-Glen- Scavenger Hunt.... Everyone Welcome To Join In

[Linda_J]

Just a follow up.
On that same date there are a total of 7 children baptised for those parents shown as consecutive entries with births shown covering 1879 to 1894.

Linda

[toni*]

who were the witnesses at the wedding? relations of Dorothy

We don't know who Hudson and Parker are 
I've spoken to all living descendants, to see if they know them and also tried to research these two names.
Everything about the marriage cert is 'odd'.

why do you say odd?

it was not uncommon to marry in the registry office
if you mean odd because it was several years after the birth of the first child again this is not odd i am not married to my childrens father although we still intend to

maybe as spidermonkey said one of the parties was not free to marry beforehand they would have declared themselves as spinster and bachelor i am not sure how much checking was involved by the registrar to see if this was true are there any deaths in the period they maried that could possibly be a first husband / wife

[-Glen-]

Hi Toni,

I use the word odd because:
They were married in a Register Office.
Not the nearest Register Office.
My family (Gran and other descendants) were brought up to believe there was a church wedding.
None of the five sons were given the name William.
They use a false home address.
They married 11 years after the first child was born (and I imagine there's a difference between now and 1918 as to what 'society' would think about it).
Dinah was seven months pregnant at the time!
No family members were the witnesses (or even knew about the late marriage, until I started researching the family history).

Perhaps there are simple explanations for the above though. Maybe they simply couldn't afford to marry in 1917/1918 (or whenever it was that they actually met each other and got engaged).

I also believe that 'engagement' rings were very unusual for that period?? (Dinah wears one in the photo taken c1915/1916).

I think the fact that she uses two different maiden names and that I can't find her birth record or in the census records, that it makes me think the marriage is curious. Especially the two different maiden names! I can't help but think that the two maiden names are linked to the late marriage somehow?? Maybe not though! 

Kind regards,
Glen
 

[toni*]

Lets go through some of those points

They married in not the nearest register office – to marry in a register office they have to give 21 days notice the notice would need to be given in their home parish and that of the register office usually it would be the closest as you say – maybe they didn’t marry in the closet ones as people thought they were already married, maybe one party was very ill and they had to get married so the other could inherit
Anyway maybe they gave a false address that would enable them to be married in the register office without notice being have to given at the register office nearest to their home.
(I know this is a lot of maybes) the question we really need to answer is who was actually living at the address they gave when they got married .
Maybe they were embarrassed about getting married in a register office and not a church so they didn’t say anything to the rest of the family just let them believe it was a church ditto the date not being when they met before they had children.
My great gran got married when she was 8 months pregnant (with her first child)  in a register office (they were Methodists) a marriage had to be according to the rites of Church of England unless they were Jewish or Quakers so perhaps they were not of Christian faith?
Perhaps she was illegitimate that would explain the made up father
The 2 different maiden names would usually indicated that she was illegitimate or that she had been married before.
The witnesses are not always family members were they clerks or friends or just random people of the street perhaps these were the owners of the address they gave
Finally if the groom was in the army he would have to gain permission form his officers in order to marry this was because the army would have to support the wife if the groom died and so quite a lot of the time permission was NOT granted.

Toni 

[hepburn]

I don't know whether Ive got my head round this properly.....there is FreeBMD birth for a Dorothy Langley 1893 in Hackney...

[jaywit]

I'm still harping on about the Maidstone Dorothy born 1889.

Presumably this is her in 1911.

HOUSEHOLD SHEPHERD DOROTHY F 1889 22 Maidstone Kent

Can anyone see the full entry?

[toni*]

have you found her husband on previous census

i also wonder if she was unoffically adopted (offical adoption didn't begin until 1927) if she was placed with a family thorugh perhaps a church or barnados then these would have records

[-Glen-]

I don't know whether Ive got my head round this properly.....there is FreeBMD birth for a Dorothy Langley 1893 in Hackney...

Hi Hepburn,

My Dorothy didn't appear to have a middle name. We also believe that she grew up in the village of Blue Bell Hill in Kent and later moved to London.

Thanks, Glen 

[-Glen-]

have you found her husband on previous census

i also wonder if she was unoffically adopted (offical adoption didn't begin until 1927) if she was placed with a family thorugh perhaps a church or barnados then these would have records

Hi Toni,

Yes I have Walter on 1891, 1901 and 1911 census records. He's at home with parents in 1891 and 1901 and in the army in 1911 (in Netley Hospital - having been sent home fom India invalided).


I'm also wondering if she was adopted?!