Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - LizzieL

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 ... 918
1
I haven't found a likely earlier marriage for William in Ware (where he was in 1871) but there's 10 years before his next sighting in Tonbridge, and a lot of miles in between.

2
Or William could have been previously married and left his wife, therefore he couldn't marry otherwise it would be bigamy.

3
There's an Albert Cross (no middle name included) age 17 travelling from Liverpool to New York in 1918 on ship named Baltic

4
Image of 1819 marriage records on Ancestry if you have access. Signature does look a bit similar to the 1826 record. but I'm no expert, what does anyone else think?

6
So he was already widowed in 1824. And would Martha be over 21 in 1824?

7
Image of 1826 marriage record on Ancestry - it was by licence
And John was a widower - maybe he wasn't actually free to marry the first time banns were read

8
My understanding is that they are only valid for three months from complete reading. I have several odd cases in my tree.

1. banns were fully read in one parish where both resided, then read again starting almost immediately in another parish a long way away (again both said to be resident there), followed by marriage in the second parish. The groom was a soldier and it looked like he was posted suddenly while the first set where being read. The bride may have been the daughter of another soldier, but not sure.
2. Banns read in 1830s, but no marriage until 1860s. On censuses between these dates, couple lived together producing three children. He said he was married, she said she was his single "housekeeper". So I suspect someone objected to the original banns because they knew he was already married.
3 Banns read twice about 18 months apart in two different parishes, couple married straight after 2nd set. I think bride was under age when first set read, didn't do any further research as they turned out not to be related just a co-incidence of names.

If you don't find a second set of Banns or a licence corresponding to the actual marriage, it is possible that the vicar was ignorant of the fact that Banns had a "use by" date

9
But..
If I have the right family in 1851 and 1861, living in St Dogmells, with oldest daughter Mary, William John is a fisherman not a collier.
In 1841 there is a William John (fisherman) age 25 (rounded) with Mary age 60 , Pheoby 20, Maria 15 - presumed mother and sisters. Mary's occupation says Ind(ependant). Normally for a married woman occupation is left blank, so I suspect she has been widowed.

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 ... 918