It doesn't necessarily indicate that this is a second marriage - although it was frowned upon it was still common enough for people to marry (or to "regularise" an existing irregular marriage) after the birth of one or even several children. My g grandparents didn't register their irregular marriage until they had 4 children, and neither had been married before. The only way to know for sure is to find birth records for those other 3 children, if those records exist. Louise On 16 March 2010 04:55, Meg Greenwood <scotquester@bartnet.net> wrote: > This indicates this was a second marriage for the father....if this was > her FIRST child and they had only wed the previous year, the 3 boys > mentioned must have been his....or this would have been her 4th child. > Or is this a different couple with similar names to the one you are > seeking ??? MegG in Oklahoma >

When I say it doesn't necessarily indicate this - I know it says this is her first child, but it's not unknown for people not to tell the truth even in these documents. They may have felt better implying that these children were not illegitimate. As I say, the only way to be as near to 100% sure is to find their birth records. Louise On 16 March 2010 09:07, park louise <medionemeton@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote: > It doesn't necessarily indicate that this is a second marriage - although > it was frowned upon it was still common enough for people to marry (or to > "regularise" an existing irregular marriage) after the birth of one or even > several children. My g grandparents didn't register their irregular marriage > until they had 4 children, and neither had been married before. The only way > to know for sure is to find birth records for those other 3 children, if > those records exist. > > Louise