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 did they wait?
Profile | Posted by | Options | Post Date |
---|---|---|---|
|
Heather | Report | 18 Sep 2005 21:03 |
One of my lot got married 17 years after the first kiddie was born. I have another lot that didnt marry until the day before their son married. I wonder if it was a case of the local vicar having a quiet word! |
|||
|
Unknown | Report | 18 Sep 2005 20:58 |
My grandparents had at least one or two before they married in 1905 and though I keep going down avenues that I think might provide a reason I've not found one yet:) Mine were like Judith's in that they appear to be married on their eldest daughter's certificate and went out of their parish to marry (from Holloway to Hackney). |
|||
|
Debbie | Report | 18 Sep 2005 20:53 |
Kevin I just checked the years before the oldest child was born, and there wasn't another marriage between a Snook and a Swift, but thanks for thinking of it. At least I can eliminate that. Judith Interesting point about parishes. Just check the locations, and they lived in Mile End, but got married in Stepney. Not a million miles away from each other, but London is densely populated, so who'd notice! Debbie |
|||
|
Judith | Report | 18 Sep 2005 20:12 |
I have gt gt grand parents who waited 38 years before getting married and also wonder why. My only theory so far is that when their first child was born he was only about 20 and was possibly still apprenticed so perhaps wasn't allowed to marry. Then they went on to have 8 more children, claiming to be married when they registered the births so perhaps having started the lie they couldn't go off and marry without giving the game away. They eventually married in a different parish and appear to have given a false address so I wonder whether any of their children even knew the truth. |
|||
|
Kevin | Report | 18 Sep 2005 19:24 |
are you sure you have the right cert? there could of been another couple with the same names getting married in the same area. you'd be surprised how often this happens. just double check there is not a marriage for them before 1891. you may also have the wrong family on the census ( i have done this one), once again double check for another family. The husband could have remarried someone with the same first name, or could of commited bigamy, or have been divorced and didn't want to admit it. |
|||
|
Kate | Report | 18 Sep 2005 18:15 |
Are you sure Emily was the mother of all 4 children? Though if John wasn't married before, I suppose the same would apply to whoever their mother was. Kate. |
|||
|
Smiley | Report | 18 Sep 2005 18:09 |
Maybe just a case of getting ''Round to it' getting married that is |
|||
|
Sue | Report | 18 Sep 2005 18:08 |
We could ask the same of couples (families) today. It would seem nothing has changed! Suex |
|||
|
Debbie | Report | 18 Sep 2005 17:57 |
I have a marriage cert for Emily Snook and John Swift. They married on 26 April 1891, and yet I found them in the 1891 census (taken on 5 April), living as man and wife with 4 children. They were both in their 30s when they were married, and both said they hadn't been married before, so why did they wait till after their fourth child was born to get married?! |
|||
|
Debbie | Report | 18 Sep 2005 17:53 |
See below in a sec |