Genealogy Chat
Welcome to the Genes Reunited community boards!
- The Genes Reunited community is made up of millions of people with similar interests. Discover your family history and make life long friends along the way.
- You will find a close knit but welcoming group of keen genealogists all prepared to offer advice and help to new members.
- And it's not all serious business. The boards are often a place to relax and be entertained by all kinds of subjects.
- The Genes community will go out of their way to help you, so don’t be shy about asking for help.
Quick Search
Single word search
Icons
- New posts
- No new posts
- Thread closed
- Stickied, new posts
- Stickied, no new posts
why didn't they marry?????
Profile | Posted by | Options | Post Date |
---|---|---|---|
|
Vicky | Report | 13 Apr 2006 10:23 |
can I hijack this thread and ask if anyone knows just how much it cost to get married in the 1840s and 1850s? I have a chap whose first wife dies in childbirth (her third child) in Southampton August 1840, by Aug 1842 he's having the first of several more children in London. This woman is living next door but one to him, with her mother, in the 1841 census. He was a scale maker, which I think was a reasonably good job then. There seems to be no earthly reason why they didn't marry, but I'm blowed if I can find it... wondered if the church fees might have been a problem? |
|||
|
Gwyn in Kent | Report | 13 Apr 2006 07:46 |
Catriona I have a couple who did eventually marry but for many years they had lived as husband and wife. By 1891 they had 3 daughters together registered in the man's surname and Charlotte and John were referred to in the census as married -but that didn't actually happen until the following year. For both it was a 2nd marriage but she had been widowed in 1876 and his wife had died in 1882, .... so why the wait and then why marry? |
|||
|
Victoria | Report | 13 Apr 2006 06:01 |
If there really was no marriage for either of them then I would imagine it was a status issue. Perhaps there was an inheritance in the offing that wouldn't eventuate if he 'married someone beneath him' (the fact that they were living together and producing children....!!) I know one of my exhusbands ancestors came to Australia, a young 'single' woman, had a whole passel of children and eventually married the man everyone thought was her husband after she got news of the her first husbands death!! But she had always been known as Mrs...... and the marriage to was kept very quiet!! Victoria |
|||
|
Unknown | Report | 13 Apr 2006 00:54 |
Maybe one of them was already married; or came from a different religion or class background. nell |
|||
|
Chris the gardening | Report | 13 Apr 2006 00:50 |
Hi catriona, my greatgrreatgrandfather John Cliff was married with three sons, his wife Emma died in 1888 he then had a Mary A Peplow living with them in 1891 as a domestic servent !! by 1901 they had three children the eldest Emma same as his dead wife ! they went on to have three more children but never married, these last three had the same names as his son Adam's children and were born the same years, they were all named Peplow but discribed as son of head on the census, very modern woman. |
|||
|
Karen | Report | 12 Apr 2006 21:42 |
Hi, I found out my grt grt gran living as a houskeeper in 1871 with a bloke, turns out hes the father of her children they werent married becasue he was already married and had left his wife and children in the black country, he had 2 more children with my grt grt gran before leaving her, in 1881 hes in london and shes still in worcester but shes put shes widowed, his wife has put widowed on the census as well but he didnt die until 1896 in warwickshire, true what they say my grt grt grandad had a bike lol ps i think because my grt grt gran couldnt marry him she used his surname as the childrens middle name as a way of showing they were his and they had her maiden name as their surname his was brown and hers was smith the 2 most common surnames arghhhh its given me a headache trying to find info. |
|||
|
An Olde Crone | Report | 12 Apr 2006 21:28 |
If they were all living together anyway, the Parish wouldnt have got involved probably - the children were being taken care of financially by their father and were not a 'charge' on the Parish. Olde Crone |
|||
|
KathleenBell | Report | 12 Apr 2006 11:29 |
There probably is a way, but I've never had to go down that route, so don't know how to go about it. The county record office for the area would probably be the first port of call. Maybe someone else will advise better. Kath. x |
|||
|
kate 66 | Report | 12 Apr 2006 11:27 |
No he never married according to all the censuses he was unm. Is the anyway i can see if he paid anything for them in the parish? |
|||
|
KathleenBell | Report | 12 Apr 2006 11:24 |
Perhaps he was already married to someone else. Just because he described himself as unmarried, doesn't mean he wasn't. Maybe they didn't want to marry - just like many people today!! Kath. x |
|||
|
kate 66 | Report | 12 Apr 2006 11:22 |
My Grt grt gran had 13 illegitamate children. From 1852 - 1877. 5 out of rthe 13 have the middle name Raven. so i looked up on the census for any Ravens living in her village and bingo there he was with the same name as her first son and 2nd son named after the grand father wioth middle name. in 1881 there is gg gran living with him as house keeper both unmarried with 1 son with middle name Raven and my g gran. Have i found the father of all these children if so why didn't they marry. My ggran bapt reg stated 13th illi child of Mary she was the last. Anybody with any thoughts?? |