Author Topic: Couple of questions  (Read 584 times)

Offline Shrop63

  • RootsChat Senior
  • ****
  • Posts: 396
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Couple of questions
« on: Thursday 28 January 21 17:29 GMT (UK) »
Hi  just a couple of questions. Firstly, if a couple get married, say around 1750, and they are both widow and widowed, does it have to appear on the cert? Also, i have a bride who is an ancestor born in 1739 with 2 poss suitors, one born same yr and the other in 1741. My question is, how common or rare would it have been for the bride to be older than groom or can i say the 1739 guy is the fit?
Clare
Poole
Dunning
Wilson
Parton
Vaughan
Watkiss

Offline KGarrad

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 25,339
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: Couple of questions
« Reply #1 on: Thursday 28 January 21 17:43 GMT (UK) »
Firstly, Marriage Certificates, as with Birth & Death Certificates only came along in 1837, with the advent of Civil Registration.

Parish Register entries for marriages would contain whatever information the incumbent priest, vicar (or whatever!) wrote down.

Secondly, there have always been brides who were older than the groom!
Garrad (Suffolk, Essex, Somerset), Crocker (Somerset), Vanstone (Devon, Jersey), Sims (Wiltshire), Bridger (Kent)

Offline Rena

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 4,549
  • Crown Copyright: www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: Couple of questions
« Reply #2 on: Thursday 28 January 21 20:17 GMT (UK) »

Secondly, there have always been brides who were older than the groom!

I can second that.

I couldn't believe my eyes when I first saw there was a gap of well over twenty years between young husband and older wife in her 50s.  I thought it was an error on the enumerator's part.

Luckily the couple were still together in the next census and the same age gap was illustrated.

Aberdeen: Findlay-Shirras,McCarthy: MidLothian: Mason,Telford,Darling,Cruikshanks,Bennett,Sime, Bell: Lanarks:Crum, Brown, MacKenzie,Cameron, Glen, Millar; Ross: Urray:Mackenzie:  Moray: Findlay; Marshall/Marischell: Perthshire: Brown Ferguson: Wales: McCarthy, Thomas: England: Almond, Askin, Dodson, Well(es). Harrison, Maw, McCarthy, Munford, Pye, Shearing, Smith, Smythe, Speight, Strike, Wallis/Wallace, Ward, Wells;Germany: Flamme,Ehlers, Bielstein, Germer, Mohlm, Reupke

Offline Galium

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 3,000
    • View Profile
Re: Couple of questions
« Reply #3 on: Thursday 28 January 21 21:11 GMT (UK) »
Before the printed marriage registers which you see after around 1754 came into use, it is quite usual for the  marriage record in the parish register  to read something like "John Smith and Mary Jones were married 1st May".  If one or other of them is from a different parish it might say where they are from, of if the marriage was by licence it might say so, but usually that is all.
 I don't think I have seen many which say whether either of them is widowed, even in cases where I am sure that they are. Even after 1754, the printed registers don't have a special place to record the condition of each party, although this is often, but not always shown.
UK Census info. Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk


Offline Maiden Stone

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 7,226
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: Couple of questions
« Reply #4 on: Thursday 28 January 21 21:52 GMT (UK) »
Firstly, if a couple get married, say around 1750, and they are both widow and widowed, does it have to appear on the cert? Also, i have a bride who is an ancestor born in 1739 with 2 poss suitors, one born same yr and the other in 1741. My question is, how common or rare would it have been for the bride to be older than groom or can i say the 1739 guy is the fit?
 

The year may be crucial. Hardwicke's Marriage Act 1753. I looked at a couple of marriage registers for parishes where some of my ancestors married. New registers began in 1754 when the new Marriage Act came into operation. Bachelor, spinster or widow was stated for marriages in the new registers but not in the old ones. You would need to browse registers for parishes where your people  of interest married to see what format the curate of the time was using. 
One of my ancestors married a widow in 1760. Widow was written after her name.
As far as age goes, 2 years is neither here nor there. Important factors for a spouse - the man had to be able to support a family and the woman had to be capable of bearing children, (unless the man was a widower who already had enough children).
Age gap between my ancestors who married in 1760 was a decade; Widow Smith was in her mid 30's, her new husband was 24. The marriage lasted 50 years and produced 4 children. Their son copied his father, married at 24 to a woman 10 years older. They had 5 children. Both wives outlived their husbands. There was a 6 year gap between a pair of my ancestors who married in 1757. Bridegroom was 18, bride 24. The curate of that parish included ages of many couples; several brides were 2 or 3 years older than grooms, one was 5 years older. The pre 1754 marriage register of that parish has spinster or widow for some brides but not others. 
Cowban

Offline Top-of-the-hill

  • RootsChat Aristocrat
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,512
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: Couple of questions
« Reply #5 on: Friday 29 January 21 11:07 GMT (UK) »
  I wanted to check whether the village rector in the 1870s had any children. I checked 1871 first and he was 26, she 53! It was quite true, as I checked later censuses and it was stated in the marriage register.

   A marriage in West Kent, only the transcription available, has Elizabeth Hooker, Mrs. I think this may mean she was a widow?
Pay, Kent
Codham/Coltham, Kent
Kent, Felton, Essex
Staples, Wiltshire

Offline Marmalady

  • RootsChat Aristocrat
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,679
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: Couple of questions
« Reply #6 on: Friday 29 January 21 12:26 GMT (UK) »
 
   A marriage in West Kent, only the transcription available, has Elizabeth Hooker, Mrs. I think this may mean she was a widow?

Not necessarily
"Mrs" was often used as a courtesy titles for any adult woman regardless of their marital status.
It was short for "Mistress" rather than "Missus"
Wainwright - Yorkshire
Whitney - Herefordshire
Watson -  Northamptonshire
Trant - Yorkshire
Helps - all
Needham - Derbyshire
Waterhouse - Derbyshire
Northing - all

Offline Top-of-the-hill

  • RootsChat Aristocrat
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,512
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: Couple of questions
« Reply #7 on: Friday 29 January 21 14:13 GMT (UK) »
  I don't think I have ever seen it before in a marriage register, though maybe for a burial. I have certainly seen "Mr" in burial registers, apparently indicating a higher social standing.
Pay, Kent
Codham/Coltham, Kent
Kent, Felton, Essex
Staples, Wiltshire