John Fussell�s marriage to Sarah Deacon
email 2011
Peter
I have looked at my record of the banns and marriage of St. Nicholas Church, North Bradley and find the banns for the marriage of John Fussell and Sarah Deacon were called on 3, 10 and 17 February 1828 for their mariage which took place at North Bradley on 3 April 1828, both were of the parish of North Bradley after banns. In the lack of firm evidence other than that the census details of 1841 and later show that John had Deacon step-children living with them there is no proof that John was first married to Sarah Salmon.
Sidney
25.7.13
Dear Sidney
The forthcoming visit of Peter Fussell to Rode prompted me to recap my Fussell family file. I noticed that back in 2011 you had sent an email informing me of John FUSSELL’s marriage at N. Bradley church in 1828, to Sarah DEACON, and pointing out that the 1841 census showed two DEACON step children in the Barrow Farm household.
However the St. Lawrence registers show two other marriages by John FUSSELLs at that time – one to Sarah CROMWELL in 1814 and the other to Sarah SALMON in 1824.
Your information about the marriage at N. Bradley leaves me with three Sarahs married to only two Johns, which leads me to the conclusion that one John remarried. I have found that Sarah DEACON’s husband, Job, was buried at Rode in 1825, which would support her remarriage in 1828, but I have been unable to find the burial of a Sarah FUSSELL between 1814 and 1828, which would indicate that one of the Johns also remarried.
Without such evidence I am inclined to assume that John of Barrow Farm married Sarah SALMON in 1824 but she died within a few years and he remarried as a widower to widow DEACON.
I wondered if you might be able to throw more light on the relationship.
Kind regards
Peter
26.7.13
Dear Sidney,
I have now found a record of the burial of a Sarah Fussell at St. Lawrence, on 4 June 1826 aged 28. I assume this was the first wife of John of Barrow Farm, whom he married at St Lawrence in 1824, so you can ignore my last email, unless you think the above assumption to be in error.
Regards
Peter