RootsChat.Com
Wales (Counties as in 1851-1901) => Wales => Carmarthenshire => Topic started by: Caliandris on Wednesday 23 March 22 12:57 GMT (UK)
-
I would be very grateful if anyone can shed light on this puzzle, which has been driving me a bit crazy since I first learned of it.
My four greats grandfather, Charles Henry Hughes, was borough treasurer, a solicitor, a J.P. and generally a pillar of middle-class community in Carmarthen. He had five children with Ann Jones. He accepted responsibility for the children, and gave them his surname. He lived with them after the presumed death of their mother. He made arrangements for them to have money from his estate after his death (1879), and left them the property he was living in.
His parents were married, and his father was mayor of Carmarthen on a number of occasions and so they were a respectable family and so I looked for explanations for him not marrying his partner, such as a pre-existing marriage or some other reason. I can find none, although Charles Hughes is a common name in Wales.
What became even more strange, was that I discovered his brother, David Walter Hughes (1813-1850) did exactly the same. He didn't marry his partner, but took responsibility for his children and made arrangements for both partner and children to be looked after financially after his death.
His sister, Sophia Hughes (1807-1878) did marry, to Lewis Morris, but their son, Lewis Morris, who was a barrister and a poet, had to be made to marry his partner, with whom he lived before marriage.
It seems that Charles and David's other brother John may also have had a relationship with one of his nurses, and again, did not marry her.
If it was just my 4 greats grandfather, I would assume there must have been an obstacle to the marriage which could not be overcome. However, the fact that both his brothers and his nephew also avoided or resisted marriage makes me feel sure there must have been a reason - maybe a religion or political movement or philosophical movement which resisted state-sanctioned marriage for some reason.
I have asked this question of historians specializing in Carmarthenshire and no one has been able to come up with any sort of explanation. If anyone has any ideas, or suggestions for how I might research this, I'd be very glad to hear them.
-
My first thought was that there might have been a will where not marrying was a condition for some benefit.
-
Thank you for that thought - it isn't one I had thought of, and is a great idea, thank you!
I have copies of John Hughes's will and Charles and David's. The trouble with a name like Hughes in Carmarthen (not to mention Jones, his partner) is that it is SO difficult to know if you have the right family when you go further back. There are so many John Hughes's that I can't locate the right one - it is possible they came from Pembrokeshire, as Charles's father John Edward Hughes's servant was sent there to let family know he was dead.
I shall be looking out for wills with restrictions on marriage now!
-
Normally a couple marries in the bride's parish church, or the larger diocese church to which the bride's church belongs.
It's noticeable that the sister married in her parish church/Welsh chapel but the three brothers seem to not have been married.
I think thebrothers all married but the respective brides' Welsh Chapel's records may not be widely available, or maybe not available at all.
I find GENUKI website useful. Here's the Carmarthenshire county webpage and you may find the Genuki page for the family's home town can assist:
https://www.genuki.org.uk/big/wal/CMN
-
Pejic have you come across any clauses like that in wills
My great grandfather left his money only to his unmarried daughters but I assumed that was because his son and married daughters could look after themselves
-
It is made very clear in David Walter Hughes's will - NLW 1850 - that he was not married to his partner, who is described as singlewoman.
Drosybont
-
Could the not marrying have been a religious issue
I don't know much about it but remember hearing about feuds between " church" and "chapel" in Welsh villages
so maybe their respective partners
Were from other "side"
* Were the children baptised ?
-
Normally a couple marries in the bride's parish church, or the larger diocese church to which the bride's church belongs.
It's noticeable that the sister married in her parish church/Welsh chapel but the three brothers seem to not have been married.
I think thebrothers all married but the respective brides' Welsh Chapel's records may not be widely available, or maybe not available at all.
I find GENUKI website useful. Here's the Carmarthenshire county webpage and you may find the Genuki page for the family's home town can assist:
https://www.genuki.org.uk/big/wal/CMN
No it isn't that - the "brides" all lived separately from their partners, and none of them used a married name at any time, and they answered "single" to the censuses. I'm familiar with the tradition of marrying in the bride's parish, but that doesn't answer the question in this case. It isn't just that I failed to find marriages, but the partners lived apart and the women said they were single edited to add (after fixing the weird quotation thing):- as did the men!
-
Normally a couple marries in the bride's parish church, or the larger diocese church to which the bride's church belongs.
It's noticeable that the sister married in her parish church/Welsh chapel but the three brothers seem to not have been married.
I think thebrothers all married but the respective brides' Welsh Chapel's records may not be widely available, or maybe not available at all.
I find GENUKI website useful. Here's the Carmarthenshire county webpage and you may find the Genuki page for the family's home town can assist:
https://www.genuki.org.uk/big/wal/CMN
No it isn't that - the "brides" all lived separately from their partners, and none of them used a married name at any time, and they answered "single" to the censuses. I'm familiar with the tradition of marrying in the bride's parish, but that doesn't answer the question in this case. It isn't just that I failed to find marriages, but the partners lived apart and the women said they were single edited to add (after fixing the weird quotation thing):- as did the men!
Thanks for the extra insight.
The old fashioned term for unmarried mothers when I was young was that they were "fallen women", but I never heard of any phrase ,or stigma attached to any man.
I have an ancestor who was the first child after his parents marriage in Hannover. He had six older siblings who carried their father's surname and who lived with their maternal grandparents.
-
Could it be a question of perceived class?
Mary Michael, the mother of the children of David Walter Hughes was the daughter of a shoemaker.
She was enumerated as widow in 1861 census, with another child Harriet who can't be David Walter's
https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:M7ZM-YMQ
but married as a spinster in 1865 to Thomas Davies
Ann Jones, the mother of Charles Henry's children, was possibly the daughter of David Jones, a mason. The baptism of Lettice Jones from the 1841 census has her parents as David Jones, mason & Mary, likewise the baptism of her brother William.
:-\
-
I did wonder about the class prejudice thing... it just seems very strange to have multiple children with a woman and still not to marry her - even after both his parents had died. Ann Jones is my 3x great grandmother, and Charles Henry Hughes my 3x great grandfather. I have no hang ups about the children out of wedlock thing, just a great curiosity to know why they did this.
There were tales that Sir Lewis Morris was made to marry his partner despite her class being inferior to his, in order to be knighted and not embarrass the queen, but I am not sure the tale is true, as his children seem to be well within his marriage.
I'm confused about your information on Ann Jones. I had assumed due to the relative ages, that Mary Jones (50) was the mother of Ann Jones, and Lettice Jones who is 75 years old on the census for 1841 might be Mary Jones's mother in law? I am assuming you have misread the census to say 15 instead of 75 may be? I have always assumed that she would have the married name of Jones and an unknown maiden name. There is another Lettice Jones next door or in the same house (hard to tell) but from a different family grouping, aged 55. I cannot know if that Lettice Jones is related to the other. Jones is a very common name, of course, and while Lettice isn't common, I have often found that an unusual name can become common in a specific area, because it has been used by other families in that area.
I have collected all the information I can gather in my Jones and Hughes and Spence disambiguation file, but they are families full of brick walls I feel I have little hope of demolishing because of the impossibility of knowing if that Jones over there has any relation to this Jones over here!
-
so this 1841 census, Lettice 15 not 75 - the ages look to be descending
https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:M7QT-6KS
this baptism
https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:FQRP-R6K
& William's
https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:FQ98-QY3
info on David's occupation on the register available on Findmypast & Ancestry.
There is another Lettice who is enumerated as 55 in 1841 and 70 on the 1851 census
-
If you look at the numbers on the rest of the census... I think it is 75. The ages were usually descending if you had a mother or father as the head of the family and then children, but it is very common to find that there is an elderly person in a family entry, who is older than anyone else. I did look at it again... I think it's 75 but I will have a go at it being 15. I think Ann's father is Thomas Jones and not David, but I'm always prepared to be wrong!
-
Charles was recorded as the father on the 1st baptism -
FindMyPast (transcript only)
15 Jan 1838, Henry, baptismal place Llanddarog, father Charles H Hughes, mother Anne Jones
However, only Anne appeared on the 2nd and 3rd
FindMyPast (images/transcripts)
St Peter's Carmarthen
12 Oct 1842, Maria Elizabeth, daughter of Anne Jones, abode Church Street
12 Oct 1842, Frances Anne, daughter of Anne Jones, abode Church Street
Both appeared on the 4th and 5th
6 Aug 1845, Mary Sarah, illegitimate daughter of Charles Henry Hughes, abode Quay (Street) and Ann Jones, abode Church Street, father's occpn. Attorney
25 July 1849, Charles Henry, illegitimate son of Charles Henry Hughes and Ann Jones, abode Church Street, father's occpn. Attorney at law
Wonder why the inconsistency at baptisms 2 and 3?
-
I would assume it might be because the father wasn't present? I guess the vicar would only put the father on record if the father were present and consented, like registration, but I don't know. Charles appears to take responsibility for all the children and certainly has them to live with him after the mother dies or moves, and makes arrangements for them to be supported, but I guess it's possible he may not have attended due to other commitments, or maybe he didn't think they were his? None of it seems to make sense.
-
Parents didn't need to be present at baptisms to be recorded in the register. There was one that came up on another post recently with names of both parents and nothing to say deceased although the parents had died within days of each other a few weeks earlier.
-
I can see that might be in the case of a death, but would a vicar add a man to a birth record in his absence if alive? I don't know whether they would have been worried about that, though it isn't possible to register a father's name without his presence for civil records. I know that one ancestor of mine was made to do penance in church in the 18th century in Devon, and she was made to recite her offence, which would have included the name of the man she was accused of fornication with - although no record of him being punished for the same offence seems to exist!
-
Not specific to Carmarthen but I have found these arrangements were more common than pop culture history would suggest. Based on my own research experience, rural (or small town) men were more likely to claim and care for children born out of wedlock, and often give them their surname. The children often lived with them. I've found this to be true both in Wales and the US. I have several Welsh examples of cohabitation with children and often the couple would eventually marry. Sometimes I've been unable to find a marriage record and suspected they were never legally married but it could be a lost record or other explanation.
-
Hi
Maybe of no relevance at all, but is there a possibility that, at least for one of them, there was a previous marriage I.e. they were already married to someone else, preventing a second bigamous marriage. I do have an instance in my tree of someone marrying but then not living with their wife but going on to have several illegitimate children with his mistress. For any children born after 1837/38 have you also checked the GRO for their birth entries to see if they are listed as illegitimate (mother’s maiden name will be “-“). I presume you have also searched under surname Hugh or similar for any relevant records as Hughes and Hugh are often interchangeable in records.
-
Hi there,
Thank you for your suggestion. I have been unable to find a marriage for any of the three brothers, and more than that, they all declare themselves to be single when they fill in the census. In the case of my direct ancestor Maria Elizabeth, she was registered as Jones in 1839, which is her mother's maiden name, although she was baptized as Hughes and named as Hughes on all of the censuses from 1841. I can only find her brother Charles Henry on the GRO index, who was also registered as Jones.
I cannot find the other children on the index, Henry because he was born in 1836 (I have his baptism, and he was baptized Henry Hughes) and I think they would all have been registered as Jones, as they definitely never married. I'm still waiting for someone to come up with an explanation for why a middle-class, respectable family would have behaved this way.
-
I'm afraid I have no insights - but this is a fascinating puzzle!