Little Kimble marriage 1829

[sugarfizzle]

William Blake married Elizabeth Higgins in Little Kimble, Bucks, 5 Sep 1829, according to familysearch.

In 1851, Elizabeth Blake shown with father John Higgins in Kingsey, Bucks, William and children in Stone (William's birthplace).

Up until now I have assumed that the 1829 marriage is probably the correct one, as children born to this couple were born from 1829 - 1839 in Stone, Bucks.

However the last child to be born was John Blake, c 1839, in Stone.  According to the new GRO index he was probably born Dec Q 1838,  Aylesbury, MMN Kirby.

Has anybody got access to the marriage records, to let me know if Elizabeth was a widow when she married William, or can anyone give me another explanation for the different surname?

Margaret

[Milliepede]

In 1851, Elizabeth Blake shown with father John Higgins

Her father won't have changed his name so Higgins must be that ladies birth name however many times she married. 

So is there another Elizabeth Blake in 1851 that could be "yours"?  It's a pity the family aren't all together.

[sugarfizzle]

Millipede, I realise her father's name will not change.  Until today I had not thought much more about this. Found the marriage first, and it fitted in with all relevant censuses for Elizabeth, and 1851 census appeared to  'confirm' her parentage.

Now I have found the birth registration details for John Blake.

I have thought of the following possibilities, but 1) would very much rely on Elizabeth being a widow in 1829

1 Elizabeth Higgins was a widow when she married in 1829, in 1851 census possibly daughter in law of John Higgins.
2 John Blake, child of William and Elizabeth, birth not recorded for some reason. The John Blake, Dec Qtr 1838 another child.

Can't find another suitable Elizabeth Blake in 1851 census

Margaret

[bucksboy]

From BucksFHS - Little Kimble transcipts CD.


A little more detail than FamilySearch.

Marriage - 5 Sep 1829. by Banns.
William(x)BLAKE, Bachelor of Stone, Bucks
Elizabeth(x)HIGGINS, Spinster otp
Witnesses - James Higgins & Esther(x)Blake.


Steve.  

[sugarfizzle]

Steve

This fits in completely with the family that I have researched so far.  Possibly John Blake's birth was not registered in 1838/1839.

Good thing that it was sister Mary Ann Blake born 1829 who was a direct ancestor, rather than brother John, I might have sent off for the certificate a few years ago.

Thank you, Margaret

[bucksboy]

Is there a possibility that he was born pre-1837.  A baptism search(£1), via BucksFHS might confirm this.  Either way, it should confirm parents first names, if nothing else.

FamilySearch is a very good place to go for the first steps in family research, but it's far better to see the original films, or from BucksFHS transcripts.

You do not very often get the crucial details from FamilySearch.

There is very little in either Great Kimble or Little Kimble PR's for the Blake family.

One other marriage in BucksFHS Great Kimble for your notes.

Marriage - 19 Oct 1797.  by Banns.
William(x)BLAKE otp
Susannah(x)DUBERY otp
Witnesses - Benjamin(x)Harding & Elizabeth(x)Dubery.


That's about it for the Blake family in the Kimbles.

Steve.

[sugarfizzle]

Steve, Thanks for that.

The Blake family were not from Little Kimble, but from Stone, so I would not expect any/many records for them.

The Higgins were not from there  either, but from Kingsey, so I am not sure why the couple married in Little Kimble.

Agreed, familysearch is a starting point, but to view original records for every person in a tree, especially as only one relevant record expected, could prove expensive!  Stone PRs  viewed some years ago at my local LDS Family History Centre, but it has now closed to the public, unfortunately.

Many thanks, Margaret

[bucksboy]

My guess for the marriage being at Kimble, might be the fact they may have been living there at the time. If Banns were read, it's usually the case but not always.
Being about 8km away from Kingsey, it's still a bit of a chore to attend the church for the Banns to be read, if that was case.

The reason I said there were very little, in Little Kimble PR's, is the fact that some times children are born there soon after marriage.

I guess you'll never know the real reason for being married 'away from home'.

It is a bit of an odd place to go and get married though, as the choices of other parishes are many, and closer to home.  Thame would be the most usual haunt, or even Towersey.

Good luck, and good hunting.

Steve.