Genealogy Chat

Please see Below

I asked fellow GR members to trace this marriage sometime ago, they looked like I had but to no avail. Yesterday I found it!! This is why I want to share it with you; it may be helpful to relatively new people like me. William Franklin and Sarah Parker, both born in Bristol. First child was born in Bristol in 1840. That is where I started my search. Nothing Second child was born in Kent in 1845. Looked at every Franklin marriage in that area. Nothing! Third child was born in Brighton in 1849. Again nothing. Fourth child was born in Lambeth in Surrey in 1851, I checked all the Franklin marriages again, and Lo and Behold there they were, getting married in Lambeth in 1851, Eleven years after their first child was born. She even had herself down as Mrs Sarah Franklin on the 1851 census, when she was not yet married. Trollop!!! So again, we warned peeps, if you cannot trace a marriage, it may well be that it took place not just after the first child but after several children. Hope this has been of help to someone

My lot can easily beat that! Ist child born 1876 last child born 1895 Married 1896 a few months before the mother died! 20 years of 'living in sin' and seven children. Sylvia.

Fuzzy And some folk didn't even bother to get married, they just pretended. Not to mention all those late babies who were really grandchildren of the person they called 'mother'. I don't think you can really be a proper family historian unless you've found a few skeletons. I've got relatives in prison, lunatic asylums and a few illegitimates. One of my favourites is described on the census as 'love child' (aah!) nell

wow sylvia Am dead impressed! Wonder why they left it that long?!! the lies they used to tell also, I have one couple who married three years after their daughter was born, but the mother is down as already being married!!

Know what you mean Nell, This woman is not alone in my family tree! Wish I could find someone in prison, sure I come from a long line of sinners!! Love the one about the love child, that is so sweet!

Hi Fuzzy, I have suspicion he was already married when they got together. They married because she was dying dont know if it was bigamous or not. I am waiting for marriage cert for more clues. Sylvia.

Hi sylvia, yes I had one woman who had been married before, and married my ggg grandfather three years after their first child was born, think maybe she had to wait for a divorce!! Love to hear what is on the marriage cert when you get it. x

I've got a missing marriage - 1865 my great grandparents Emma Moore & Thomas Matthews marry in Islington. They have two surviving children, Thomas Emmets Matthews and Annie Eliza Matthews (my dad's mum). 1st May 1879 Thomas senior drops down dead on his 14th wedding anniversary. 3 April 1881 census night Emma and children reappear with Emma's 2nd husband John Garvie, in Greenwich. 15 Jun 1881 Emma and John's first child is born in Greenwich. Now I feel sure that Emma and John would have married as I can't see any reason why not, at that time. No previous marriage for John and Emma was widowed. But there's nothing in the GRO indexes for Matthews/Mathews, Garvie/Garvey or Moore that could be them. I've checked the parish churches in Islington (where Emma's first marriage was) and Greenwich and I can't find them. If there;s a marriage record it could be in any one of umpteen London churches. nell

Maybe some waited a long time to marry because they were waiting for a previous spouse to die? Hubby's ancestor married in 1839, but split from his wife about 1845. He waited until 1880 to remarry, the year after his first wife died.........however, this marriage was to the fourth so-called Mrs X!! The ''in-between two'' having died along the way! Merry

My record........ 44 years!!!!!!!!!! after their only child (my father) was born, ( I personally went to my grandparents wedding when I was 12 years old....long story. Suzanne X

Merry, I hadn't thought of that, suppose divorce in those days was rare?!! All this tree building has been an eye-opener! Gave up looking for my gg grandparents marriage when I first started out, think I will re-visit that one and check many years after the kids were born!!

Suzanne, That is amazing!!! would love to hear the 'long story' when you have a spare mo!

Sixty-Two years!!! My grandparents 'lived in sin' until they died. When my mum tried to get her birth cert. there had to be one made for her, because she hadn't been registered. She and her younger brother went to primary school under a different surname, and didn't even know. The teachers must have just used their Christian names. Grandma had been married previously but her ex-husband had got a divorce, so we don't know why they didn't marry. She wore a 'wedding ring' and used Grandad's name. Oh I wish she were here to ask. We didn't find out until a couple of years ago.

Elizabeth, What an amazing story, it is fascinating all this isn't it? I didn't realise all this living in sin stuff was so common until I started digging, have several women who have lied on their children birth certs saying that they were married to the father when they weren't, the hussies!!

If only my great grandmother was alive, I'd love to ask a few questions, - but don't know if I'd dare. In 1881 she is in Portsmouth as a widow with a family including a 3 month old son.- I should have known then that she'd be 'trouble' because I already knew that her husband, my great grandfather had died in 1876. By 1891, she is 'married' with 3 more daughters registered in new husband's name but they didn't actually marry until 1892. Why then? 2nd husband John had been previously married but his wife died in 1892 and so why the long delay in marrying, or why bother at all then? I'll never know.

Gwyneth, Yet another mystery, I love all these stories. Agree with you that it is very strange, perhaps a reason for getting married came up, like a will being made etc dont know, but it is facinating eh?!!

I don't know where the notion that the Victorians were straight-laced came from! Apart from all the liars who were living in sin, there were quite a few who were open about their illegitimate children. Judging by the size of families it was obvious a lot of sex was happening, especially when you consider that a lot of women had miscarriages or illegal abortions too. I don't think our ancestors would have any right to judge themselves morally superior to us. Most of mine and husband's had babies quite shortly after marriage - I think the quickest is a fortnight! nell

Nell, My eyes have been well and truly opened, you are so right about our misconception about the victorians being strait laced, what a laugh eh? you also right about the size of the families they were incredible. One poor woman had her first child in 1823 and her last in 1846, thirteen in all!! She must have been permanently expecting!!!

Mine were on 1871 as married Manchester 1881 as married Manchester 1891 as married Manchester 1901 as married Manchester Eldest child born 1869 Manchester They married late in 1903 when there oldest daghter got married ... BOTH marriages took place in ......... Lambeth, Surrey !!!!! I'd have NEVER have found them if I hadn't searched for daughters marriage. ! Is THIS the record ???? Elaine ;-)