john kirkland elizabeth houseley

[robert g shaw]

hi
i was wondering if anyone could access the wedding for these two people please, it took place in st werburghs derby on the 18th of september 1815. im looking especially for john kirklands fathers or mothers name as there are several 'john kirklands' he could be.

thanks.

[rosie99]

The only additional information on freereg is that John's occupation is a labourer

[CaroleW]

Unfortunately - marriage entries for that period contain very little really useful info which may help to advance your research.  This is a rough guide to what you can expect.

Fathers names were not shown on marriage entries prior to 1.7.1837 which is the date when Civil Registration was introduced.  Mothers names are never shown on English marriage certs


All you will get will be on the lines of the following - some of which you may already know

Names, date and venue

Spinster/bachelor - or widow/widower
Age = Full (over 21yrs) or Minor (under 21yrs)
Of this parish (OTP) - does not necessarily mean they were both born in that parish - just that they satisfied the short residential qualifying time required to enable them to marry there (approx 3wks)

The name and signature of the person marrying them plus the signatures of the 2 witnesses (occasionally more than 2 witnesses but not usual)



 

[Annette7]

Is this the John and Elizabeth who raised their family in Kirk Langley, Derbyshire?

If so, the census states John was bc.1796 Langley (i.e. Kirk Langley) and there are only 2 candidates baptised there:

John bp.29/12/1794 Kirk Langley, son of Ann

John bp.14/10/1793 Kirk Langley, son of Isaac and Sarah.

I would suggest that of the 2 your John is likely to be the one bp.1793, son of Isaac and Sarah.   Although I can't see that John and Elizabeth actually named any children after his parents, he did have children named John, James, Elizabeth, Hannah, Edward, Thomas, Ann, Maria and Emma.   Isaac and Sarah had Elizabeth, James, Thomas, Edward, Ann and John all names used by John and Elizabeth.   

The other John married a Mary, raised a family in Derby and some of his children included the names George, Joseph and Frank none of which were family names of Isaac and Sarah.   This John died 1867 Derby, shown bc.1795.

Like Isaac and Sarah, John and Elizabeth remained in Kirk Langley - John died Sept.qtr.1876 Belper (regn.district for Kirk Langley) and although I can't see the burial online I would imagine it would have taken place in Kirk Langley where he'd lived his whole life - death entry shows bc.1793.

So, J & E named their children with names of his brothers/sisters, remained in Kirk Langley (like Isaac and Sarah), is shown at death as b.1793 and for these reasons I believe your John was the son of Isaac.   In the absence of any real proof (which sadly doesn't exist) I'd go with what seems most logical and to me it's that he was the son of Isaac and Sarah for the reasons stated.

Annette

[trish1120]

Marriage;
1 May 1792, Wirksworth : St Mary, Derbyshire
Isaac KIRKLAND to Sarah ALSOP
(FreeREG)

1841 Census has a Sarah Kirkland age 70 living in Kings Langley.

Anc has a Sarah ALLSOP Baptised 6 December 1771 Wicksworth, Father JOHN
+
Isaac KIRKLAND
Baptism 1770 Kings Langley to JOHN/MARY


Trish

[robert g shaw]

Is this the John and Elizabeth who raised their family in Kirk Langley, Derbyshire?

If so, the census states John was bc.1796 Langley (i.e. Kirk Langley) and there are only 2 candidates baptised there:

John bp.29/12/1794 Kirk Langley, son of Ann

John bp.14/10/1793 Kirk Langley, son of Isaac and Sarah.

I would suggest that of the 2 your John is likely to be the one bp.1793, son of Isaac and Sarah.   Although I can't see that John and Elizabeth actually named any children after his parents, he did have children named John, James, Elizabeth, Hannah, Edward, Thomas, Ann, Maria and Emma.   Isaac and Sarah had Elizabeth, James, Thomas, Edward, Ann and John all names used by John and Elizabeth.   

The other John married a Mary, raised a family in Derby and some of his children included the names George, Joseph and Frank none of which were family names of Isaac and Sarah.   This John died 1867 Derby, shown bc.1795.

Like Isaac and Sarah, John and Elizabeth remained in Kirk Langley - John died Sept.qtr.1876 Belper (regn.district for Kirk Langley) and although I can't see the burial online I would imagine it would have taken place in Kirk Langley where he'd lived his whole life - death entry shows bc.1793.

So, J & E named their children with names of his brothers/sisters, remained in Kirk Langley (like Isaac and Sarah), is shown at death as b.1793 and for these reasons I believe your John was the son of Isaac.   In the absence of any real proof (which sadly doesn't exist) I'd go with what seems most logical and to me it's that he was the son of Isaac and Sarah for the reasons stated.

Annette

yep, you have reached the same conclusion as me... probably isaac and sarah s 'john', but i cannot rule out the (illegitimate?) anns john.

id like it to be isaac and sarah because i have a timeline of ancestors going back several more generations .

i guess i might be able to tie ann into that too (it wouldnt be the first time i have a divergance in my tree only for all of them to be traced back to a common ancestor).

thank you everyone

[robert g shaw]

Is this the John and Elizabeth who raised their family in Kirk Langley, Derbyshire?

If so, the census states John was bc.1796 Langley (i.e. Kirk Langley) and there are only 2 candidates baptised there:

John bp.29/12/1794 Kirk Langley, son of Ann

John bp.14/10/1793 Kirk Langley, son of Isaac and Sarah.

I would suggest that of the 2 your John is likely to be the one bp.1793, son of Isaac and Sarah.   Although I can't see that John and Elizabeth actually named any children after his parents, he did have children named John, James, Elizabeth, Hannah, Edward, Thomas, Ann, Maria and Emma.   Isaac and Sarah had Elizabeth, James, Thomas, Edward, Ann and John all names used by John and Elizabeth.   

The other John married a Mary, raised a family in Derby and some of his children included the names George, Joseph and Frank none of which were family names of Isaac and Sarah.   This John died 1867 Derby, shown bc.1795.

Like Isaac and Sarah, John and Elizabeth remained in Kirk Langley - John died Sept.qtr.1876 Belper (regn.district for Kirk Langley) and although I can't see the burial online I would imagine it would have taken place in Kirk Langley where he'd lived his whole life - death entry shows bc.1793.

So, J & E named their children with names of his brothers/sisters, remained in Kirk Langley (like Isaac and Sarah), is shown at death as b.1793 and for these reasons I believe your John was the son of Isaac.   In the absence of any real proof (which sadly doesn't exist) I'd go with what seems most logical and to me it's that he was the son of Isaac and Sarah for the reasons stated.

Annette

hi... i have a problem with this.... i cannot find a census return for john or elizabeth for 1871, . im also a bit concerned that john and elizabeths second daughter (after elizabeth their first) is called ann.. after johns mother?..

[Annette7]

In 1871 John and his wife (shown just by initial E) are lodgers living in Heanor, Derbyshire.

John had a sister called Ann, it may even have been a family name of his wife, it doesn't follow that she had to have been named after his mother!!!

Annette

[robert g shaw]

i cannot find this entry, his wife elizabeth was called houseley and was born at tissington.  does this tie in with what that entry says?..

thanks for that.