Genealogy Chat

Gwyneth

I have no prob keeping track of her thru the census just this previous marriage

Kim

Funny, on the 81 census there's a Lucy R. Glover, born 1859, Darenth, Kent. She's unmarried and a visitor in a Glover household. Did she marry and become a widow within a year?

Margaret

1881 she is with her brother

this woman is totally baffling me lol

Kim

Yes, I know dad is Glover but in THEORY - LOL, if she had married and been widowed when she married the Holt bloke the marriage would be with her first married surname - gawd! I was only speculating though - for a bit of fun. Surprisingly not all certs just give of full age, often they give the correct age even if over 21.

She's not listed as a sister, just a visitor. The household is Philip Glover 22, wife Thirza and children.

Have checked 1881 all quarters and 1882 first two quarters.

There is only one marriage for a Lucy Glover and that is in the Nottingham Registration District. No corresponding Holt marriage.

Maybe the registration never made it to the GRO?

Chris

Margaret

on previous census Philip was her brother

Kim

How very odd. Unmarried on the 1881 - surely she put have put widow and her married name.

Chris

I have that cert also but it's totally incorrect

but if it hadn't have got to the GRO surely it would still be on the Kent .gov

Kim

I'm glad she's in your tree, Kim, and not mine! It's very curious. The fact that she was single on the 81 census yet married as a widow the following year. None of us can find that first marriage. Note also that she's the same age as brother Philip on the 81 census. She wasn't before.
Good luck!
Margaret

Yes, very strange, Ive had thick brides saying they were single when they were widows but not the other way round and certainly not with a new name. At a wild guess here - but I suppose we could have a church clerk who has copied out the register incorrectly? Mixing up two different brides? Any chance of getting to see the original?
Your original statement may have some credence:

but just gone on the Kent BMD website and there is Lucy Holt entry 144 (which is the one I have) and a marriage for Lucy Glover with entry 144 in 1882

surely the marriage could not have been registered twice in 2 different names?

I think Heather's got the answer. Not a thick bride, just a thick church clerk.

Just rang Kent, wow were they helpful

apparently only one cert but indexed twice, under both surnames as both names are on their record of the marriage.

They even searched for her 1st marriage for me but found nothing and also looked up deaths as she was a widow, again nothing on Holt.

She even said if I find out anything more to get back to her as she loves a mystery lol

Kim

How lucky for you, Kim, to find someone so helpful. She sounds like a treasure!
So Lucy really was married before. How curious that there's no record.
Guess I should aplogize to the deceased church clerk who I called thick.
Margaret