RootsChat.Com
Beginners => Family History Beginners Board => Topic started by: Chris Anderson on Wednesday 06 September 17 19:35 BST (UK)
-
Groom says he is 30 but I have him born in 1815
Also he is called Robert at the top of the certificate but Ralph at the bottom???
(https://image.ibb.co/mT8NuF/confusion.jpg)
-
The "lie" about the age could be to cover up the age difference between him and the bride.
Looks to me as if there has been a mistake with his name, as it looks more like Sayor as well rather than Taylor. Is he Robert or Ralph in later censuses?
-
Just linking to your related thread:
www.rootschat.com/forum/index.php?topic=778453.msg6323890#msg6323890
What is shown at the bottom is Ralph's signature - his own handwriting.
What is shown above is the minister's entries as to bride and groom's details. If the minister has the first name wrong, it is likely to be an error rather than a lie on the bridegroom's part - if he was going to lie about his name he would surely have carried the lie through to his signature.
-
Thanks guys
Why do these misspellings and confusing contradictions only seem to happen to me!!!
-
Why do these misspellings and confusing contradictions only seem to happen to me!!!
I & Im sure 1000s of others would disagree...it happens to us all but that's what makes it so enjoyable as it makes you put your thinking cap on :D
Annie
-
Why do these misspellings and confusing contradictions only seem to happen to me!!!
I & Im sure 1000s of others would disagree...it happens to us all but that's what makes it so enjoyable as it makes you put your thinking cap on :D
Annie
I agree Annie. I'd take a guess that it has happened to all of us at one time or another. Took me ages to find my grandfather who had been transcribed as Welcome rather than Valentine. ;D ;D
-
Groom,
I have one written as 'Doorhouse' on the actual doc on Fancestry although her surname was Donohoe in a multitude of variations & I will never forget the day I found it because when I saw it my thought was 'surely no-one has that as a name, what's it really meant to be' ???
Glad my curiosity paid off & I would urge anyone to look at it as I would really love for someone to tell me it's not 'Doorhouse' ::) ;D
You won't need any other details as it's the only one on there although I don't know what it's down as on BlindMyPast :-\
Let me know if you get bored enough to check it out what your thoughts are :P
Annie
-
Looks like Doorhouse to me although if you want it to be Donohoe I suppose a case could be made. ;D
A male Doorhouse was married in 1986 in Keighley Yorkshire reg dist according to ancestry although there are none on FreeBMD.
FindMyPast has 2 Doorhouse on the 1939 register, both in Yorkshire plus the Keighley marriage and your Jane in 1871
-
Thanks Crisane,
I actually wondered if I was swayed by the transcription i.e. blinded & couldn't see what I knew it should be.
I have always wondered if that was the actual doc at the time or if it had been transcribed later as the name is from Donohoe to Donoghue with goodness knows how many variations in between ::)
Annie
-
Is this from the same certificate ?
http://www.rootschat.com/forum/index.php?topic=778468.msg6323944#msg6323944
Comparing the two zeros I wonder if the curved line in zero on his age means it should be read as an 8.
I don't know if they still wrote 8 like that in 1855 but I'm sure someone here will know.
-
Sinnan...
I think you could be right...
Very observant!!
Annie
-
Yes, could well be as the 0 or 8 in 30 looks similar to the number in 1855.
-
That looks conceivable! Great work Sinann
-
Your welcome Chris.
I hadn't noticed the 8 of 1855.
I almost didn't post as I wasn't sure, glad I did now.
-
Groom says he is 30 but I have him born in 1815
Also he is called Robert at the top of the certificate but Ralph at the bottom???
(https://image.ibb.co/mT8NuF/confusion.jpg)
Hi
That age says 38 years in the top row of your Marriage Certificate scan.
I see a lot of this in old documents for an 8, sometimes made worse when scanned.
Regards Mark
Edit: I see others have noticed too.
The writer in the handwritten year date "1855" has formed the 8 in the same way, although very slightly more pronounced as an 8.
-
Also bear in mind if the certificate is issued by the GRO then the signatures won't be those of the couple, they will be transcribed versions created by the clerk creating the register at the time. The original documents lie with the local archives not with the GRO.
-
Also bear in mind if the certificate is issued by the GRO then the signatures won't be those of the couple, they will be transcribed versions created by the clerk creating the register at the time. The original documents lie with the local archives not with the GRO.
The image looks to be from the parish register, the signatures are different, and different again to the writing of the details.
The age certainly looks like 38 and not 30.
-
My husband's g.grandmother stated she was 18 when she married in 1867 when, in fact she was only 15. Her husband stated he was 22 which was correct. I don't know where her father was I can't trace him after 1857 in a Trade Directory, but her mother was still alive, she didn't die until the following year. As she got married at Manchester Cathedral, maybe she married without her mother knowing. In any case the marriage lasted for 35 years before she died of cancer of the uterus, her age was correct on her death certificate, so obviously her husband knew her real age.
-
My great grandmother appeared on a family tree prepared by a distant cousin as Louisa Knapman, which was odd because my mother was convinced he name was Satchell. When we came to investigate the marriage cert. definitely said Knapman and one of the witnesses was John Satchell. A Louisa Satchell had been born in Newport (where we knew she came from) 17 years before and appeared in the censuses along with her brother John but never married, died or appeared in later censuses. Likewise no sign of any Louisa Knapman except for this marriage. Assumption was that the marriage, in London, was without parental Knowledge. I've been told on here that despite the incorrect info. so long as banns were read, which they were, and no one objected the marriage was perfectly legal.