Arthur Osborne--help with marriage in Sussex

[Ringrose]

I  am trying to find a marriage for Arthur Osborne in the 1890s in East Sussex. I found one to an Edith Stephens of East Grinstead in 1895 which would fit in with a son age 5 in 1901. However looking at 4 trees on Ancstry they say that he married an Edith Foord. I have searched Free BMD and Ancestry for a marriage and wonder if  perhaps one researcher put in Foord and others followed suit .I have contacted these people and asked where they got the info from as no record on their trees is shown. I have had no replies.Ive got to be sure before going any further and would appreciate any help and ideas.
Ringrose

[omega 1]

Hi Ringrose

I have looked on freebmd & could only find Arthur Osborne,without e,& Edith Stephens.

It seems to me after looking Edith Foord married another Chap.

Like you,i have found completely wrong marriages etc on Ancestry. I have certs to prove it.Most people dont answer me neither when i`ve sent messages.

Hope this helps

Omega

[Roy G]

Three suggestions
[1] Perhaps there was an error.
[2] Perhaps Edith was a widow and this was a second marriage where she used either her maiden or former husband's name.
[3] Verify the wife's details via the censuses.

If you are certain that the 5 year old son is theirs, you could apply for his birth cert which should give his mother's maiden name.
As an alternative try a search in both surnames you have for Edith on FreeBMD, earlier censuses and other sites like Genes Reunited.

The 1901  census has an Arthur Osborn (a policeman aged 31 of Newick) and Edith (aged 30 of Barcombe) living in Ewhurst with a son Arthur, and I am hoping that is the family you are investigating.  If that is the case, check out the 1881 census for an Edith Foord/Stephens born in Barcombe circa 1870.  You will find no Foord but a 10 year old Edith Stevens of Barcombe did exist.   The nearest Edith Foord was aged 15 and from Ticehurst.  It is therefore highly probable that your ancestor was Edith Stephens not Foord.

Roy G

[lizdb]

You are very wise to be confirming this info, not just copying  what someone has put on Ancestry as correct! As you say, it only takes one person to get it wrong and several others to copy it, and all of a sudden there is an awful lot of info out there which is just a load of rubbish.
If the person/people cannot confirm where this marriage to Foord can be verified, then it is best just to ignore it.

As has been said, a birth cert for the child will be the best way forward, as it should give mums maiden name, and hopefully lead you to the correct marriage - Foord or Stephens or otherwise

[Ringrose]

Thanks to everyone verifying what I already thought. Its good to have someone else check records for you. The 1901 census was the right family.
Many thanks
Ringrose