I have just spotted an error in my last email. The MC I found at the Cathedral might just about refer to the Ellen Cardwell of Nathan's Court in 1841 if she was 34 at the time of the census and married when she was just 14. I realise this was almost certainly illegal, but with some margin for error and a couple of white lies it is just about plausible. One of the marriage witnesses was a James M Cardwell, who was a sibling of Elizabeth, although the groom was Authur (Arthur?) Cardwell who is not one of the babies we found baptised by this couple so far. Joanne Sent from my iPad On 19/02/2013, at 12:48 PM, "Irene Marlborough" <imarlb@sbcglobal.net> wrote: > Hello Joanne: > > I would say that your Cardwells were staunchly Wesleyan. In 1794 there was > no such thing as a Wesleyan marriage. The couple would have been obliged to > marry in the Established Church. Unless they had plenty of money this would > have meant the Collegiate Church. From 1754 until 1837 the Collegiate Church > had a monopoly on marriages in the parish of Manchester. A fee was levied > whether or not the couple married elsewhere so ordinary people had no choice > but to marry there. People who were a little better off might have been able > to afford the double fee incurred by marrying at another church such as St > Anne's or St Mary's. > > All non-Conformists (except for Quakers and Jews) had to marry in a Church > of England church for a legal marriage. Everyone including Roman Catholics > had to do this up to 1837 and the start of Civil Registration. So the fact > that William Cardwell and Mary Hay married at the Collegiate Church is not a > factor when you are considering if they were Wesleyan. > > I'm a bit confused about your 1841 Elizabeth and Ellen. There are 2 Cardwell > ladies Elizabeth aged 30 and Ellen aged 25 living on Balloon Street. But I > think you must mean the 2 households at Nathan's Ct in the Greengate > district of Salford. The first is headed by 30 year old Elizabeth Roberts > and the 2nd headed by Ellen Cardwell. If you have the correct Elizabeth > Roberts (and it does seem likely) then you know that she is either married > or widowed. This might also be true for Ellen. In which case, this Ellen > would not have been born a Cardwell. I just thought I'd mention it to make > sure you consider the possibility that Ellen might be a sister in law (and > therefore not the one baptised at the Collegiate Church). > > There's more research to be done to establish whether Mrs Elizabeth Roberts > is the daughter of William Cardwell and Mary Hay. I assume that you began > with some Roberts offspring. I trust that you are certain of the Cardwell > connection. Roberts is unfortunately a very common name. > > Best wishes, Irene > > > > > :-~:-~:-~:-~:-~:-~:-~:-~:-~:-~: > > Except for personal messages, please post replies to the list. > Other people can learn from them! > > Be sure list mail is in PLAIN TEXT. > > Please SNIP when replying. > > Buy or sell family research items on the GEN-MAT-UKI mailing list. No fees! > > :-~:-~:-~:-~:-~:-~:-~:-~:-~:-~: > > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to ENG-MANCHESTER-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message