Skingley Skingly Skingsley Skingsly Skinsley Skinsly Genealogy

21 August 2006

home page

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

view SKINGSLEY family tree

view SKINGSLEY family summary

view SKINGSLEY ancestor chart

 

 

 

 

 

 

Dr G.M.W.Mann.      Baytrees

Burnhams Rd,    Lt.Bookham

Surrey, U.K.           KT23 3AU

geoff.mann@btinternet.com

 

 

 

 

 

6 Matthew SKINSLEY c1750-1797?

 

 

m Jane BROWN 1770

 

 

 

 

Matthew was not baptised at Paglesham but probably moved to that village with his father William and brother Henry sometime before 1770.  In this year he married Jane BROWN at Paglesham. 

 

The parish registers do not give any occupations, but he was probably an agricultural labourer, though an occupation connected with the sea is also possible at Paglesham.

 

Matthew and Jane baptised at least eight children at Paglesham before Jane died in 1826.  A Matthew SKINSLY was buried in 1797 at Paglesham but this could have been their son born in 1776.

 

 

 

 

   EVENTS

C=Christened

 

           age

   DATE   MS JB

 

                       EVENT

     1749     

30Jul1770 21 21

31Mar1771 22 22

  Jan1774 25 25

29Sep1776 27 27

 8Nov1778 29 29

17Nov1778 29 29

31Mar1782 33 33

11Apr1784 35 35

26Nov1786 37 37

  May1792 43 43

 4Apr1797 48 48

 7Oct1799    50

 1Jun1814    65

 8Jan1826    77

Matthew born?

Matthew m Jane BROWN at Pagleshan; brother Henry a witness

son William C at Paglesham

son Harry C at Paglesham

son Matthew C at Paglesham

dau Jane C at Paglesham

dau Jane buried at Paglesham

dau Mary C at Paglesham

dau Sarah C at Paglesham

dau Ann C at Paglesham

son Samuel C at Paglesham

Matthew SKINSLEY buried at Paglesham (possibly refers to son Matthew)

da Mary m Philip WEST at Paglesham; sister Sarah witness

son Samuel SKINGLEY buried at Paglesham age 23

Jane SKINSLEY buried at Paglesham

 

 

 

 

PRINCIPAL RECORDS

 

 

b=born  m=married  d=died

C=Christened        B=Buried

BIRTH

 

Matthew was m at Paglesham in 1779; he was a bachelor and his wife a spinster born c1749.  Matthew therefore was probably also born around 1750, but there is no suitable C at Paglesham, where Matthew's marriage in 1770 is the first SKINSLY entry in the register.

 

In 1771 Henry SKINGSLY also married at Paglesham, and in 1774, a widower William SKINSLEY married a widow Elizabeth DAY.  There are then no further SKINGLY marriages for 20 years when the next generation marry.   A probable explanation is that the widower William was the father of both Matthew and Henry and they all moved into the parish some time before 1770.  Note that Matthew named his first son as William

 

There is at present no clue to their origin and no baptisms of Matthew and Henry to William around 1750 have been found, [a Matthew SKINGLEY of Roxwell m Anne CLEMENS at Good Easter 31Jan1732]

 

MARRIAGE

 

William SKINSLY 5 was baptised in Paglesham in 1771 son of Matthew & Jane.  The baptism is preceded by the following marriage in the Paglesham register:

 

m 30Jul1770 Matthew x SKINGLEY bch otp & Jane x BROWN spr otp by banns;

            wit: John ROGERS, Henry x SKINGLY

 

DESCENDANTS

from Paglesham register:

 

C 31Mar1771 Wm      s Matthew  & Jane SKINGLEY

C ??Jan1774 Harry   s Matthew  & Jane SKINGSLY

C 29Sep1776 Matthew s Matthew  & Jane SKINSLY

C  8Nov1778 Jane    d Matthew  & Jane SKINSLY B 17Nov1778 Jane SKINSLY

C 31Mar1782 Mary    d Matthew  & Jane SKINSLY

                    m 7Oct1799 Philip WEST & Mary x SKINGLY spr otp; w:Sarah x SKINGLY

C 11Apr1784 Sarah   d Matthew  & Jane SKINSLY

C 26Nov1786 Ann     d Matthew  & Jane SKINSLY

C  ?May1792 Samuel  s Matthew  & Jane SKINSLY

                    B 1Jun1814 Samuel SKINGLEY of Paglesham age 23 [B 1791]

DEATH

from Paglesham register

 

B 4Apr1797 Matthew SKINSLEY

 

this probably refers to Matthew-6 (note that Mary’s sister Sarah witnessed the m of Mary on 1799 rather than Mary’s father Matthew), but could refer to son Matthew born in 1776

 

B 8Jan1826 Jane SKINSLEY of Paglesham age 77 [B 1749]

 

this is a suitable age for Jane and there is no other suitable candidate for this burial

 

 

 

 

return to top