Samuel Vials I

Educated guess as to burial. This is the start of the clear line of Vials in Kelmarsh. There is no record of Samuel’s birth in the Kelmarsh register which could mean the he just arrived in the village, married Elizabeth Forest, set up home and produced a family. In which case one might have expected some note as to the parish he had come from to be recorded in the register as with Symon Viall of Barford. They had at least nine children.

Samuel married Elizabeth Forest in Kelmarsh on 10th November 1691 and they had nine children.

The fact that there is no record of Samuel’s birth in the register does not mean that he was not born in the village. Working back from his marriage date one would expect him to have been born in the early to mid 1660s and they were turbulent times in the early years of the Restoration. There were also rapid changes of vicar. Samuel Ainsworth who had been in post since 1651 was replaced by Edward Mansely in 1664 and he by John Lee only two years later who was himself superseded by Joseph Cradock in 1700. Vicars of the time were not necessarily well-educated, nor independent, nor conscientious record keepers. Ainsworth served during the Interregnum which was a particularly challenging period. If records were carefully entered the registers often suffered through damp or vermin or vicars or churchwardens looking for spills to light their pipes. So the absence of a record at the time is not necessarily significant.

If Samuel was born in the village there are three possible sets of parents, though I think we can dispose of one set fairly quickly. Symon Viall of Barford married Ann Lee of Kelmarsh in 1655 and they had Edward (Violes) 23/8/1657; Elizabeth 1660. Elizabeth, Simon and Ann seemed to have died in 1660 and Edward in 1661. (There is an unexplained John born to a Simon and Ann in 1668.)

The other two sets of parents are Simon and Catherine (Katherine) and John and Ann.  Simon left a will in which he names his son Simon and daughters Hannah, Ann, Sarah and Mary. Simon and Hannah’s births are in the register. If Samuel was Simon’s son one would expect him to be named in the will. In which case John and Ann are the most likely candidates for Samuel’s parents. There is the birth of an unnamed son entered to them on the 8/12/1661 but there are enough gaps between known births for a number of children to have been born as there are in Simon and Catherine’s to account for Ann, Sarah and Mary.

Although it is tentative and not subject to proof I shall therefore add Samuel to John and Ann’s family. As to Samuel, he may have been named after the vicar.