|
Pages: [1]
|
 |
|
Author
|
Topic: IGI lists wife as 'Mrs'? (Read 405 times)
|
|
|
meles
RootsChat Aristocrat
 Offline
Posts: 2771
|
I've got several "Mrs [husbands name]" in the IGI, including ggg grandparents.
And I would be wary - in two cases the marriage did not exist: I've been through the Parish Registers with a fine tooth comb and they're not there.
In my case, they have found the first birth, deducted a year, and put in a ficticious wedding.
I have found an earlier birth in another parish and the real wedding in yet another.
meles
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Brock: Alburgh, Norfolk, and after 1850, London; Tooley: Norfolk Grimmer: Norfolk; Grimson: Norfolk Harrison: London; Pollock Dixon: Hampshire; Collins: Middx Jeary: Norfolk; Davison: Norfolk Rogers: London; Bartlett: London Drew: Kent; Alden: Hants Gamble: Yorkshire; Huntingford: East London Census information is Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk |
|
|
|
|
meles
RootsChat Aristocrat
Offline
Posts: 2771
|
Oh - I see what you mean.
I guess the only way is to explore the PRs for yourself. Are you near an LDS History Centre or other place to see them?
Or you could always ask one of us who is, to search for you.
meles
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Brock: Alburgh, Norfolk, and after 1850, London; Tooley: Norfolk Grimmer: Norfolk; Grimson: Norfolk Harrison: London; Pollock Dixon: Hampshire; Collins: Middx Jeary: Norfolk; Davison: Norfolk Rogers: London; Bartlett: London Drew: Kent; Alden: Hants Gamble: Yorkshire; Huntingford: East London Census information is Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk |
|
|
Valda
RootsChat Marquessate
 Online
Posts: 6927
|
I would think it could just as easily have been 'Anne something Grove, can't read it but it looks a bit like Anne Mrs Grove so I will transcribe it as such'. The IGI transcribers do not transcribe the status of either party and the marriage register would just state their status but would not give a title to the parties and even if it did it wouldn't surely be placed in the middle of the person's name?
I don't think you can assume anything - 'must have been' without the evidence to back it up and that can only come from the actual register entry itself. Words such as presumed and assumed are always very dangerous when you use them in conjunction with family history.
Regards
Valda
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Little Nell
Global Moderator
RootsChat Marquessate
Offline
Posts: 5689
|
In the 18th century, the use of Mrs as a title for a woman did not mean that she was married. It was used as a mark of respect for a lady of a better class than your ag lab's daughter, even when she was single. Is this likely to be the case here?
Nell
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1]
|
|
|
|
|
) that it was a peculiarity of the parish clerk (and we all know some of them were very peculiar indeed!!