Hello List, Hope some one on the list might have an answer. On the Staindrop baptisms 1806-1921 I have found a Mother (relative) who had three daughters Baptised 24 Sep 1828, 7 Apr 1833 and 11 Mar 1838 and on all baptisms she is shown as a Spinster. Was there common law marriages back then? or might there be some other reason that would cause her show this on the baptisms. I have seen one baptism showing the mother as spinster, but three!!! I have ordered the 1841 Census for Staindrop to see if this might help, but have my doubts. Thanks in advance, Thomas _________________________________________________________________ MSN Premium includes powerful parental controls and get 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-ca&page=byoa/prem&xAPID=1994&DI=1034&SU=http://hotmail.com/enca&HL=Market_MSNIS_Taglines

In message <BAY12-F39NL13YJQAq80001c3d6@hotmail.com>, TO Rowell <rowell_genealogy@hotmail.com> writes >Hello List, > >Hope some one on the list might have an answer. > >On the Staindrop baptisms 1806-1921 I have found a Mother (relative) >who had three daughters Baptised 24 Sep 1828, 7 Apr 1833 and 11 Mar >1838 and on all baptisms she is shown as a Spinster. Was there common >law marriages back then? or might there be some other reason that >would cause her show this on the baptisms. I have seen one baptism >showing the mother as spinster, but three!!! > >I have ordered the 1841 Census for Staindrop to see if this might help, >but have my doubts. > >Thanks in advance, > >Thomas > > Hello Thomas, If the children had a middle name which was a surname, then that can sometimes be a pointer to the name of the father. I have an example in my family tree: Jane HOWE, a single woman had a child Thomas DENT HOWE, and DENT is not a name found anywhere else in the HOWE family, so I am pretty certain that Thomas' father was a Mr. DENT. Plus there were DENTs in the village where she was living at that time. I also have come across several instances of women having 2 or 3 children before they eventually married. Sometimes they did not marry. In that respect, things were not that different from modern times! Looking at the census is a good idea - you may find she is living with someone, has married, or else is with her parents. You could also try ordering a film of Staindrop Parish chest material, and looking for a "Bastardy Bond" or examination. These do not always survive, but are worth looking for. If a woman was unable to support herself & child financially, for example if her family rejected her, the parish overseers would try to find out who the father of the child was and either "persuade" the couple to marry, or if this was not possible get him to pay up! They wanted to avoid having to support the child on the parish, as this was expensive. If the child was raised in the local workhouse, they would usually be apprenticed at the age of 12, quite often to someone in a different parish, as that would then give the child settlement in the other parish, through having served an apprenticeship there. The rules of settlement can be quite complicated, and sometimes people were sent from parish to parish, until they found one that would accept them. If settlement papers etc. survive, they should be held at Durham CRO, which has a searchable database. Sometimes the parish overseers made one off payments to needy families, so it may be worth checking to see if there is any mention of the mother in the overseer's account books. <http://www.durham.gov.uk/recordoffice/usp.nsf> As well as looking at the 1841 census, also try to find out if the mother did later get married. If she was single in 1838, the marriage, if there was one, should be indexed in the GRO indexes. Hope this helps with a few ideas. -- Helen Oram