Genealogy Chat

Well, they were very sweet about me questioning the information contained in the certificate although the lady I spoke to did have the air of 'You're quite mad' in her voice! Anyway, a revised certificate has arrived this morning and Joseph is indeed a Widower, Esther is still listed as a spinster but that doesn't mean she didn't have any children before she got married. She was 34 when she married Joseph! So, I now need to try and locate a 1st marriage for Joseph that hopefully ties in with baptisms for at least some of the children with them on the 1841 census. Some of them must be his from his previous marriage, I'm sure!

Good morning all! Thanks for all your suggestions! Richard - No, I haven't got Esther's birth cert. I was content with the information off the baptism record cos it all seemed pretty straight forward at the time so I think her birth cert is the way to go. Luckily Derby are incredibly quick with issuing them so will get a request off to them tomorrow and see whether that yields any clues. The spelling of the surname is interchangeable all the way through and they are all listed as born in the county on the 1841 census. I have the family details from the 1851 and 1861. On both we have Joseph and Esther with children Joseph and Esther and two more daughters they had in '45 and '48, Martha and Emma. No sign of the other children. So the suggestion that possibly they were neices and nephews is certainly an option and one I hadn't considered when I unearthed this information at well past midnight and suddenly thought Oh B***s! In addition, given that Derby ARE so good (and the Superintendent Registrar has dealt with me so often in recent months that he no longer signs his e mails and compliment slips Mr Clark, we've got to the 'Jim' stage!), I think I WILL explain my confusion and ask whether he would mind checking to see whether there has been an error when copying the marriage cert for me! I guess I should have been suspicious a while ago. Was it usual back then to have your 1st marriage when you were both pushing your 40th birthday? Probably NOT! Lou

The 1841 doesn't give the exact relationships to the head of the household, does it? Might it be possible that these were nieces and nephews and some of them were their children (am also clutching at straws here).... By the way - 5th May - what a brilliant day to get married, my birthday!! My aunt (through marriage) remarried on the 5th May 2001, my 18th! She still can't remember my birthday though. LOL. Chloe

Kaz - but in this case, they're both alive at the same time - 1841 census!

Hi Lou! Sheleen - nice theory, but Melbourne Australia is named after Lord Melbourne - British prime minister (1834-1841). Nothing to do with Melbourne the place in England I'm afraid, so I think that's a red herring! Lou - do you have youngest child's birth certificate, as opposed to just the baptism record? The cert will confirm Esther's maiden name, which may or may not have been Bradbury (if she was a widow when she married Joseph, she probably would have used her married surname at her 2nd marriage). Strange that she is listed as a spinster on the marriage cert though - either a mistake, or maybe she had illegitimate children before the marriage? Or maybe she was covering up a bigamy, and was already married! (it happened a lot in the days before easy divorce). But then it seems that at least one of the children is Joseph's (one of the James) - it's unlikely that they both would have run off from their previous spouses or both had illegitimate children from before their marriage. If that were the case, Joseph's kids would have been more likely to have stayed with the mother. Therefore the most likely explanation is that there is a mistake on the cert and they were in fact both widowed (was the cert from the local RO or the GRO?). By the way, Esther junior is down as SMITHARD on FreeBMD: Births Jun 1841 SMITHARD Esther Derby 19 500 You say that they stayed put at that address, so do you have the household details for 1851/61? Also, were they all confirmed as being born 'in county' on the 1841? Richard

Hi Sheleen This is what I have...see whether you can make sense of it or if I'm just not seeing something obvious. Joseph Smitherd marries Esther Bradbury 5th May 1840 in Derby. 1841 census (I know it's the right family cos, bless 'em, they stayed at the same address till 1898, just to make my life a bit easier!): Joseph 36 Esther 33 James 14 William 12 James 10 Sarah 8 Joseph 6 Esther 2mts Now AGES ago I stumbled across a marriage on the parish and probate bit on Ancestry for a Joseph Smitherd, Tailor, and Sarah Robey. Thought what a coincidence, same name and MY Joseph is a Tailor too but dismissed it cos I assumed my Joseph was sorted. Seeing the census info tonight, I'm not so sure, BUT I can only find one death for Sarah Smitherd and that's 1868! Any help very much appreciated Lou

I've located my 3 x grandparents on the 1841 Derbyshire census. They married in 1840 but with them on the census are 6 children, 2 of whom have the same christian name! So it looks like they were both married before despite their marriage certificate not saying that they had been! I've looked on IGI and can't find a baptism that would fit for any of the children other than my gggrandmother who's baptism I already had (she's the youngest child with them, just 2 months old) I need to establish who they were both married to before and which of these children belong to who as they're all listed as Smitherd on the census. Any suggestions gratefully received and do you think it's worth a phone call to Derby to ask whether they could double-check that the Batchelor/Spinster bit is correct! Thanks Lou

See below in a minute.....