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

Hi Irene Once again, thank you very much for your very detailed and informative reply. You are obviously very knowledgeable in this area, for which I am very grateful! I wasn’t aware of the rules regarding marriages in Wesleyan churches so that really helps to clear things up for me. You are completely right of course about Ellen Cardwell and I feel like a proper twit for not realising that by the age of 30 she was probably married, quite possibly to one of Elizabeth’s brothers. Yes, I am looking at the two women in Nathan’s Court. I have just done a quick search on Ancestry for a marriage between a man named Cardwell and a woman called Ellen, but sadly didn’t find one for Manchester other than one which would have made Ellen a maximum of nine years old at the time of her marriage – it would have been nice to have found her married to a brother of Elizabeth’s to tie things up. I am as certain as I can be about the Cardwell connection. I have the birth certificates of two of my great grandmother Emily Roberts’ siblings, one of whom has the unusual name of Cornelius Joseph and both of those certificates list my great great grandparents as John Roberts and Mary Maroney. I have their MC, which lists John Roberts’ address as 1 Nathan’s Court. Since John is at that same address and of the right age in 1841 I feel certain that this is him and his mother is shown as Elizabeth. I know from John’s MC that his father’s name was William so I have both of his parents’ names. John was born 1828-29 and there is a marriage of William Roberts and Elizabeth Cardwell in the appropriate church in 1828. Coupled with the fact that there seems to be a Cardwell in the same household as Elizabeth and John Roberts in 1841, I feel I have enough to believe that this marriage belongs to my 3 x great grandparents. I had interpreted the two women as being in the same household because there is no ditto mark in the left-hand column where Ellen’s entry starts, whereas there seems to be for each of the other new households on the page. Admittedly there is a small separation mark before Ellen, so perhaps she and the following inhabitants were in one flat whereas Elizabeth and her two children were in the other? I agree, the next step seems to be to prove a connection between Elizabeth Cardwell (later Roberts) and the William Cardwell and Mary Hay of the 1794 marriage. And also to find out about Mancunians of the Wesleyan faith in the early 1800s. Best regards 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

Hello Joanne: As you can see, I've been enjoying the chase for your CARDWELLs. Have you seen Elizabeth ROBERTS in 1851, still at Nathan's Court? Living with her is an unmarried sister Eliza aged (I think) 40 years. This implies a birth c. 1811. Elizabeth probably gives her age as 38. These are difficult to read being on the water damaged section but the Manchester & Lancs FHS rescue transcription agrees with these details. These 2 undoubtedly belong to your family because of the definite connection with your known ancestors and the link to this address. I wonder if Ellen & Eliza might be the same person. When you are searching you should also consider variants CADWELL and CANDWELL (in case the r has been misread as n). Best wishes, Irene