Allwoods of mid-Somerset

[Andrew Tarr]

Additional information:
Deaths at West Lydford - George Allwood  28.12.1861  age 87;  Martha  7.2.1849  age 74
   (both ages point to births in 1774, so are approximate)

Marriages at Lydford:  George Allard to Martha Slade:  17 May AND 13 July 1807 (tallies with the birth of their child Harriet).  Why the two dates - is one for banns?

Last (related) question:  When/where did Thomas White marry Sophia, presumably 1810 to 1818 ?

[suzard]

Have you got the marriage cert from GRO?

Here is what is on the marriage cert:

29th day of October 1839, parish church, Alford, after banns:

James Allwood, full age, bachelor, labourer, of Lydford, resident in this parish, father Thomas A, labourer
Ann White, full age, spinster of Alford, father Thomas White, labourer
witnesses Frederick Cannon and Anna Allwood

I had found the George and Martha family some years ago, but discarded them after seeing this cert.  I have seen other examples of fictitious names in cases where the true father is not divulged or just not known.  But if Allard or Hallard is an alternative spelling, that may give another lead to follow.  Rustic Somerset dialect may be responsible ....  Interestingly, the handwriting in my copy of the cert looks too modern for 1839, but it is a GRO 'photocopy', not a recently filled-in form.

......and there is this baptism

West Lydford
page 1 entry 7
Baptism by W H Colston rector & visitor
20 Jun 1813
James son of George and Martha Allard
address West Lydford
father's occ Labourer

Suz

the baptism of James to George & Martha matches the age of your James

and it is strange Anna was witness at James' marriage and James was witness at Annas?

could it be that both fathers were entered as Thomas on marriage and that is where the error lies - as I posted before there was some error at the entry of the marriage as they had to resign - have you seen that entry in Parish registers ?-if not I will try to decipher it more for you

Suz

[Andrew Tarr]

could it be that both fathers were entered as Thomas on marriage and that is where the error lies - as I posted before there was some error at the entry of the marriage as they had to resign - have you seen that entry in Parish registers ?-if not I will try to decipher it more for you

Thanks Suz - you may be right, but the re-signature may also be to do with the Allard-Allwood switch, as it seems that Allwood became the norm from then on, except for the relapse into Hallard for Anna's 1850 marriage.  Would a re-signature be necessary to correct a father's name?

It could be just another misinterpretation of rustic accents by an educated (or deaf) cleric.  One of my ancestors about the same time, early 1800s, was married as Pearson, though his real name was Piercy, which mutated into Pearcy, Percey and finally Percy by his death in 1863.

By the way, I have found that the dual marriage dates in 1807 were indeed banns and marriage.  I haven't seen the parish register entry, only transcripts and the GRO entry.  An image would be nice ... 

[suzard]

this is my transcription of the Parish register -note the dates -especially the year!!!

Parish Church Alford
Page 6
Banns read 1839
James Allwood singleman & Ann White singlewoman both resident in this Parish
published 3 Sundays  underwritten
Sunday 22 September H Wickens
Sunday 29 September T G D Thring
Sunday 6 October Henry Wickens

then
Parish reg Alford
Marriages 1836
Page 7 Entry no 20
James Allwood full age Bachelor (resident in this Parish) of Lydford
Ann White spinster of this Parish
were married in this Church by Banns with the consent of (left blank) on 29th October 1839
by me Henry Wickens Curate
James Allwood  signed
Ann White made her mark X
in the presence of
Frederick Cannon X his mark
Anna Allwood signed
underneath this entry
The above marriage was entered in the first instance in this the old acquitting? (can't really read this word) by mistake and entered into the new one and resigned by the respective parties in the presence of Henry Wickens officiating minister and Thos White father of the bride x the mark of Thomas White (witnessed by) T G D Thring Rector

then Parish register (must have started a completely new book)
Page 1 Entry no 1
Marriage after Banns
29 Oct 1839 marriage solemnised in the Parish Church

James Allwood full age Bachelor labourer of Lydford (resident in this Parish) father Thomas Allwood labourer
Ann White full age spinster of Alford father Thomas White labourer
Parish Church Alford after Banns by Henry Wickens
James Allwood signed
Ann White X made her mark
in the presence of
Frederick Cannon X made his mark
Anna Allwood signed

so - the 1839 marriage was mistakenly entered in the 1836 register -there were no facilities for entering father's names in 1836 - but it seems James & Ann were called back to resign and Ann's father Thomas White witnessed this It is quite a messy entry -crossings out - and then it seems a brand new book was started and this marriage entered and was the first entry . The information recorded in the new book would be what appears on the marriage certificate

Also Frederick Cannon and Anna Allwood witnesses the marriage
and James Allwood witnessed Frederick and Anna's marriage in later years

My thoughts are that father's names were  not recorded in the first (mistaken)entry as they were not required in 1836 Then when the bride and groom and the bride's father came in to resign and witness the "new" entry James'father's name was mistakenly entered as Thomas -same name same occupation as Brides father
It seems (to me) it is too much of a coincidence for Anna Allwood (and hsband to be) who witnessed the marriage to not be a relative - and also James witnessed their marriage

There is also a baptism of James to George and Martha at the correct time and also one of Anna to George & Martha
variations of Allwood were used at children's baptisms and also at Anna's marriage to Frederick Cannon

Opinions please

Suz

[suzard]

could it be that both fathers were entered as Thomas on marriage and that is where the error lies - as I posted before there was some error at the entry of the marriage as they had to resign - have you seen that entry in Parish registers ?-if not I will try to decipher it more for you

Thanks Suz - you may be right, but the re-signature may also be to do with the Allard-Allwood switch, as it seems that Allwood became the norm from then on, except for the relapse into Hallard for Anna's 1850 marriage.  Would a re-signature be necessary to correct a father's name?

It could be just another misinterpretation of rustic accents by an educated (or deaf) cleric.  One of my ancestors about the same time, early 1800s, was married as Pearson, though his real name was Piercy, which mutated into Pearcy, Percey and finally Percy by his death in 1863.

By the way, I have found that the dual marriage dates in 1807 were indeed banns and marriage.  I haven't seen the parish register entry, only transcripts and the GRO entry.  An image would be nice ... 

The resignature would not be anything to do with the Allwood/Allard switch as Allwood was clearly written in Banns 1836 mistake and 1839 entry

Suz

[Andrew Tarr]

so - the 1839 marriage was mistakenly entered in the 1836 register -there were no facilities for entering father's names in 1836 - but it seems James & Ann were called back to re-sign and Ann's father Thomas White witnessed this. It is quite a messy entry -crossings out - and then it seems a brand new book was started and this marriage was the first entry. The information recorded in the new book would be what appears on the marriage certificate ....

My thoughts are that father's names were not recorded in the first (mistaken) entry as they were not required in 1836. Then when the bride and groom and the bride's father came in to re-sign and witness the "new" entry James' father's name was mistakenly entered as Thomas -same name same occupation as Bride's father.

Opinions please

If pushed, I think I might be able to make 'registers' or 'registry' look like 'acquitting' in script  . Perhaps the cleric forgot to start the new register as instructed, using the old book, then remembered the next day (or month, or wedding) and had to get them back - or maybe the required new book had not arrived yet.  I think the 'Thomas' explanation has to be correct.

Thanks, Suz.

[suzard]

I'll PM you

Suz