Some last suggestions for further research (non-medieval):

Extracted IGI for Sandon, Essex:

Jasper Gun and Anne Legge [married] 14 Jan. 1633

Jasper Gunn came in 1635 to Boston, Mass., on the ship "Defense," his name followed in the passenger list by an "Ann Gunn." Because the name of Jasper's wife was given as "Mary" in a church membership record shortly thereafter, it has been speculated that "Ann" was Jasper's sister. His wife (many years later) was a woman called "Christian."

I speculate that the church membership record got the name wrong, recording "Mary" rather than "Ann" for Jasper's wife. Then, at some point, Jasper remarried to a woman named Christian.

https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Gunn-23

- - - - - - -

Extracted IGI for Lydd, Kent:

John Compton and Susanna Seade [married] 8 Oct. 1629

Extracted IGI for Cranbrook, Kent:

Abigail Compton, dau. of John, [baptized] 7 April 1633

John Compton and wife Susan or Susanna were 1634 arrivals in New England, as indicated by his placement in the membership list of the church of Roxbury. They had one known child, Abigail, who married in January 1651/2. John Compton was given a small bequest in the 1646 will of widow Rachel Bigg(e), whose late husband and other family members had multiple ties to Cranbrook in Kent.

http://www.rootedancestry.com/5781.html

On Thursday, January 4, 2024 at 12:03:41 PM UTC-5, JBrand wrote:
> Some last suggestions for further research (non-medieval):
>
> Extracted IGI for Sandon, Essex:
>
> Jasper Gun and Anne Legge [married] 14 Jan. 1633
>
> Jasper Gunn came in 1635 to Boston, Mass., on the ship "Defense," his name followed in the passenger list by an "Ann Gunn." Because the name of Jasper's wife was given as "Mary" in a church membership record shortly thereafter, it has been speculated that "Ann" was Jasper's sister. His wife (many years later) was a woman called "Christian."
>
> I speculate that the church membership record got the name wrong, recording "Mary" rather than "Ann" for Jasper's wife. Then, at some point, Jasper remarried to a woman named Christian.
>
> https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Gunn-23
>
> - - - - - - -
>
> Extracted IGI for Lydd, Kent:
>
> John Compton and Susanna Seade [married] 8 Oct. 1629
>
> Extracted IGI for Cranbrook, Kent:
>
> Abigail Compton, dau. of John, [baptized] 7 April 1633
>
> John Compton and wife Susan or Susanna were 1634 arrivals in New England, as indicated by his placement in the membership list of the church of Roxbury. They had one known child, Abigail, who married in January 1651/2. John Compton was given a small bequest in the 1646 will of widow Rachel Bigg(e), whose late husband and other family members had multiple ties to Cranbrook in Kent.
>
> http://www.rootedancestry.com/5781.html

Extracted IGI for [Great] Yarmouth, Norfolk:

Theophylus Downing and Ellen Folsham [married] 22 June 1629

The sketch below for Theophilus Dunning ("aka Downing") of Salem, Massachusetts, incorporates something of a hodgepodge of info, not all of it correct, but the main facts seem to be that the 1647 baptism at Salem of son Benjamin calls him "son of Ellen Downing" (i.e., only the mother was a church member). Also there was "a warrant to arrest Elin, wife of Theophilus Downing, issued in Salem in 1647."

https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Dunning-28

On Thursday, January 4, 2024 at 2:20:39 PM UTC-5, JBrand wrote:
<snip>
> Theophylus Downing and Ellen Folsham [married] 22 June 1629
>
> The sketch below for Theophilus Dunning ("aka Downing") of Salem, Massachusetts, incorporates something of a hodgepodge of info, not all of it correct, but the main facts seem to be that the 1647 baptism at Salem of son Benjamin calls him "son of Ellen Downing" (i.e., only the mother was a church member). Also there was "a warrant to arrest Elin, wife of Theophilus Downing, issued in Salem in 1647."

When I see 17th century baptism records that only name the mother, I assume this indicates the father has died prior to the baptism; I had not considered a church record would not name a living father just because they "were not a church member"; and don't really know of any circumstances where a husband would be married to a woman and they not belong to the same church in Massachusetts? Do you have more insight to your statement here?
--Joe C

On Thursday, January 4, 2024 at 4:00:34 PM UTC-5, joseph cook wrote:
> On Thursday, January 4, 2024 at 2:20:39 PM UTC-5, JBrand wrote:
> <snip>
> > Theophylus Downing and Ellen Folsham [married] 22 June 1629
> >
> > The sketch below for Theophilus Dunning ("aka Downing") of Salem, Massachusetts, incorporates something of a hodgepodge of info, not all of it correct, but the main facts seem to be that the 1647 baptism at Salem of son Benjamin calls him "son of Ellen Downing" (i.e., only the mother was a church member). Also there was "a warrant to arrest Elin, wife of Theophilus Downing, issued in Salem in 1647."
> When I see 17th century baptism records that only name the mother, I assume this indicates the father has died prior to the baptism; I had not considered a church record would not name a living father just because they "were not a church member"; and don't really know of any circumstances where a husband would be married to a woman and they not belong to the same church in Massachusetts? Do you have more insight to your statement here?
> --Joe C

Yes, you could correct about that, though note that the second ref. to Ellen, in the same year as the baptism of Benjamin, calls her "wife," not "widow," of Theophilus.

Edward1 Browne of Ipswich, Mass., had a wife Faith _____.

In Dec. 1629, "Edward Browne & Faith Peacock marr." at St. Antholin in London.

https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_Publications_of_the_Harleian_Society/fycEAAAAIAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22edward+browne%22+peacock&pg=PA64&printsec=frontcover

See
https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Browne-2027
with some wrong info, surely).

> Extracted IGI for Lydd, Kent:
>
> John Compton and Susanna Seade [married] 8 Oct. 1629
>
> Extracted IGI for Cranbrook, Kent:
>
> Abigail Compton, dau. of John, [baptized] 7 April 1633
>
> John Compton and wife Susan or Susanna were 1634 arrivals in New England, as indicated by his placement in the membership list of the church of Roxbury. They had one known child, Abigail, who married in January 1651/2. John Compton was given a small bequest in the 1646 will of widow Rachel Bigg(e), whose late husband and other family members had multiple ties to Cranbrook in Kent.
>
> http://www.rootedancestry.com/5781.html

"John Bigg [of Maidstone, Kent] in his will (REG. xxix. 259) mentions as persons 'that went from Cranbrook,' Edward Whitt [White], John Compton, John Moore, Thomas Bridgen and Goodman Beale."

https://www.google.com/books/edition/Genealogical_Gleanings_in_England/CaNCAAAAYAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=John+Compton+bridgen+beale&pg=PA23&printsec=frontcover

On Friday, January 5, 2024 at 4:25:24 PM UTC-5, Johnny Brananas wrote:
> > Extracted IGI for Lydd, Kent:
> >
> > John Compton and Susanna Seade [married] 8 Oct. 1629
> >
> > Extracted IGI for Cranbrook, Kent:
> >
> > Abigail Compton, dau. of John, [baptized] 7 April 1633
> >
> > John Compton and wife Susan or Susanna were 1634 arrivals in New England, as indicated by his placement in the membership list of the church of Roxbury. They had one known child, Abigail, who married in January 1651/2. John Compton was given a small bequest in the 1646 will of widow Rachel Bigg(e), whose late husband and other family members had multiple ties to Cranbrook in Kent.
> >
> > http://www.rootedancestry.com/5781.html
> "John Bigg [of Maidstone, Kent] in his will (REG. xxix. 259) mentions as persons 'that went from Cranbrook,' Edward Whitt [White], John Compton, John Moore, Thomas Bridgen and Goodman Beale."
>
> https://www.google.com/books/edition/Genealogical_Gleanings_in_England/CaNCAAAAYAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=John+Compton+bridgen+beale&pg=PA23&printsec=frontcover

I found the first marriage of Martha (Woodward) Bacon, the second wife of my ancestor, Rev. Robert Peck (of Hingham and Hingham).

St. Mary le Bowe, London

[18 Nov. 1619] James Bacon & Martha Woodward [married]

https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_Publications_of_the_Harleian_Society/uisEAAAAIAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22james+bacon+%26+martha%22&pg=PA325&printsec=frontcover

This has implications for the ancestry of acting governor Nathaniel Bacon of Virginia. Some sources, including G.B. Roberts, _Royal Descents ... 900_ (pp. 877-78), show Acting Gov. Nathaniel as the son of Rev. James Bacon by a wife previous to Martha Woodward.

However, _Adventurers of Purse and Person_ gives Nathaniel Bacon's baptism as occurring at Burgate, Suffolk, 29 August 1620, which is about 10 months after the marriage at St. Mary le Bowe above.

The 1634 _Visitation of Buckinghamshire_ shows Martha Woodward's ancestry -- as well as her marriage (to ___ Bacon).

On Thursday, January 4, 2024 at 1:00:34 PM UTC-8, joseph cook wrote:

> When I see 17th century baptism records that only name the mother, I assume this indicates the father has died prior to the baptism; I had not considered a church record would not name a living father just because they "were not a church member"; and don't really know of any circumstances where a husband would be married to a woman and they not belong to the same church in Massachusetts? Do you have more insight to your statement here?
>

An example of the circumstance: In the early 1680s, Hannah Heiter joined the church at Marblehead and had a string children baptized over the next decade, with her the only listed parent, over the next decade. The records give no indication of illegitimacy or censure for fornication, which would have been the case were she having multiple sequential out of wedlock children.. It is generally accepted that she was thus wife, not widow, at least through the time the penultimate child was baptized.

No idea what circumstances led to this scenario, as the husband has never been identified. The surname looks German or Dutch more so than British, so perhaps it was a religious mixed marriage.

taf

On Friday, January 5, 2024 at 8:13:01 PM UTC-5, taf wrote:
> On Thursday, January 4, 2024 at 1:00:34 PM UTC-8, joseph cook wrote:
>
> > When I see 17th century baptism records that only name the mother, I assume this indicates the father has died prior to the baptism; I had not considered a church record would not name a living father just because they "were not a church member"; and don't really know of any circumstances where a husband would be married to a woman and they not belong to the same church in Massachusetts? Do you have more insight to your statement here?
> >
> An example of the circumstance: In the early 1680s, Hannah Heiter joined the church at Marblehead and had a string children baptized over the next decade, with her the only listed parent, over the next decade. The records give no indication of illegitimacy or censure for fornication, which would have been the case were she having multiple sequential out of wedlock children. It is generally accepted that she was thus wife, not widow, at least through the time the penultimate child was baptized.
>
> No idea what circumstances led to this scenario, as the husband has never been identified. The surname looks German or Dutch more so than British, so perhaps it was a religious mixed marriage.
>
> taf
A possible explanation for Hannah Heiter’s record or similar entries might be found in C17 New England theology as set out, for example, in Perry Miller’s work. The first generation of New England settlers believed that a personal experience of God’s grace was a prerequisite for church membership. As the second generation found churches emptying, after bitter and continuing controversy, a goodly number of New England ministers endorsed the view that the church covenant embraced baptism of the children of church members who would then in due course become church members as they entered adulthood. Often enough these baptised children did not choose to become members. It was only at the end of the C17 that a number of New England churches began admitting the adult community of a town to membership. For several generations, therefore, it was entirely possible that a wife might be a member of the church while her husband was not. Depending on the position of the clerk keeping records in any particular congregational church, he might have focused the baptismal record on the church member only, in this case the mother, or more broadly on the parents. This might be, hypothetically, even more likely were the father of the children excommunicated.

On Wednesday, January 17, 2024 at 7:57:22 PM UTC-5, sswa...@butler.edu wrote:
> On Friday, January 5, 2024 at 8:13:01 PM UTC-5, taf wrote:
> > On Thursday, January 4, 2024 at 1:00:34 PM UTC-8, joseph cook wrote:
> >
> > > When I see 17th century baptism records that only name the mother, I assume this indicates the father has died prior to the baptism; I had not considered a church record would not name a living father just because they "were not a church member"; and don't really know of any circumstances where a husband would be married to a woman and they not belong to the same church in Massachusetts? Do you have more insight to your statement here?
> > >
> > An example of the circumstance: In the early 1680s, Hannah Heiter joined the church at Marblehead and had a string children baptized over the next decade, with her the only listed parent, over the next decade. The records give no indication of illegitimacy or censure for fornication, which would have been the case were she having multiple sequential out of wedlock children. It is generally accepted that she was thus wife, not widow, at least through the time the penultimate child was baptized.
> >
> > No idea what circumstances led to this scenario, as the husband has never been identified. The surname looks German or Dutch more so than British, so perhaps it was a religious mixed marriage.
> >
> > taf
> A possible explanation for Hannah Heiter’s record or similar entries might be found in C17 New England theology as set out, for example, in Perry Miller’s work. The first generation of New England settlers believed that a personal experience of God’s grace was a prerequisite for church membership. As the second generation found churches emptying, after bitter and continuing controversy, a goodly number of New England ministers endorsed the view that the church covenant embraced baptism of the children of church members who would then in due course become church members as they entered adulthood. Often enough these baptised children did not choose to become members. It was only at the end of the C17 that a number of New England churches began admitting the adult community of a town to membership. For several generations, therefore, it was entirely possible that a wife might be a member of the church while her husband was not. Depending on the position of the clerk keeping records in any particular congregational church, he might have focused the baptismal record on the church member only, in this case the mother, or more broadly on the parents. This might be, hypothetically, even more likely were the father of the children excommunicated.

This sounds right to me. Also, remember that early New Englanders held marriage was a civil/ civic connection/ ceremony, so the partners could theoretically have different religious statuses.

On Wednesday, January 17, 2024 at 4:57:22 PM UTC-8, sswa...@butler.edu wrote:

> It was only at the end of the C17 that a number of New England churches began admitting the adult community of a town to membership. For several generations, therefore, it was entirely possible that a wife might be a member of the church while her husband was not. Depending on the position of the clerk keeping records in any particular congregational church, he might have focused the baptismal record on the church member only, in this case the mother, or more broadly on the parents.

Even in the era of more relaxed standards of admission, it was quite common for a wife to join first, while the husband only would much later, if at all. The sole anomaly here is in not naming the father, and I think this is, as you suggest, due to the minister/clerk focusing on members only (they were brought for baptism by their mother, whose membership was their qualification, while the non-member father being irrelevant to the sacrament).

taf

On Thursday, January 18, 2024 at 12:15:24 PM UTC-5, taf wrote:
> On Wednesday, January 17, 2024 at 4:57:22 PM UTC-8, sswa...@butler.edu wrote:
>
> > It was only at the end of the C17 that a number of New England churches began admitting the adult community of a town to membership. For several generations, therefore, it was entirely possible that a wife might be a member of the church while her husband was not. Depending on the position of the clerk keeping records in any particular congregational church, he might have focused the baptismal record on the church member only, in this case the mother, or more broadly on the parents.
> Even in the era of more relaxed standards of admission, it was quite common for a wife to join first, while the husband only would much later, if at all. The sole anomaly here is in not naming the father, and I think this is, as you suggest, due to the minister/clerk focusing on members only (they were brought for baptism by their mother, whose membership was their qualification, while the non-member father being irrelevant to the sacrament).
>
> taf

Connected to New England immigrants (but unrelated to marriage practice & baptisms).

Presumably Stephen Tracy of the Plymouth colony, who returned to England (prob. 1640s), was the same merchant "of Yarmouth" who left an early token with a mint mark and a lion rampant:

https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_History_of_Norfolk/BeobAQAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22stephen+tracey%22+mint&pg=PA642&printsec=frontcover