Kentonian
RootsChat Extra
Posts: 9
Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
|
Hi
I think I may have posted in the wrong place last time so I'm having another go!
I have the GRO certificate for the marriage of James Endean and Jane Cudlipp which took place at St Mary Magdelene on 12 March 1840. Unfortunately the certificate does not include the names and occupations of either the groom's or the bride's fathers. I am hoping that the vicar may have written something more in the parish register than was included in the official documentation and that someone who has access to the register may be able to have a look and let me know if that was the case.
Any assistance would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks in advance
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Kentonian
RootsChat Extra
Posts: 9
Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
|
Thank you Fizzy. This is indeed the couple I believe the marriage relates to.
But..... in Dec 1860, Jane Cudlipp, age 41, dau of Andrew Cudlipp dec'd, farm labourer marries in the register office at Stoke Damerel, claiming to be a spinster. James Endean is still living in the 1861 census.
I am trying to explore all avenues first, before I reach the likely conclusion that she married the second time bigamously! However, in the 1861 census Jane is enumerated in Devonport under her new married name (Batten) and has one daughter with her - Charlotte ENDEAN!!!! She gives her place of birth as Lifton. Other children from the marriage of James and Jane are with James in Cornwall.
I feel pretty sure that my conclusion is right. All the evidence points that way, but thought I ought to double check anyway.
Thanks for taking an interest.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Kentonian
RootsChat Extra
Posts: 9
Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
|
Well...... I never knew that! Thank you, thank you.
I have just used 3 of my fmp credits to have a look at the image.
It says ENDEAN James v ENDEAN Jane & CHAMBERS & BATTEN.
I've never seen one of these before, so I assume Chambers and Batten are 2 co-respondents? Well I never! Any ideas where or how I can find out more?
But the marriage was still bigamous since it took place 3 years before the divorce. And yes, it looks as if everyone was telling little fibs in 1861. John Batten is back in Launceston also claiming to be a widower. I guess they thought if they were together they might have been rumbled. I wonder if they were and that prompted the divorce. Now need to research for a possible prosecution for bigamy.
John had been married previously but his first wife had died in 1859. John and Jane later went on to have a daughter Jane Cudlipp Batten.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Kentonian
RootsChat Extra
Posts: 9
Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
|
Oh................. The divorce papers are at TNA and I can request a digital copy (have to wait until tomorrow though - service only operates Mon-Fri)
And yes, there are 2 co-respondents named.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Kentonian
RootsChat Extra
Posts: 9
Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
|
He certainly would have known because they were neighbours in Launceston. Funny thing is that his daughter from his first marriage was in Devonport too and I bet she knew as well!
It's peculiar how one of her children moved with her and John to Devonport, but the others stayed with their father. It seems as if there must have been a degree of collusion going on here. Can't wait for tomorrow!
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Kentonian
RootsChat Extra
Posts: 9
Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
|
Yes, will certainly let you have an update when I have more.
And yes, perhaps Charlotte Endean wasn't really an Endean after all. There's loads more to unravel here I fancy. What excitement! My most scandalous discovery to date.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Author
?