In a message dated 30/03/2004 01:09:49 GMT Daylight Time, rowell_genealogy@hotmail.com writes: 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. . >From Lord Hardwicke's Marriage Act , which came into force on 1 January 1754 until the introduction of Civil Registation into England and Wales on 1 July 1837 all marriages in England and Wales, to be regarded as legal, had to take place in a Church of England parish church. There was therefore no such thing as "Civil Marriage" (Scotland was different). What there was in effect, however, was "common law marriage", whereby a couple who had never been through any form of marriage ceremony might be regarded as de facto married if they had lived together openly as man and wife for some time. However, such arrangements would not have been recognised by the church. . If the parish register describes a woman as a "spinster" then we have to accept that she was not married - or was not regarded by the church as married. She might have been living in a settled relationship with one man, who was the father of all her children, but to whom she was not married. That could be because he was unable to marry her, owing, perhaps to his already having a wife elsewhere. Remember that divorce was, for all practical purposes, not available in those days, and unlike today married couples were held to the vows they had made so "till death us do part" really did mean what it said. The answer to that situation was quite often to commit bigamy, but if others knew about wife no 1 then that might have been too risky. . The other explanation - that she was simply a loose-living woman with little idea of contraception - is one we shouldn't be too reluctant to apply to our families. Such women did - and do - exist and, more or less by definition, they are someone's ancestors! . To be honest, I think the latter explanation is more likely to be the truth, as if she was in a long-term relationship with one man then he might well have been named as the father in the register. . I note that one of the children you quote was born after 1 July 1837. There should be a birth certificate for him, and it would be worth your while to purchase a copy to see whether the father's name is filed in. At the time (until 1875) the father could be named purely on the mother's word. Geoff Nicholson 57 Manor Park, Concord, WASHINGTON, Tyne & Wear NE37 2BU Ask for details of NBL/DUR family history research in depth by THE local expert, working for YOU.