, Kent, Esq., attorney, eldest son of Thomas
WELLER and Elizabeth BARTON; nat. 9 Oct 1632 [Tonbridge MI], bapt 14
Oct 1632 Rotherfield [PR]; ob 30 Nov 1722 [Tonbridge MI]; bur. 5 Dec
1722. Will 20 Jan 1712/13, Prob. Rochester AC [Archidiachonal Court
of Rochester] 28 Mar 1723 [3:152.]
m 1) Mary SAXBIE (bur 5 Sep 1659, Tonbridge), dau of William SAXBIE of
Leigh, Kent, gent; marr settlement 16 Jan 1656.
m 2) Elizabeth LEGATT (bur 12 May 1680, Tonbridge), dau of Thomas
Posthumous LEGATT of Westminster, Esq., by lic at St Olave, Hart St.,
London 27 Jun 1661; marr settlement 25 Jun 1661.

I have not myself seen a transcript of Thomas's will, so don't know
whether that provides anything that would help your search.

Re Thomas WELLER 1668, Paul wrote:

Thomas WELLER of Sevenoaks and Wrotham, Kent, gentleman and attorney-
at-law, bapt 26 Aug 1668 Tonbridge; bur 27 Feb 1737/8 Sevenoaks;
Will: 14 Feb 1737/8; PCC [Prerogative Court of Canterbury] 17 Apr 1738
[PROB 11/689: 104];
m 1) Elizabeth BASSET (bur 12 Nov 1694 Tonbridge) by licence 23 Jun
1692 at Sevenoaks.
m 2) Mrs Ann SAXBIE (bur 10 Jul 1712 Sevenoaks) by licence 1 Apr 1695
at Sevenoaks.
m 3) Mrs Anne TOMLYN (bur 20 Aug 1734 Sevenoaks) widow of Thomas
TOMLYN of Wrotham, gentleman, 5 Mar 1716/7 at Wrotham.

Child by Elizabeth:
Abigail 3 Apr 1693.

Children by Ann:
Elizabeth 1 Dec 1695
William 14 Jan 1698/9
Thomas 21 Jan 1699/1700
Ann 4 Mar 1700/1
Thomas 14 Jun 1702 [late baptism of a delicate child, maybe.]
Daniel 10 Oct 1702
Daniel c 1703
Henry 5 Aug 1704
Samuel 21 Nov 1705
Sarah 13 Jan 1706/7
Richard 1 Aug 1707
Elizabeth 10 May 1708
Robert c 1709
Thomas 17 Oct 1711

Paul did give further info. I am afraid we need to be somewhat
cautious about accepting all his deductions, as he himself admitted,
so I would be inclined to add them in pencil until I had found
corrobarative evidence. It would be good if there is a member of the
group who has researched this branch and can confirm the above list or
suggest amendments. It is already a revision of Paul's first list,
following some errors I pointed out, I hope not too tactlessly. I
must add that he questioned some of my own deductions with regard to
other branches of this extensive family. None of us is infallible, so
group members may be able to help one another to correct any errors.

Paul also sent me his descent from the above Henry WELLER of Sevenoaks
b 1704.

Richard

[Richard Weller]

Many thanks Jules,

As you will realise, I didn't see your message until after I had sent
mine, which lists lots more children.
Do you know if there was another Thomas WELLER in Sevenoaks? That
might account for some of the children Paul had on his tree but
baptised within a few months of one another.

Richard

[Connie]

Hello Richard, I'm sure you are most likely right. I did what
searches I could on them but surely I don't have any expertise in this
matter and don't want to pay Ancestory.com their price to join.One
reason I started searching was I wanted to prove that Mary Ann Blake
who was the second wife to Charles Butler Knapp. She was my
great,great grandmother. LDS church has it wrong and I can't prove it.
She was born in North Enfield< New Hampshire on Oct . 8, 1820. She
married Charles September 4, 1845 in Waterloo, Wisconsin. She died in
Medina, Wisconsin September 22, 1865 according to my information. She
was married 1st to Gardiner Walker. They had two children and she had
4 children with Charles. I was looking for a link back to Edward Doty
of the Mayflower. I have taken note of your message and have copied it
for my records.
Thanks,
Connie

[Connie]

Thank you Jules for that information. Guess we must be relatives.

Connie

[Jule...@aol.com]

A Thomas Weller married Rachel Boakes on 28 Oct 1707 at Sevenoaks, Kent.  I think some from Paul's list of offspring could belong to this couple.

Regards, Jules

[Richard Weller]

Thanks Jules,

That seems probable. When the baptism register only gives name of
father it is very difficult to sort the children into the correct
families.

Richard

[Connie]

Hi Richard,
How long do these stay on this post. I have such a hard time getting
it all done.I keep copies in my drafts folder.
Thanks,
Connie

On Jun 20, 2:01 pm, Richard Weller <meg...@talktalk.net> wrote:

[Richard Weller]

Connie,

I'm sorry you are struggling to keep pace, but I expect the initial
surfeit of posts will subside. They should remain indefinitely,
although the one I opened the group with to set the scene seems to
have disappeared. So it is perhaps advisable to print anything that
is of particular interest to you, just in case it also disappears.

All good wishes,
Richard