|
Pages: [1]
|
 |
|
Author
|
Topic: Frances' Husbands (Read 291 times)
|
Roy G
RootsChat Veteran
Posts: 699
|
I have a Frances Wooldridge in my family tree who I originally thought had 2 husbands. Benjamin Breach and George Agate. I have since found that my Frances was just married to Benjamin for many years (well beyond the marriage to George) but I need to find out more about this second Frances so that I can positively eliminate her from any future enquiries.
This is what I have so far
Frances b 19/04/1807 Kirdford m 21/04/1828 Brighton d June ¼ 1872
husband Bejamin Breach Benjamin died 1865
1841 census (HO107; Piece 1121; Book: 7; ED 19; Folio: 26; Page: 11; Line: 9)
living in North Lane Cottages, Brighton with Frances Chapman lodging.
1851 census (HO107; Piece: 1646; Folio: 533; Page: 13) 11 Regent Hill, Brighton.
1861 census (RG9; Piece: 598; Folio: 142; Page: 19) 35 Pimlico, Brighton.
1871 census (RG10; Piece: 1092; Folio: 72; Page: 16), a widow 37 Adelaide Crescent, Hove,
So who was the second Frances Wooldridge married to George Agate in Brighton on 14/05/1832 ? Any help would be much appreciated.
Roy G
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
kerryb
RootsChat Marquessate
Posts: 11963
|
Hi Roy
An interesting one this!
Had a look at George Agate's marriage on the Sussex Marriage Index, nothing to add sadly except that Frances was a widow.
Kerry
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.ukSearching for my family - Baldwin - Sussex, Middlesex, Cork, Pilbeam - Sussex, Harmer - Sussex, Terry - Surrey, Kent, Rhoades - Lincs, Roffey - Surrey, Traies - Devon & Middlesex & many many more to be found on my website .... www.kerrysfamilyhistory.co.uk |
|
|
kerryb
RootsChat Marquessate
Posts: 11963
|
Hmm I can't find any other records for Frances and George at all, no burials, census or anything.
I've tried Agates as well, perhaps he wasn't George Agate and that was a mistranscription??
Kerry
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.ukSearching for my family - Baldwin - Sussex, Middlesex, Cork, Pilbeam - Sussex, Harmer - Sussex, Terry - Surrey, Kent, Rhoades - Lincs, Roffey - Surrey, Traies - Devon & Middlesex & many many more to be found on my website .... www.kerrysfamilyhistory.co.uk |
|
|
Roy G
RootsChat Veteran
Posts: 699
|
Thanks Kerry, at least your research confirms I am not going potty for you too have failed to find something obvious locally. I did note in an index to the 1841 census that there was a 55 year old female Frances Agate (spelt Francis) born in Sussex, but I do not have access to the actual census itself, so that search came to an abrupt halt
Knowing that Frances was a widow at the time of her marriage still helps though, for this Frances could have been older than I initially imagined (like the one above) and may have even remarried under her late husband's surname. Does the SMI give a Frances 'something' marrying a 'somebody' Wooldridge prior to 1832, or is just that, too little info to do a search?
Roy G
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
kerryb
RootsChat Marquessate
Posts: 11963
|
Hi Roy
I think from my memory of my search last night there was a Frances and Aaron Agate who were born 1780s in the 1841 census.
I searched for blank Agate marrying Frances anything but nothing unfortunately.
Kerry
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.ukSearching for my family - Baldwin - Sussex, Middlesex, Cork, Pilbeam - Sussex, Harmer - Sussex, Terry - Surrey, Kent, Rhoades - Lincs, Roffey - Surrey, Traies - Devon & Middlesex & many many more to be found on my website .... www.kerrysfamilyhistory.co.uk |
|
|
jann
RootsChat Senior
Posts: 271
Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
|
Hi,
Have you considered the possibility that they disappeared from the English record system because they emigrated?
Jann
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Roy G
RootsChat Veteran
Posts: 699
|
Brill Jan & kerry
In bouncing around in my mind what you both said, I found the answer in the Pulborough Poor Law Records
Poor Law Record Number: Par/153/32/1
Parish: Pulborough Summons and maintenance order
Date: 26 Jan 1833
Subject Frances AGATE married Child born 2/1/1832 in Brighton by previous husband Thomas Wooldridge. deceased 1831 Brighton
Spouse George AGATE,
Child William WOOLDRIDGE Infant
She was Frances Brooks who married Thomas Wooldridge in Brighton on 15 July 1827. Ironically, think I also have these on my tree but had neglected to check.
Thanks so much, matter closed.
Roy G
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
kerryb
RootsChat Marquessate
Posts: 11963
|
Excellent news, glad that's cleared up!
Kerry 
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.ukSearching for my family - Baldwin - Sussex, Middlesex, Cork, Pilbeam - Sussex, Harmer - Sussex, Terry - Surrey, Kent, Rhoades - Lincs, Roffey - Surrey, Traies - Devon & Middlesex & many many more to be found on my website .... www.kerrysfamilyhistory.co.uk |
|
|
Roy G
RootsChat Veteran
Posts: 699
|
Thought I had cracked it but now think I should start a new topic under the new title of, 'Thomas' wives!'
I established Thomas Wooldridge bapt 08/10/1802 Kirdford had married Frances Brooks in Brighton 15 July 1827 was reported to have died in 1831 so that Frances could remarriy to George Agate 14/05/1832 Brighton.
My source was a Poor Law Record Par/153/32/1 from Pulborough showing Frances as responsible for the upkeep of her previous husbands child (William Wooldridge born Brighton 2 Jan 1832)
I then found that this (or another) Thomas Wooldridge also married an Elizabeth Waller in Brighton 31 Dec 1830 (the record shows Thomas as a servant of North Lane) and it was their child William whose baptism I found.
I do not doubt that Thomas died in 1831, but the child William's baptism coincides with the poor law record requiring Frances to care for her child William. I am now beginning to think Thomas a BIGAMIST and that after his death his first wife undertook the responsibility of caring for the child from his bigimous marriage.
Oh dear, I suppose sometimes it is best not too dig too deeply or to question.
Roy G
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1]
|
|
|
|
|
