Brick wall demolished? Joshua Say 1750

[JohnF]

Boyd's Marriage Index has this entry

1749 SAY JOSHUA/UTTING MARY NORWICH ST MARY IN THE MARSH NORFOLK

How reliable is Boyd?
How do we gather evidence for/against the proposition that these are the parents of
Joshua Say, born 1750 at Soham Cambs (nobody knows how he got there).
At Soham he married Mary Kidd, a local girl but had first child with her at Wortwell, Norfolk.
Then 13 more children at Soham before moving back to Wortwell Norfolk, having a 15th child, John, and dying there in 1818?

Many thanks
John

[vjlitt]

FYI
St. Mary in the Marsh, Norfolk probably refers to a church that was almost next to Norwich Cathedral but no longer exists. Apparently lots of Norfolk/Suffolk/Lincs/Cambs people liked to get married/baptised there even though they were not within the parish.

[Raffaele]

Given the reasonable proximity of the two places and the prominence of Norfolk and the Cathedral City of Ely which is close to Soham, travel must have been relatively easy. ie Its not like its Falmouth to the Isle of Skye.

You have had all of us searching for the Say's in Norwich and no-one can find them continuing there. I seem to recall they have crawled all over the Cambs/ Norfolk / Linnc borders.

You have to conclude that they did get about a bit, and you have now strengthened your case as wherever you find them, they then disappear with a suitably timed appearance elsewhere.

I buy your story, as that. Proof, most likely will be an accidental discovery in some old manuscript, if indeed it exists.

Having made my big statement, the big guns here normally prove me wrong. So lets hope that holds true and you get some facts.

[benny1982]

Hi John

I have probably walked past St Mary In The Marsh several times. Imagine the long trip to Norwich just to marry there if you were from Lincs. The original marriage record should give the parishes of residence of the couple, but it might say "Of this parish" if they temporarily moved to Norwich.

Ben

[Raffaele]

Until the industrial revolution, as the capital of England's most populous and prosperous county, Norwich vied with Bristol as England's second city.

In evaluating this you have to look at how Norwich was viewed then. Norfolk was certainly not the backwater it is today. That could get me some flak, but Norwich was held very highly at the time of this Say marriage.

[benny1982]

In many ways Norwich still is a leading city as it is the biggest urban settlement in Norfolk, Suffolk, Cambs and Lincs alone.

I live near the city. My ancestors moved from there to London in about 1780. They were weavers by trade so maybe because of the industrial decline, the Helsdons went to Bethnal Green, one of the areas of London that is renowned for weavers.Although, two of the siblings later returned to Norwich.

[JohnF]

Thank you Rafael and Friends
So I am not the lone believer crying in the wilderness! Good to know that.
C'mon Big Guns, demolish our hopes!
That will help MORE than allowing our hopes to delude us { ;<(}

Is there any point is asking Boyd what actual evidence he has?

The only pseudo-evidence is Father Joshua might well call his firstborn Joshua.
Against we have the fact that Joshua son and wife tried FIVE TIMES for a John
So if we could discover that "John" - a fond paternal Grandfather - died in Norwich in late 1749 THAT would strengthen our case.

Their first child was a daughter Rachel 1781
Then Jerimiah 1783 who died age 3
Then the first John 1784 - died same year
Then a Mary 1786
Then a Jeremiah 1788 who survived
Then Ann, Mary
Then 4 more John 1792, 93, 96, 04

So maybe the fond Grandad of my imagination died in 1789 for after that date the only children NOT called John were daughters!
And according to this nice wishful thinking scenario the "reason" John 1804 was born in Wortwell is because they returned there to comfort Grandad John's widow (or to be nasty about it inherited his wealth there).

John

[Raffaele]

John

As someone who professionally has been involved in R&D you have reached that point. In R&D we devise a theory, then test to disprove the theory so that you don't spend your time trying to prove something that ultimately will not happen. You start on the negative side.

It is a game of turning over stones, to see what's there. Mostly you inevitably find something that does not disprove your theory, but means that you have to rework it or adjust it.

In R&D we have one thing that makes it a great deal easier. When we have done our job we have something that works, so the proof of the pudding is in the eating. All you can do, unless you stumble on something that is proof, is increase the probability that your theory is true.

The balance of probabilities comes down to your judgement. I would not go off trying to make any claims on estates based on what you have so far.