Genealogy Chat

I have found a possible marriage in 1855 for a ouple but they didn't have their first child until c.1862 do you think it could be them? I ko its a bit of a stupid one but it woul help whether to get it or not. Thanks stephanie.

Hi Steph yes its possible as they may have had children who did not survive before having the ones you know of, or husband could have been away at sea or a soldier so not around alot. Colette Whats their names and birth years oh yer and birth places i will look with you

I can understand your doubt. It does seem unlikely for that time. On the other hand, there are people even now who don't conceive straight away. Christine And Colette's point about absentee husband or perinatal deaths also adds into the equation.

Thanks for the offer Do you want the childrens or the parents details. Also i have another marriage possibility on the year the first child was born, i have had another family member like that though, the womans name is in the same qtr and year and district as when you search for the man but different pages and volumes will they be the same people? Thanks stephanie.

Thanks Christine that is possible. So many possibilities in geneaology! haha thanks stephanie.

The names of spouse should match on Year District, Volume and page number have you found the parents on 1861 and or or 1871 If not give us the names you have year and place of birth and parents details and maybe we can find something for you. Sue

Hi Steph give us what you have so far... Colette

Hi I have the 61, 71, 81, 91 with the parents on. I have found a possible match for the woman in 1862the year the first child was born. I think that the mothers maiden name was bate as she had an unmarried sister with surname bate. John Arnold: born c,.1830 in liverpool Elizabeth Bate? born c.1837 in St Helens. Children: ALL BORN IN LIVERPOOL (BORN AROUND ACCORDING TO CENSUS) ALICE: 1862 MARY:1864 JOSEPH:1867 JOHN: 1872 ELIZABETH: 1875 Hope this helps Stephanie.

Hi Steph they are the same couple living in Fontenoy St in 61 and 71 so it does look like they had no kids untill Alice came along although there is a John Arnold born 1859 to a John & Elizabeth on the IGI so you never know. Col

Hello colette i have found a marriage the same qtr and year that alice was born in, but i think that the 1855 one seems more reliable. Why would they say they were married and weren't? Stephanie.

Steph 'Why would they say they were married when they weren't?' In Victorian England, respectability was EVERYTHING. Living in sin was a crime as far as the Church was concerned - and the Church still had a considerable influence over people's lives and attitudes. And the neighbours would have been merciless, if they had known (even if they, too, were living in sin!). The children would have been labelled Bastards, by everyone, from the Church, through the Registrar, right down to the lowest (but respectable) member of society. Being a Bastard, in those days, had considerable disadvantages - no Bastard could enter a profession, could not enter the Services on a commission and would almost certainly be turned down for any 'respectable' job. No parent would want their offspring to marry a Bastard because of these drawbacks - hence the many fathers 'invented' for the purposes of a Marriage Certificate. So, all in all, it was a lot easier just to lie, and say you were married, when you werent. Oh, and ten per cent of Victorian births were either those of bastards, or happened within nine months of marriage, so everyone was at it - and pretending they werent! Olde Crone

Hi Everyone thanks for replies, much appreciated Steph