William Soper Hayward

The document Janet found in the Kent Archives catalogue seems to be part of a bundle of deeds for 10 Nelson Street. The first two documents (EK/U137/T1 and T2) have an intriguing Soper connection:

1809: conveyance by lease and release of a piece of land abutting the new street called Nelson Street. Interestingly one of the parties is a William Soper of Deal, carpenter.

1826 sale from William Soper of Margate, carpenter, to Charles Hayward of Deal, carpenter and his wife Elizabeth of 'newly erected tenement and land at Nelson St, Deal'

Also among these papers is a copy of the will of Charles Hayward of Deal, carpenter, 22 May 1826 (EK/U137/T9).

Up till then it all looked good for this to be the Charles Hayward and Elizabeth Soper who married in 1801. How are they connected to the George Hayward named as William's father in the 1853 conveyance? Or is he just a red herring? Perhaps the writing is poor and it's been mis-read by the cataloguer, or it was just wrongly recorded in the first place? Mysterious. There are always more questions than answers in family history. :)

P.S. And who is William Soper of Deal / Margate? Could he be Elizabeth's father?
 
Huncamunca said:
The document Janet found in the Kent Archives catalogue seems to be part of a bundle of deeds for 10 Nelson Street. The first two documents (EK/U137/T1 and T2) have an intriguing Soper connection:

1809: conveyance by lease and release of a piece of land abutting the new street called Nelson Street. Interestingly one of the parties is a William Soper of Deal, carpenter.

1826 sale from William Soper of Margate, carpenter, to Charles Hayward of Deal, carpenter and his wife Elizabeth of 'newly erected tenement and land at Nelson St, Deal'
P.S. And who is William Soper of Deal / Margate? Could he be Elizabeth's father?
Click to expand...

Of course William Soper of Deal in 1809 need not be the same person as William Soper of Margate in 1826.

At 2 East Crescent, Margate, St John the Baptist parishm on the 1851 census (HO 107/1629, f.390, p.3) there is this William Soper:

William Soper, head, married, 64, retired builder, born Devonshire St Giles
Elizabeth do, wife, mar., 51, born Surrey Southwark
Harriet do, niece, unmar., 24, born Devonshire Broadw...
Sarah Dakin(?), wife's niece, unm, 13, scholar, b. Surrey Walworth

He would have been born about 1787 so too young to be Elizabeth's father. Perhaps a brother? (The Devon connection is encouraging in light of that 1801 marriage!)
 
Huncamunca said:
At 2 East Crescent, Margate, St John the Baptist parish on the 1851 census (HO 107/1629, f.390, p.3) there is this William Soper:

William Soper, head, married, 64, retired builder, born Devonshire St Giles
Elizabeth do, wife, mar., 51, born Surrey Southwark
Harriet do, niece, unmar., 24, born Devonshire Broadw...
Sarah Dakin(?), wife's niece, unm, 13, scholar, b. Surrey Walworth
Click to expand...

William made it (just!) to the 1871 census, when he is listed as a retired builder, aged 84, living at 67 Trinity Square, Margate (RG 10/993, f.24, p.6) with wife Elizabeth, niece Sarah Dakin and two servants (one a nurse). The National Probate Calendar on Ancestry says he died on 14 April 1871 at Margate. Probate granted on 1 June 1871 to his executors (his widow, Elizabeth Soper of Margate, and to John Woodward, carpenter, of Margate). Effects under £200.

You will find his marriage to Elizabeth Dakin (1838, Thanet) on Findmypast. This was not his first marriage: he was a widower. There's a possible earlier marriage in Deal in 1806 of William 'Sopper' and Gertrude Venner. Note that a George Hayward was a witness at this marriage.
 
There is a non-conformist burial for an Elizabeth HAYWARD in 1839 at Deal - could this be the mother of William & Mary Ann - unfortunately no address shown. Aha, it looks as if George HAYWARD does exist as there is a non-conformist burial for a child of Mr George HAYWARD at Deal in 1814.

There is a marriage at St Leonard on 19 May 1782 of a George HAYWARD and an Elizabeth BROWN - perhaps worth further investigation - plus a baptism on 31 July 1796 of a William son of George & Elizabeth HAYWARD.

Janet
 
Intriguingly another SOPER/HAYWARD connection. According to an Ancestry Family Tree, George HAYWARD born c1783/6 in Deal (according to census records) married a Grace SOPER at Deal on 18 April 1803. I cannot find a baptism for him in Deal - could he perhaps be a brother of William? As has already been said, more questions than answers at the moment.

Janet
 
Thanks Wendy - I think! This was my adored maternal grandmother's favourite picture of me as a small child - can't imagine why. I obviously disliked having my photograph taken as much then as I do now!

Janet
 
I know the feeling Janet.
I went looking for the George Haywood b. 1786ish got lost in the wood around Wittersham, couldn't tell how close to deal,however the same chap was around in 1861 at a different addy to your George.
A little book then bed for me, 'night all.
 
Than
janetbooth said:
I think this may just help you, Rosemary. Kent Archives have an online catalogue and doing a search for William HAYWARD, I came up with this:

"EK/U137/T3
10 Nelson Street, Deal
1 Charles William MATSON of Deal, Coach Builder
2 Philip MATSON of Deal, Baker
3 William Swift GIBBONS of Deal, Carpenter; John ELQAR of Deal, Ropemaker and Louisa HAYWARD, widow [executors of the will of William HAYWARD, son of George]
Conveyance of a moiety of premises at 10 Nelson St, further to the last will and testament of Elizabeth HAYWARD and her heirs [Charles W MATSON being EH's grandson]
Consideration £12
Date 19 October 1853"

From this information, I infer that George HAYWARD was married to an Elizabeth and they had at least 2 children, William who married Louisa STOKES and Mary who married Philip MATSON, Baker, of Deal. By 19 October 1853 both William HAYWARD & Mary MATSON had died and Charles W MATSON inherited a moiety of the premises at 10 Nelson Street. Could be worth looking for Elizabeth HAYWARD's will.

What do you think?

Janet
Click to expand...
Thank you for that Janet. I have been searching and searching. Will see if I can find a George now and Elizabeth. William was a carpenter and built coffins..........not sure where I found that out.
 
Rosemary Tully said:
Hi people I will have to catch up on this tomorrow, I did not realize there was so many replies. I have been busy the last few days. Look forward to reading all the findings. cheers Rosemary
Click to expand...

We have bombarded you with information, Rosemary. I hope it is not an overwhelming amount and that some chinks of light are showing through your brickwall now. If you need advice on what to do next, please shout!
 
Hi Again, I have just found an Ann Hayward had a son in 1801 in Deal.........no father:eek: In the marriage of Elizabeth and George his signature is not that good, but the one of Grace and George is, (looking more like Williams? But there are no "Graces" in the names of William and Louisa's children which I would think there would be if Grace was the mother. Elizabeth is down second on the will, first being Louisa.
So it looks more like George and Elizabeth are Williams parents.
We look some more.cheers everyone, lovely day here in Thames (NZ) thanks again. Rosemary
 
Hi Me again, The only thing that worries me is why has William Hayward put down not born in Kent in the 1841 census? cheers Rosemary
 
Rosemary Tully said:
Hi Me again, The only thing that worries me is why has William Hayward put down not born in Kent in the 1841 census? cheers Rosemary
Click to expand...
Might it have been a mistake on the part of the enumerator in copying the return over to his schedule? I have not seen the original page, so am not able to suggest whether or not the enumerator was just getting carried away or if it was the only "N" on the page.

Another thought: maybe he did not understand the question.
 
I think the answer as to who William's parents were may lie in that bundle of deeds for 10 Nelson Street. There are only brief details in the Kent Archives online catalogue. You may be able to get copies of the original documents from the record office, or get someone to read them for you.

You can look at the catalogue entries here:

http://www.
kentarchives.org.uk/CalmView/TreeBrowse.aspx?src=CalmView.Catalog&field=RefNo&key=EK-U137

The 1864 'abstract of title' (in two parts, refs T7 and T8) may be the best one to go for, as it will summarise earlier documents and explain how the property came to belong to William Soper Hayward.

I would also advise getting hold of copies of any relevant wills to clarify the relationship between the various people in this story.
 
I definitely think you should try to find Elizabeth HAYWARD's will as hopefully this will also explain all the relationships. It might also be helpful for you to draw out the different HAYWARD family trees. George & Elizabeth seem to have had seven probable children:

George born c1783 who married Grace SOPER - no baptism for him yet
Ann baptised 14 October 1783
Elizabeth baptised 14 November 1790
Edward baptised 17 November 1793
Charles baptised 19 July 1793
William baptised 31 July 1796

Mary who married Philip MATSON probably fits in somewhere in the gap.

Is the Charles above the one who died in 1826 at 10 Nelson Street?

Visitors arrived - must dash. Will pick up later.
Janet
 
janetbooth said:
Intriguingly another SOPER/HAYWARD connection. According to an Ancestry Family Tree, George HAYWARD born c1783/6 in Deal (according to census records) married a Grace SOPER at Deal on 18 April 1803. I cannot find a baptism for him in Deal - could he perhaps be a brother of William? As has already been said, more questions than answers at the moment.

Janet
Click to expand...

This George Hayward was born in Chartham Kent which is near Canterbury,he had another brother Thomas born in Canterbury who was married twice 1st Susannah Nash 2nd Susannah Woodland.Thomas was a printer and bookseller in Deal.George was a grocer in Deal,he had a shop on Middle Street.He was also married twice .1st wife Grace Soper/Super.2nd wife Ann Tucker.
George is my4x great grandfathe .rGrace my 4x great grandmother.
I have been researching this family for a good 10 years now and have found various things out about them but not managed to tie up William Soper Hayward with my Haywards ,only through the marraige of his daughter Caroline to Thomas son William b.1834.
There is also a family of boatbuilders in Deal by the name of Hayward as well but have left these well alone as only adds to more confusion.
By the way l found an apprenticeship for William Hayward age 14 years upwards 9 April 1814 son of Charles Hayward as a carpenter.If this is William Soper Hayward it would fit in with what you have already.I have communicated with Rosemary Tully and it was her that put me in touch with this group.
 
Oh my goodness my head is going round and round;)
I have lots to do today as big party tomorrow. 70.
Will have to catch up later, I looked at the website that Huncamunca gave and it is very interesting. Hope to have time later to view. Thanks again everyone and welcome Pearl to the site...........great set of people R NZ
 
Pearl Atkins said:
By the way l found an apprenticeship for William Hayward age 14 years upwards 9 April 1814 son of Charles Hayward as a carpenter.If this is William Soper Hayward it would fit in with what you have already.
Click to expand...

Hello Pearl and welcome to Top Dog.

That apprenticeship record does look most interesting: that William would certainly be the right age and the trade is right too. Despite some conflicting evidence I am still leaning towards Charles and Elizabeth being William's parents . . . though if William was born before their marriage then Charles may not have been his biological father.

I wish I lived near enough Kent Archives to go and look at those deeds for 10 Nelson Street myself! I am sure some more pieces of the jigsaw will be found there.
 
Daft Bat said:
Might it have been a mistake on the part of the enumerator in copying the return over to his schedule? I have not seen the original page, so am not able to suggest whether or not the enumerator was just getting carried away or if it was the only "N" on the page.

Another thought: maybe he did not understand the question.
Click to expand...
Yes he was the only "No" on the census page. R
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top