Author Topic: Why didn't he??  (Read 5159 times)

Offline Heather D

  • RootsChat Aristocrat
  • ******
  • Posts: 2,754
    • View Profile
Re: Why didn't he??
« Reply #27 on: Friday 18 March 05 12:55 GMT (UK) »
Hi again. Well I may as well answer you here as on the other thread :)

Sorry but I don't have burials for Flintham (they are not yet indexed by Notts FHS). So your option is either to examine the parish records for Flintham or trawl throught he GRO index for a possible death (Flintham being in the Bingham registration district). My own gut instinct is that Mary will have died in the few years after 1851.

Maybe you're trying to make it too complicated and it simply suited one or both of them not to bother with marriage? I have several such instances in my own tree....sometimes the woman took the man's name, sometimes not! I still like the idea of looking for a will though - you never know :)

Heather
Nottinghamshire: Willmott, Williams, Oldham, Padgett, Burden, Stokes, Huskinson, Tuckwood, Morley, Barnett
Lincolnshire: Foster, Dennis, Mowbray
Leicestershire: Mowbray,Hudson, Tuckwood
Derbyshire: Starbrook
Somerset: Willmott, Elliott
Cork:Driscoll, Murphy
London Surrey:Driscoll, Cheesman
London Kent:Cheesman
Kent:Cheesman, Davis, West, Hills, Kneller, Bones, Eastup

Census information is crown copyright from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk

RootsChat is the busiest, largest free family history forum site in the country. It is completely free to use. Register now.
Also register instantly with Facebook or Twitter (and other social networks). Start your genealogy search now.


Offline omskirk

  • RootsChat Veteran
  • *****
  • Posts: 565
    • View Profile
Re: Why didn't he??
« Reply #28 on: Friday 18 March 05 13:12 GMT (UK) »
  Not much of a contribution, but nobody seems to have mentioned inheritance.

 In the "olden days" they used Alias's or had a double barreled surname to make sure a line of inheritance stayed intact, I have one instance in my tree of the Man taking his wifes surname to ensure a family line was kept intact.
My point is, that inheritance could be the reason they did'nt marry, or maybe he was just a chancer ;D

  David.
Any Bowler/Boaler/Boler
Census information is Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk

RootsChat is the busiest, largest free family history forum site in the country. It is completely free to use. Register now.
Also register instantly with Facebook or Twitter (and other social networks). Start your genealogy search now.


Offline topmarx

  • RootsChat Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 119
    • View Profile
Re: Why didn't he??
« Reply #29 on: Friday 18 March 05 13:23 GMT (UK) »
ok ;)

Lots of things to think about here.

I agree Heather sometimes wanting to know too much can make things get complicated and lets face it. We will never know the full story of our ancestors lives.

Thanks to you all anyway and it looks like I start trying to find a will.

Offline anya_mnstr

  • RootsChat Extra
  • **
  • Posts: 19
    • View Profile
Mary Hemstock - death
« Reply #30 on: Saturday 09 April 05 20:05 BST (UK) »
Sorry to butt in on your discussion, but I found it a very interesting read:)

I found a death recorded for Mary Hemstock in the Dec QTR 1858.  Location on Free BMD is Bingham, which apparently includes the town your John & Mary are shown on in 1851.

Could be your mystery wife?

Offline topmarx

  • RootsChat Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 119
    • View Profile
Re: Why didn't he??
« Reply #31 on: Sunday 10 April 05 09:47 BST (UK) »
Thank you..for taking an interest in my story.

Yes this could very well be the lady I am looking for.

Henry was born 1857, just before she died then.
So I am still wondering Why didn't he.

I wonder if there was a hospital or asylum in Bingham? Or maybe Sophia moved in after Mary's death.

A lot of queries in this one.

Thanks you again for the info.

Offline janan

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 7,890
    • View Profile
Re: Why didn't he??
« Reply #32 on: Sunday 10 April 05 16:21 BST (UK) »
Hi again,
The Union Workhouse was in Bingham, see
http://www.rootschat.com/forum/index.php/topic,4273.0.html

I'm wondering if John never married Sophia because he did not know Mary had died - afterall he does continue to list himself as married on censuses not widowed. He abandoned her for a younger woman, she ended up in the workhouse,  he had no further contact  with her or his children from the marriage  ??? ??? Who knows ??? Regards Jan   
ALL CENSUS DATA INCLUDED IN POSTINGS IS CROWN COPYRIGHT, FROM  www.nationalarchives.gov.uk

bedfordshire - farr, carver,handley, godfrey, newell, bird, emmerton, underwood,ancell
buckinghamshire- pain
cambridgeshire- bird, carver
hertfordshire- conisbee, bean, saunders, quick,godfrey
derbyshire- allsop, noon
devon - griffin, love, rapsey
dorset- rendall, gale
somerset- rendall, churchill
surrey/middlesex - douglas, conisbee, childs, lyon groombridge

Offline anya_mnstr

  • RootsChat Extra
  • **
  • Posts: 19
    • View Profile
Re: Why didn't he??
« Reply #33 on: Sunday 10 April 05 17:19 BST (UK) »
This could just be a weird coincedence, but on FreeBMD, I found a possible 1860 marriage between John Hemstock & Mary Ann Mellors. 

Offline topmarx

  • RootsChat Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 119
    • View Profile
Re: Why didn't he??
« Reply #34 on: Sunday 10 April 05 20:13 BST (UK) »
Yes Jan exactly..who knows.
Still it is all very mysterious.  I hope that the marriage in 1860 is a coincience as it gets even more mind boggling.


I would love the use of a time machine woudn't you?  ???

No wonder my Gran told me she knew nothing of her past :-X