Page 81 - 3rdPub1

The Blaker Society © It is highly unlikely that Francis Blaker would have name a son Arthur without
CUCKFIELD

being related to Arthur Blaker (ob. 1618). Of this younger Arthur, we have
nothing more: he was not married or buried at Cuckfield.
Francis Blaker the father appears in the records of these children:

47
[1600] Sep. 7 Arter Blaker s. of Francis. baptized
[1602/3] Feb. 13 Edmond & Alis s. & d. to Francis Blaker. baptized
48
49
[1606] Apr. 5 Edmond s. of fraunces blaker. buried
50
[1606] Oct. 12 Elsabeth d. of Frances Blaker. baptized
[1608] Jul. 31 Elsabeth d. of Fraunces Blaker. baptized
51

and then Francis died:

52
[1610] Dec. 17 frannces blaker, husbandman. buried

Beyond that, we have little information. Doubtless Francis married about
1600: but if before 1598, then the record at Cuckfield is lost. There is no
marriage licence for him at Lewes or Chichester. There is no will or
administration for him in the Lewes or Chichester probate archives. Like
Arthur, he was a husbandman, but by the time of Arthur’s will Francis was
dead, so we have no corroboration whether Francis was Arthur’s brother or
nephew, for instance.
The most telling thing about our information on Francis is that he named
a son Edmund. If we have one pointer from the Cuckfield parish registers as to
who would be the ancestor of Arthur Blaker living at Cuckfield in 1524 and
1525, it is this.

Arthur Blaker (III)

Cuckfield parish registers also give us an Arthur Blaker from a younger
generation: his first wife was buried in 1681:

53
[1681] Dec. 21 Ann wife of Arthur Blaker.

He re-married in 1685:

54
[1684/5] Feb. 3 Arthur Blaker & Sara Keel.

46 p. 3
47 p. 3
48 p. 5
49 p. 134
50 p. 9
51 p. 12
52 p. 138
53 p. 198