I should possibly have mentioned that Richard was married to Charlotte Harding. Thank you Margaret for the response. Maud > Message: 2 > Date: Sat, 26 Sep 2009 14:59:04 -0700 > From: "Margaret Cambridge" <talktomarg@shaw.ca> > Subject: Re: [SRY] Advice Please - Cook family > To: <eng-surrey@rootsweb.com> > Message-ID: <9A3C38745A5F47FDBBE255A84CF0A5B9@margaret78c408> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > > Possibly found in 1901. Image sent. > > Marg >>From the Beautiful British Columbia Cariboo Region, Canada > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "maud" <charzum@telkomsa.net> > To: <eng-surrey@rootsweb.com> > Sent: Saturday, September 26, 2009 7:32 AM > Subject: [SRY] Advice Please - Cook family > > > My grandfather Richard Cook, born in Bethnal Green in 1839 does not appear > on the 1891 or 1901 census. The family were residing in Croydon, Surrey > at > the time. > > According to the census, my grandmother is not shown as the "head", but as > married. On checking on freebmd, the only death I can find of a Richard > Cook in the correct age category is in 1908 in Croydon. > > Could Richard possibly have been hospitalised or in an institution? > > Any assistance will be much appreciated. > Maud > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 3 > Date: Sat, 26 Sep 2009 15:15:20 -0700 > From: Bill Dalton <rnbill@centurytel.net> > Subject: [SRY] Banns from St. Brides Fleet Street > To: eng-surrey@rootsweb.com > Message-ID: <4ABE9278.3070507@centurytel.net> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed > > Hi Fionnghal > > Thanks for the offer to look at the Banns for John Dalton and Ann/Anne > Brown. > > According to the information that I was given, the banns were called on > 5, 12 and 19 May 1805. However, my source did not tell me if there was > any other information recorded in that document. > > Also, do you know of any maps (online hopefully) showing the boundaries > of the different parishes in the London area in 1805? I have been told > that St. Brides was located in Middlesex and I was wondering what were > the other adjacent parishes on the assumption that my John was not > actually a resident of the St. Brides parish. If I take that route then > I would have to know which were the closest parishes and work through > the records of them looking for a Dalton. > > Bill Dalton > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 4 > Date: Sat, 26 Sep 2009 22:25:23 +0000 (GMT) > From: Fionnghal <fionnghalnicphadraig@yahoo.co.uk> > Subject: Re: [SRY] Banns from St. Brides Fleet Street > To: eng-surrey@rootsweb.com > Message-ID: <551606.55567.qm@web24608.mail.ird.yahoo.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 > > you want to go to Mapco, Bill.? it is brilliant.? Choose the London maps > link and have a good browse.? If the maps don't show parishes, usually > there is a helpful hover feature showing the parish the square roughly > covers.? The Stanford's 1877 map is the best for parishes and may hep a > wee bit of used in conjunction with older maps though f course there will > have been many more added. > > http://archivemaps.com/mapco/index.htm > > i'll get back to you with your couple - hopefully with a result > > le durachd > > Fionnghal > > > > Also, do you know of any maps (online hopefully) showing the boundaries > of the different parishes in the London area in 1805?? I have been told > that St. Brides was located in Middlesex and I was wondering what were > the other adjacent parishes on the assumption that my John was not > actually a resident of the St. Brides parish.? If I take that route then > I would have to know which were the closest parishes and work through > the records of them looking for a Dalton. > > Bill Dalton > *************************************** > Send your List messages using **PLAIN TEXT** and always **TRIM AWAY** > superfluous old messages in replies. > > List Admin can be contacted at:? Eng-Surrey-admin@rootsweb.com. > ? > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > ENG-SURREY-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 5 > Date: Sat, 26 Sep 2009 22:48:50 +0000 (GMT) > From: Fionnghal <fionnghalnicphadraig@yahoo.co.uk> > Subject: Re: [SRY] Banns from St. Brides Fleet Street > To: eng-surrey@rootsweb.com > Message-ID: <276118.7174.qm@web24611.mail.ird.yahoo.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 > > hi Bill, no banns showing yet, though they may just not be up yet.? > However, their marriage lines show them both to be from the Parish of St > Brides Fleet Street though how long they'd been staying there is unknown.? > > I tried to contact you off-list to send you the full details but it > bounced.? if you e-mail me direct i'll fill you in. > > le durachd > > Fionnghal > Thanks for the offer to look at the Banns for John Dalton and Ann/Anne > Brown. > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 6 > Date: Sat, 26 Sep 2009 23:55:09 +0100 > From: "Nivard Ovington" <ovington1@sky.com> > Subject: Re: [SRY] Banns from St. Brides Fleet Street > To: <eng-surrey@rootsweb.com> > Message-ID: <FE555E094BBD4925B27EFBD471D664B7@claireac3e9bca> > Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; > reply-type=original > > Try > http://maps.familysearch.org/ > > Nivard Ovington in Cornwall (UK) > > >> Also, do you know of any maps (online hopefully) showing the boundaries >> of the different parishes in the London area in 1805? I have been told >> that St. Brides was located in Middlesex and I was wondering what were >> the other adjacent parishes on the assumption that my John was not >> actually a resident of the St. Brides parish. If I take that route then >> I would have to know which were the closest parishes and work through >> the records of them looking for a Dalton. >> >> Bill Dalton > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 7 > Date: Sun, 27 Sep 2009 12:46:57 +1000 > From: Alison <wadingbird@bigpond.com> > Subject: [SRY] Parish Registers on Ancestry - St Paul Deptford > To: SURREY <ENG-SURREY-L@rootsweb.com> > Message-ID: <4ABED220.7090800@bigpond.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed > > > To follow Nivard's examples and Cliff's suggestion, here is a rough > guide for St Paul Deptford - the dates given by Ancestry don't reflect > what is actually there. > > 1730-1788 > pp 1-2 burials - ?? mainly of past incumbents > pp 3-169 baptisms - 1730-June 1788 > pp 170-180 marriages 1730-March 1754 > pp 181-365 burials 1730-June 1788 > pp 366-539 baptisms July 1788-1812 > > > Alison :-) > Sydney Australia > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 8 > Date: Sat, 26 Sep 2009 16:10:15 -0700 (PDT) > From: mary jacob <mdhwrites@verizon.net> > Subject: Re: [SRY] Evidence of identity for marriage, re bannsRe: > ENG-SURREY Digest, Vol 4, Issue 246 > To: eng-surrey@rootsweb.com > Message-ID: <292339.32892.qm@web84004.mail.mud.yahoo.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 > > I think I've read all the responses to the above query, but I didn't see > anything about proof of identity. ? > I have no doubt about the bride and groom's name on my great grandparents' > marriage certificate. ?William Alexander DOWNING, solicitor, married Ann > JAGGS,?daughter of William Jaggs, Master Mariner?on 10 Sep 1860 at St > Giles, Camberwell. ?My problem is the groom's father, George Downing, > gentleman. ?As far as I can tell, the groom's father is Alexander Downing, > servant, and his mother is Harriet (birth date 18 August 1823; baptism 17 > January 1827, All Souls Church, Marylebone, Middlesex). ?On every census, > W.A Downing's age and birthplace agree with the baptismal record.? > Would a person be asked for proof of his father's name? ?Or was William > free to give any name he liked? > My father told me his grandfather, the above W.A. Downing, was > illegitimate, father unknown. ?It's my guess Alexander Downing was not > W.A.'s father, explaining the gap between birth and baptism. ?Nor was his > father George Downing, Gentleman as stated on the marriage cert.? > Since I haven't been able to find a marriage for Alexander Downing and > Harriet, I do not know Harriet's surname. ?I found a William Downing > living with Harriet Downing, widow, on the 1841 census, but cannot find > him on the 1851 census. ?From 1861, he appears on every census, right age, > right birthplace. > Does anyone have any ideas? > Mary in Maryland > Mostly Surrey/Greater London names: Banks, Downing, Eldridge, Fisher, > Jaggs, King,?Ohlson, Pillow,?Pettengill, Spratt, Webber,? > --- On Wed, 9/23/09, eng-surrey-request@rootsweb.com > <eng-surrey-request@rootsweb.com> wrote: > > From: eng-surrey-request@rootsweb.com <eng-surrey-request@rootsweb.com> > Subject: ENG-SURREY Digest, Vol 4, Issue 246 > To: eng-surrey@rootsweb.com > Date: Wednesday, September 23, 2009, 10:42 AM > > > > If you'd like your Digest format changed, please don't hesitate to contact > me, Ann, at the Surrey List Admin address: > Eng-Surrey-admin@rootsweb.com > > To send a reply, or a new message to the List send it to > Eng-Surrey@rootsweb.com > > When replying to an earlier message please change the Subject line to > reflect the content, and trim away unnecessary parts of earlier postings.? > Always use Plain Text for List Messages - if unsure contact List Admin for > help. > > Today's Topics: > > ???1. Re: Evidence of identity for marriage, re banns (Pam Hillier) > ???2. Re: Evidence of identity for marriage? (Chew G) > ???3. Re: Evidence of identity for marriage, re banns (Fionnghal) > ???4. 50 years between banns and marriage (Penny Parker) > ???5. Re: 50 years between banns and marriage (Nivard Ovington) > ???6. Re: 50 years between banns and marriage (Caroline Bradford) > ???7. Re: 50 years between banns and marriage (Fionnghal) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2009 14:22:50 +0930 > From: "Pam Hillier" <pamhillier24@virginbroadband.com.au> > Subject: Re: [SRY] Evidence of identity for marriage, re banns > To: <eng-surrey@rootsweb.com> > Message-ID: <863F7ABDD8FD468C91A139703203B65D@GENHILLIER> > Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; > ??? reply-type=original > > Hi? Wayne > perhaps not........One of my family married in Richmond Surrrey and lived > in > Twickenham, and census data was Twickenham for the most part......turns > out > they both worked for a family in Richmond where they first met.....and > possibly married in the area as it was easier from work. When people are > in > service, time off is limited. He was the Butler and she was the cook.... > BUT > That being said, I have had one that married elsewhere because they had > children.....we may never know why they didn't marry at or before the > first > child was born, but it seems they married just before the eldest child was > due to marry, some 20 years later....and yes we got the certs and it is > them. They were together in all the census data too. We think he lied to > get > into the army, was too young to marry her when she fell pregnant, and then > it all got way too hard and they never bothered. But guilt might have set > in > when they had to appear in church for their children....whatever the > reason......we can make suppositions but in some cases the truth is > probably > somewhere in between and died with them > Cheers Pam from Adelaide Australia > > > > >> >> Hi all, >> >> I also have a problem with incorrect/ falsehoods with my great >> grandparents. My great >> grandmother Anne Bashford, was, as was the rest of her family members of >> and were baptised >> in the local? Coulsdon church. In fact both of her parents were buried >> there. However she >> chose to marry in the Croydon Parish church under banns in 1870. The man >> she married gave >> his name as William Bride (the registrar confirmed he wrote his name as >> "Bride" on >> the certificate) The next year has them in Coulsdon under the name >> 'McBride' in the >> 1871 census and subsequent children were baptised back in the Coulsdon >> church. The Croydon >> church never figured again in any family matters.There has obviously been >> some deception >> somewhere which leads me to question other parts of the certificate such >> as William's >> father's name & occupation. Also is my surname Bride or McBride? >> >> kindest regards >> >> Wayne (Mc)Bride >> *************************************** >> Send your List messages using **PLAIN TEXT** and always **TRIM AWAY** >> superfluous old messages in replies. >> >> List Admin can be contacted at:? Eng-Surrey-admin@rootsweb.com. >> >> >> ------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to >> ENG-SURREY-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the >> quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2009 15:09:57 +0100 > From: "Chew G" <G.Chew@rhul.ac.uk> > Subject: Re: [SRY] Evidence of identity for marriage? > To: <eng-surrey@rootsweb.com> > Message-ID: > ??? <E5F8E4518B68AA439EE1BDFCF08ABE7103638D83@EXCH-DB-02.cc.rhul.local> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > > My impression is that the approval of the "father", real or surrogate, who > bore the surname seems to have been implied when the illegitimate > offspring changed from the mother's surname.? But not officially, of > course.? A typical example - my ancestor Joseph Chew, b. 1777, > illegitimate, was called Joseph French after his mother at baptism, was > called Joseph Chew French at his marriage, and once the likely father > Thomas Chew had approved of him to the extent of naming him "Joseph Chew" > in his will (early 19th century), he called himself Joseph Chew. But I > don't have the impression he would have dared to do so in that village > community unless he'd had Thomas's approval. > > Geoff > > Geoffrey Chew > g.chew@rhul.ac.uk > > ________________________________ > > From: eng-surrey-bounces@rootsweb.com on behalf of > rodfreeman27@talktalk.net > Sent: Tue 22.9.09 14:03 > To: eng-surrey@rootsweb.com > Subject: [SRY] Evidence of identity for marriage? > > > > > I'd appreciate Lister's thoughts on this situation: > > > > My paternal g-grandmother had an illegitimate daughter, born 1871, no > father's name on the birth cert., before she 'co-habited'? (ie. never > married) with with my g-grandfather in 1873.?This daughter carried her > mother's surname (PADDICK)?at the 1881 Census. Then, mother struck up a > relationship with another partner (George BAILEY),?and married him in > Lambeth in 1892; aforesaid daughter is shown with this man's surname in > the 1891 Census. When the daughter married in Islington in?1898 she gave > her surname as 'BAILEY' and her father as George BAILEY. > > I know that under English Common Law you can call yourself whatever you > like, but when it comes to officialdom,?documentrary evidence has to be > provided. I doubt whether these humble folk would have have known about, > or have been able to afford,?name change by Deed Poll?, so what proof, if > any, would she had to have provided as to her identity prior to marriage? > > > > Rod. > > In cool and dull Notting Hill, West London. > *************************************** > Send your List messages using **PLAIN TEXT** and always **TRIM AWAY** > superfluous old messages in replies. > > List Admin can be contacted at:? Eng-Surrey-admin@rootsweb.com. > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > ENG-SURREY-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 3 > Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2009 08:35:01 +0000 (GMT) > From: Fionnghal <fionnghalnicphadraig@yahoo.co.uk> > Subject: Re: [SRY] Evidence of identity for marriage, re banns > To: eng-surrey@rootsweb.com > Message-ID: <835033.65451.qm@web24607.mail.ird.yahoo.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 > > hya, it's not uncommon for names starting with Mac/Mc to have the Mc's > dropped either deliberately or accidentally.? I have lots of Mc's in my > family and it was forever happening - even within the one batch of > children. There was also a period when the British Government was > desperately trying to Anglicise all things, languages and names and many > Irish & Scottish names underwent a spelling change to meet this > requirement. Some registering clerks, teachers, ministers &c were very > assiduous in carrying this out while others were more relaxed hence > perhaps spelling varying from region to region.? Some names survived more > successfully than others.? In some cases it may be that the clerk was > unfamiliar with this Scottish/Irish influence on names and just didn't > include it; it may be that the Mc was so clipped in speech that it wasn't > recognised.? A not uncommon situation concerned the individual becoming > aware of a local anti-Irish/anti-Scottish feeling > in > his adopted community, and voluntarily dropping the Mc/Mac in an attempt > to integrate.? ? The name McBride has Gaelic origins, found both in > Scotland and Ireland which fits with any of the above scenarios. > > We have to bear in mind too, that there were still a lot of illiterate > folk in the 1870s and they simply didn't know how to spell their names or > didn't appreciate the relevance of spelling so wouldn't recognise a > mispelling on their marriage/birth lines &c. or if they did, may not have > had the courage to face an apparent scholar to point out the mistake > > If the Mc appears on his name, it is more likely than not that it was his > original name as the Mc is more often dropped than adopted. > > I suspect that if someone is seriously trying to deceive by altering > his/her name, the alias would be more different than a mere dropping or > adoption of a Mc.??? > > happy digging :-) > > le durachd > > Fionnghal > > > h church under banns in 1870. The man she married gave >> his name as William Bride (the registrar confirmed he wrote >> his name as "Bride" on >> the certificate) The next year has them in Coulsdon under >> the name 'McBride' in the > .......There has obviously been some deception >> somewhere which leads me to question other parts of the >> certificate such as William's >> father's name & occupation. Also is my surname Bride or >> McBride? > > > > ? ? ? > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 4 > Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2009 10:27:40 +0100 > From: Penny Parker <pitstop67@hotmail.com> > Subject: [SRY] 50 years between banns and marriage > To: <eng-surrey@rootsweb.com> > Message-ID: <COL109-W62FA9F473425088CC37DBCBBDB0@phx.gbl> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > > > Hi > > > > Thank you for the replies to my previous post. I now know that there can > be no more than 3 months between banns and marriage. > > > > Can anyone give me any help with the following please: > > > > The banns were published as follows: > > > Name: Margaret Merthens > > Age: 21 Estimated Birth Year: abt 1845? living at 24 Heath Street > > Spouse Name: Thomas Smith Spouse Age: 22? living at 22 Silver Street > > Record Type: Banns? Event Date: 23 Sep 1866 > > Parish: Saint Dunstan And All Saints County: Middlesex Borough: Tower > Hamlets > > > > There is no record of a marriage even though I have searched for years. I > know they were living in Morgan Street, St George in the East when their > first child was born in September 1867. > > > By 1889 they had moved to Sydenham (Lewisham) and remained there the rest > of their lives. However they did not marry until 1917 as follows: > > > > Name: Margaret Merton Age: 69 > > Estimated Birth Year: abt 1848 > > Spouse Name: Thomas Smith Spouse Age: 72 > > Record Type: Marriage Event Date: 7 May 1917 > > Parish: Christ Church County: Middlesex Borough: Southwark > > Father Name: Albert Merton Spouse Father Name: George Smith > > Both declared they were living at 40 Broadwall > > > > All these details are absolutely correct even her date of birth which was > wrongly stated in the banns. Her surname was spelt differently on many > documents - the spelling is correct on the Banns but by 1917 it could have > been anglicised in this way. > > > > My question is how did they marry in Southwark when they lived in Lewisham > and who did live at 40 Broadwall? > > > > Any help would be most appreciated. > > > > Penny > > ??? ???????? ?????? ??? ? > _________________________________________________________________ > Get the best of MSN on your mobile > http://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/147991039/direct/01/ > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 5 > Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2009 11:13:24 +0100 > From: "Nivard Ovington" <ovington1@sky.com> > Subject: Re: [SRY] 50 years between banns and marriage > To: <eng-surrey@rootsweb.com> > Message-ID: <028611B15AF940D79AA7827778D1B08F@claireac3e9bca> > Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; > ??? reply-type=original > > > Hi Penny > >>From what I can see they called the banns but then did not marry, there > could have been many reasons for that and you may never know the exact one > but perhaps Margaret was ill and they could not marry during the Banns > period of three months > > Or they went to marry on the appointed day and the Banns were found to be > incorrect in some way (age, name etc) they would have to have the Banns > called again and perhaps for reasons unknown did not want to follow it > through, you can imagine going to marry and having to return home and > perhaps not wanting to say they hadn't been through the ceremony > > It may be significant that Margaret could not write her name when they > married in 1917, therefore did not know the spelling of something (her > name > perhaps) was incorrect until the day of the marriage > > Although the spelling of surnames was very much a floating affair in > earlier > years, it could have been said on the day it was not spelled that way and > the Vicar would have to have canceled the wedding if he were the pedantic > type > > I have seen several Banns with that very reason annotated and therefore > wedding canceled (i.e. incorrect spelling of surname) > > Was it significant that it was 50 years after they had originally intended > to marry? perhaps, it might also have been a factor that they realised > that > Margaret may not have got a pension as a single lady > > Broadwall appears to still exist and is in Camberwell, if you contact the > nearest library or local studies if there is one they may be able to help > with the occupants in 1918 which I think would be the nearest electoral > roll > > It would only need them to be believed that they were resident at that > address for three weeks to be eligible to marry there, if they had lived > as > man and wife all those years they may have wanted to marry away from home > to > keep it a quiet affair, were either of the witnesses their children or > known > friends (perhaps the occupants of the mystery address?) > > Nivard Ovington in Cornwall (UK) > > >> Thank you for the replies to my previous post. I now know that there can >> be no more than 3 months between banns and marriage. >> Can anyone give me any help with the following please: >> The banns were published as follows: >> Name: Margaret Merthens >> Age: 21 Estimated Birth Year: abt 1845? living at 24 Heath Street >> Spouse Name: Thomas Smith Spouse Age: 22? living at 22 Silver Street >> Record Type: Banns? Event Date: 23 Sep 1866 >> Parish: Saint Dunstan And All Saints County: Middlesex Borough: Tower >> Hamlets > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 6 > Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2009 11:45:21 +0100 > From: "Caroline Bradford" <caroline.bradford@btinternet.com> > Subject: Re: [SRY] 50 years between banns and marriage > To: <eng-surrey@rootsweb.com> > Message-ID: <002801ca3c3a$f396b370$dac41a50$@bradford@btinternet.com> > Content-Type: text/plain;??? charset="us-ascii" > > Hi Penny > > My best guess would be that this pair had every intention of marrying in > 1845, but something prevented the wedding from taking place.? It could be > that Margaret was a wee bit younger than the 21 years she declared and > that > her father put a stop to it at the last minute.? Or it could be that one > of > them was ill.? They probably intended to try again in the near future.? > But, > given the birth date of their first child (was this actually in September, > or in the quarter ending in September?), it looks like they may have > "jumped > the gun" a bit.? So rather than admit to having a child out of wedlock, > they > pretended to be married (this was very common).? > > This lack of a legal marriage and the white lie they had been living for > so > many years may have preyed on their minds, so they "did the right thing" > in > their twilight years.? Or perhaps, more practically, the decision was > related to the recently introduced Old Age Pension scheme.? Married > couples > received more than single people and Thomas may have been nervous of being > asked for his marriage certificate when he applied for his pension at aged > 70.? It is possible that they married a little way from home out of > embarrassment and a desire for secrecy.? But you are right to try and > investigate the inhabitants of the address they both gave, as it would > probably be at least a friend, if not a relative.? Who were the witnesses > at > the wedding?? I wonder whether their children ever knew that their parents > had been living in sin all those years? > > Best wishes > > Caroline > >> >> Can anyone give me any help with the following please: >> >> >> >> The banns were published as follows: >> >> >> Name: Margaret Merthens >> >> Age: 21 Estimated Birth Year: abt 1845? living at 24 Heath Street >> >> Spouse Name: Thomas Smith Spouse Age: 22? living at 22 Silver Street >> >> Record Type: Banns? Event Date: 23 Sep 1866 >> >> Parish: Saint Dunstan And All Saints County: Middlesex Borough: Tower >> Hamlets >> >> >> >> There is no record of a marriage even though I have searched for years. >> I know they were living in Morgan Street, St George in the East when >> their first child was born in September 1867. >> >> >> By 1889 they had moved to Sydenham (Lewisham) and remained there the >> rest of their lives. However they did not marry until 1917 as follows: >> >> >> >> Name: Margaret Merton Age: 69 >> >> Estimated Birth Year: abt 1848 >> >> Spouse Name: Thomas Smith Spouse Age: 72 >> >> Record Type: Marriage Event Date: 7 May 1917 >> >> Parish: Christ Church County: Middlesex Borough: Southwark >> >> Father Name: Albert Merton Spouse Father Name: George Smith >> >> Both declared they were living at 40 Broadwall >> >> >> All these details are absolutely correct even her date of birth which >> was wrongly stated in the banns. Her surname was spelt differently on >> many documents - the spelling is correct on the Banns but by 1917 it >> could have been anglicised in this way. >> >> My question is how did they marry in Southwark when they lived in >> Lewisham and who did live at 40 Broadwall? >> >> Any help would be most appreciated. >> >> Penny >> >> >> _________________________________________________________________ > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 7 > Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2009 14:35:14 +0000 (GMT) > From: Fionnghal <fionnghalnicphadraig@yahoo.co.uk> > Subject: Re: [SRY] 50 years between banns and marriage > To: eng-surrey@rootsweb.com > Message-ID: <714620.57825.qm@web24602.mail.ird.yahoo.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 > > I believe it wasn't uncommon for folk to start living together as man & > wife after banns but without necessarily going as far as marrying.? > Perhaps cost was a limiting factor or, it may be they thought banns was > sufficient..? A bit like parents going for either baptism or > registration.? I think a significant number of folk thought either/or was > sufficient.? > > Could they simply just have been renewing their vows in 1917?? It's not > that uncommon.? It is possible, in spite of your not having found an > earlier marriage record, that your couple were married or truly believed > they were.? > > Also, not all the London records are on-line yet.? you might come on it > yet, or, pages or records may be missing > > le durachd > fionnghal > >> The banns were published as follows: >> >> Record Type: Banns? Event Date: 23 Sep 1866 >> Parish: Saint Dunstan And All Saints County: Middlesex >> Borough: Tower Hamlets > >> Record Type: Marriage Event Date: 7 May 1917 >> Parish: Christ Church County: Middlesex Borough: Southwark > > > > ? ? ? > > > > ------------------------------ > > To contact the ENG-SURREY list administrator, send an email to > ENG-SURREY-admin@rootsweb.com. > > To post a message to the ENG-SURREY mailing list, send an email to > ENG-SURREY@rootsweb.com. > > __________________________________________________________ > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > ENG-SURREY-request@rootsweb.com > with the word "unsubscribe" without the quotes in the subject and the body > of the > email with no additional text. > > > End of ENG-SURREY Digest, Vol 4, Issue 246 > ****************************************** > > > ------------------------------ > > To contact the ENG-SURREY list administrator, send an email to > ENG-SURREY-admin@rootsweb.com. > > To post a message to the ENG-SURREY mailing list, send an email to > ENG-SURREY@rootsweb.com. > > __________________________________________________________ > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > ENG-SURREY-request@rootsweb.com > with the word "unsubscribe" without the quotes in the subject and the body > of the > email with no additional text. > > > End of ENG-SURREY Digest, Vol 4, Issue 258 > ****************************************** -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 8.5.409 / Virus Database: 270.13.113/2396 - Release Date: 09/26/09 05:51:00