Find Ancestors

I was once in contact with someone whose ancestral line crossed with the OH's ............. she actually gave me a new surname , which opened up all kinds of avenues to research.

But, I'll never forget her comment ....................


"Ooooh, your bride was only 5 months pregnant when she married. Most of mine had the midwife waiting at the church door" :-)


and that family was quite well-off, all being millers and farmers



I haven't found any miraculous conceptions in that family, although I do have a couple elsewhere

Yes i also have a number of miraculous conceptions a number of years after the death of the father.. haha we've no chance of finding our real ancestors!

hahaha thats pretty blatant Syviaincanada- things were so much simpler... paperwork wise- no red tape and a lot of turning a blind eye.. though then again its so much more complicated for us trying to figure it all out- but i guess thats what keeps us interested!

Ha ha Sylvia!

This is such an interesting puzzle......

But I have to concur with Sylvia. Since I started researching my tree I have found so many non-marriages and bigamous marriages it is untrue! My only solace is that none of my direct forebears did so...although there are obviously several shotgun marriages :-)

And I have several children born of men after they have died ......

But we think we have a nightmare...think what will happen in years to come where the child is born of a surrogate to same-sex partners, or a donor egg/sperm child or........................ thanks goodness I won't be interested lol!

Lianne ...............


it was all but impossible for ordinary people to get a divorce back then


it was very expensive, and there were really only 2 reasons ........

....... adultery which had to be proved by an independent witness seeing the "guilty" party and a willing "other".

The second possible reason for getting a divorce was mentally ill ...... and of course had to be proved.

even wife beating was rarely a valid cause


Only very rich people could afford it.


But marriages broke up with just as much frequency as now ............. sometimes they stuck together. But they could also separate.

The wives usually called themselves widows, occasionally reverted to "spinster".

Sometimes one or both moved to different towns, sometimes they stayed in the same town, even in the same district.


If one or the other met someone new, they face the choice of living common law or marrying bigamously.



again ................ this is another of the situations we frequently come across.



The funniest (in the sense of both strange and had to laugh) one that I've found was helping someone, and finding the family with children in one census. Next census, marriage had broken up, both had found new partners and both had more children. They were living about 3 streets apart, both still went to the same parish church where they had been married and their children baptized, and the children of the new relationships were also baptised at this same church!

The vicar's name was the same ........... so he must have known, but turned a blind eye to it. :-D

hi Jooniecloonie- so I'm a bit dense- are you suggesting it appears that fanny remarried a mr white? (another... george?) hmmm interesting..oh the webs our ancestors weaved eh... they didn't like to stay single too long did they!

i might wait til pay day - just got back from hols and I'm a bit skint- actually need to renew my genes and ancestry access too in the next day or so.. :( but when i ordered florences marriage cert i also paid for them to search all records of a florence born in 1893- apparently they will check all docs for you rather than buy them all over a period of time at pot luck- it may take some time though as i haven't heard back yet... if they don't find a florence may with a father called george i get a refund! if its a negative (which I'm expecting- since your theory about florence being fannys daughter is looking very likely) i will order constances BC.

i don't know how to check the below as you suggested? how do i go about that?

Births Jun 1893
Watson Florence Chorlton 8c 836

to see whether the mother was Fanny Watson who became Fanny Whiteley


i have a feeling you're right about george wandering off- funnily enough florences second husband had been a 'widower' with no sign of his wifes death- i found her remarried to someone else... seems people just wandered off in those days and called themselves widowers! wonder if fanny whites you found above says she's a widow

thanks for your comments

by the way I am going to venture to guess ... since Rother Valley (formerly Rotherham) is where Fanny's younger children married and died

Marriages Sep 1919
White George W - Whiteley - Rotherham 9c 1759
Whiteley Fanny - White - Rotherham 9c 1759

Name: Fanny White
Birth Date: abt 1876
Date of Registration: Mar 1945
Age at Death: 69
Registration district: Rother Valley
Inferred County: Yorkshire West Riding
Volume: 9c
Page: 863

Name: George W White
Birth Date: abt 1872
Date of Registration: Jun 1949
Age at Death: 77
Registration district: Rother Valley
Inferred County: Yorkshire West Riding
Volume: 2c
Page: 646

Births Dec 1871
WHITE George William Rotherham 9c 512

rechecked the 1911 census and Fanny Whiteley (with children George and Constance in Clee) says she is married

I have a feeling George Sr may have just wandered off and not been heard from again by wife or kids

and I might even wonder whether Constance for instance was his child :-)

you know what might be interesting if you feel like throwing money around is to get Constance's birth certificate ... it would give the address where Fanny Whiteley was living 6 months before the 1911 census ... in Grimsby according to where the 1911 census says Constance was born ... and it would be interesting to see who is at that address in the 1911 census

but mostly I think you have to spend a few pounds and work on whether you can find Florence's birth

and I really would start with

Births Jun 1893
Watson Florence Chorlton 8c 836

to see whether the mother was Fanny Watson who became Fanny Whiteley

(I don't see a good match for that Florence Watson by that name in 1901 or 1911 or a death in Chorlton reg dist before 1901)

remembering that Chorlton reg dist is where George and Fanny married
and South Manchester in Chorlton reg dist is where they were living in 1901 ... and your great-aunt's memory is that Florence was from Manchester (although that doesn't necessarily mean she was born there, since we know she was living there in 1901 that could be all it meant)

now if it turned out that Florence Watson was your Florence Whiteley then it seems unlikely that George Whiteley was actually her father and you would be left with only half the mystery solved, but better than none :-)

hahaha all very true SylviainCanada! i guess at least she is consistent on both saying he is deceased...maybe she didn't like him cos she doesn't appear to know what it is he did for a living!....oh fiddlesticks!

Thank you for the update :-)


unfortunately one cannot depend on a marriage certificate saying the father was dead to be completely accurate .................. and the reverse also applies!


A child who has lost touch with the father may say he is dead because it is an easy explanation as to why he is not present at the wedding.

The mother may have told her children that father was dead if he had left home ............ again an easy explanation



The reverse can happen, ie, not saying the father is deceased when he is actually dead ..........


the child may not know he is dead


or the vicar may not have asked the correct question ...........

"What is your father's name and occupation?"

does not directly ask if he is also deceased .......... and many people answer the literal question without volunteering the extra "but he is dead"



so I am afraid we are not that much further ahead in knowing anything about George :-(

just a quick update in case anyones still interested- i obtained the first marriage cert for florence may whiteley to william armin in 1912 just to double check- disappointed slightly that her father is definately george- this says occupation unknown though and he is deceased even at this point in april 1912. this cert does however confirm the florrie whiteley in 1911 that we found (the one working as a servant for rose hayward in hildyard street aged 19) because this cert says that both florence and william armin were living at 18 hildyard street when they married- so in a way it wasn't all a waste.
it does though narrow georges death dates down a little- so if we think he went on to have these three children with his second wife Fanny they were born in 1901 (george W) 1906 (olive leonora) and 1910 (constance amelia) and if george was deceased by the wedding in april 1912 - i presume we can narrow down the search for his death to between 1910 and 1912? however there aren't any i can see which would fit!?

anyone?

Dea -thanks for that, i didn't know! haha. I'm sure i had something called family tree maker on my old desktop many moons ago- but i use a macbook and its a nightmare- this apple malarkey is always a pain! ill have a look into it, especially if i can export my current tree across..

ChristinaS- i didn't get a minute yet to check out those other trees.. ill have a little look just now. thanks!

As one of the people with Constance in their tree has the surname, Durham - but they don't have George Whiteley - I would guess he was descended from one of Constance's husband's brothers.

In which case he probably doesn't know anything about Constance's family.

No, JoonieCloonie, I don't know what I think! Lol. I haven't ruled out anybody.

Hi Clarky,

I have a programme on my home computer where I can build my family tree and keep all the details of all the people (including living people) . It is not connected to any website and if I want to send it, or any part of it, to someone else I can do so without including those who are still living.

There are many such programmes available - the one I have is Family Tree Maker and it only cost a few pounds (somewhere less than £10 as I remember). It also means that you can keep a back-up of the info and it is then safe.

You should be able to download your tree from here to a home programme instantly so should not have to input all the info again.

Dea x

Clarky :-)

just hover your mouse over Search in the upper right of your monitor (you will have to scroll up from here)

You will see

Search All Member Trees near the lower right of the dropdown menu

click on that

search for the names with the dates of birth (I usually allow +/- 2 years for names that are not common as dirt, sometimes the name alone is enough on the other hand)

it will come up with matches ... you will not see the matches in your own tree however, only other people searching can see them (stupidly I think)

beside each match will be the name of a tree owner and beside that a 'More Info' button

you click that button and a page opens for sending a private message, bingo

this is different from using this site for actual records like at Ancestry, which yes, very few people do

it's for what started out as the main function of the site I believe - putting up a tree and searching for people with shared ancestors


as for the living relatives in your tree, I wouldn't put living people in on spec especially that you may not be related to, disguise their names as I suggested maybe

and select the 'hide living relatives' option so if you show someone your tree, your own living family members' details won't be visible


tree, finished ???? you jest :-D

but once you are hooked and you have picked up tips and tricks, it is hard not to want to use them, on other people's trees if need be, when your own gets a bit boring :-)

Darn auto correct! Sorry

So because my tree is on genes, I gather you searched on genes and it comes up with that person saying they're in my tree? Or can you see my whole tree? I don't use genes to search- find ancestry easier- dunno how I needed up with my tree on one and use another?! Think I went on genes to find school friends and need up getting embroiled in this!

So do you guys just help others out as a hobby- presumably your tree is finished? So you can nip into the community and pick up puzzlers? Good to know since I've done mine and my partners and anyone who listens...

You're so right about the sent items- that woman hasn't read my message!! There's an envelope sat to the left of it in the sent items box! Oh no I hope she checks in some time - I set that back in December!

So apart from people searching for themselves and reporting me will genes kick me off the site if I don't change my living relatives? I'm worried now!! Lol

the scenarios you mention are very common

Jane Smith marries Bob Brown and has daughter Mary Brown
then Jane Smith Brown marries Dick Black
and in the next census daughter Mary is called Mary Black
but when Mary grows up and marries, she marries under her real name Mary Brown
but ... she says her father is Dick Brown
or ... she marries as Mary Black and says her father is Dick Black even though he isn't, or makes up a composite father called Bob Black :-)

it's the finding them as children in censuses, if the mother remarries, that can be the real chore
... or, if you find them first with a surname you don't realize is a stepfather's, figuring out who they were born as (as possibly in the case of Florence here)


anyway ... just use Search Trees here to search for the Durham son you have entered on yours, and to search for Constance Whiteley born 1910

then click on More Info next to the name of the tree holder to send a message

remember that if you don't get a reply the person may not have declined ... they may have changed their email address and never got a notice of your message
(if nobody has pointed it out yet - you can check and if there is still an envelope beside the message you sent in your Sent folder, it has never been read by the person you sent it to)

re the living person thing, the completely unacceptable thing about this website is that even if you say 'hide living people' in your tree, it only hides them to someone you allow to see your tree ... it does not hide them from someone who searches for their name on a general Search Trees function


as for being good at finding stuff, oh yes, lots of people here have lots of practice :-)
and sometimes it is just easier for 'fresh eyes' to focus on what is known or on a particular train of thought when you haven't been looking at a situation for years and getting boggled and bogged down in all the possibilities!

where on earth are you finding all this information- i am getting nothing. I didn't know that etiquette... i have masses of living folk in my tree... oops.. all my family.

i use my tree as a working document.. I've added some of the people you have found and then i usually spend a lot of time figuring out if its a definite and changing things - i don't have papers only whats in my tree... if goes down I've had it!

i need to check my settings cos I'm not seeing anyone with these same people

apologies for adding living people- I've just never spoken to other researchers ever so i didn't know!!! :-(

JoonieCloonie - you're really good at this stuff,really appreciate your help! I've been doing it for years on and off.. but sometimes i miss the obvious or get too bogged down in things pondering between possible candidates - i go round in circles til i end up staring at the same entries over and over.. you're so good at finding links and ruling people out- something i can't seem to do or at least not as quickly as you! you been doing this ages?

i think I'm struggling because the whole of the rest of my tree stayed where they were born!!

I was asking about adoptions cos Florence May who appears to have been raised by a different father- then had three (living) children to supposedly two different men- and then i don't think the guy she said was his father even was- cos i found a pic and he looks more like the guy who raised him after her death (a family friend) she messed up her sons birth cert and his name- then he messed up his own marriage cert- he put a combination of Florences husbands names down as his father!

such intrigue - i did contact a lady from genes- who was directly related to the 'family friend' in question but she declined to reply- which is a pity cos i think she has a lot of detail and pictures. turns out Florences husband (walter lampey) had a child with the family friend... sounds like a lot of swinging went on if you ask me.

I'm amazed there were so many second marriages etc in those days. it actually took me years to find walter lampey in any census- he took on his mothers second husbands surname in two census... painstaking to find him as he reverted back when he left home! its all to keep us entertained!

i don't know about anyone with constance in their tree- do you mean on genes? or ancestry? if ancestry - no ones coming up with them in their tree for me?