Peter, Gus and Mike, Thank you for all for taking an interest in my question. This particular point has been nagging me for years and as one of you has suggested I should really get hold of Augusta Ada's marriage or death certificate in order to learn her maiden name. A few pounds = Problem solved I am still puzzled by Martha's surname in the 1891 census and though Rouse seems tobe the most likely choice the first letter looks very much like a B. The census taker seemed to use a very simple style for writing his capital Rs on the same page of the census. Long ago when I first started my search, I had thought she fitted in best as a daughter of Henry and Mary Rouse, but I am now not too sure. There is an Andrew Whitworth on Ancestry who is also following Martha, but he has nothing beyond the 1881 census. I have dropped him a line to find out if he knows anything more about her. I think the fact that the place of birth is quite different to the Beoley one, may be in the end I'll find we have two differrent women .. Originally when I posed my question I was hoping to hear from someone who had access to the Beoley parish records. The village is tiny and there could not have been very many baptism celebrated during that two year period. with thanks, Nick On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 7:06 AM, Peter Booth <pbo08596@bigpond.net.au> wrote: > Nick (Gus & Mike), > > When Mike replied with the 1908 marriage, I thought you must have made > an error in your posting. But I've just been able to see the census image. > > The strange thing is that Augusta is shown as born in Stratford on Avon, > whereas Martha, her supposed sister, is born in Beoley, and all other > siblings in Northfield. > > I've seen the term "sister in law" frequently mis-applied. We now take > it to mean husband or wife's sister, but in times gone by, it really meant > "sister at law" or step-sister. I wonder if this might be the case? > > I'm also thinking they may not have been married and only tied the knot > in 1908 as Mike found. I see there was a daughter Amy aged 3 in 1891 > census. > It may be worthwhile obtaining her birth certificate to see if Christopher > is listed as the father. > > But to determine the exact relationship of Martha, Nick will have to go > back and trace both Christopher and Augusta in 1881 and 1871 census and see > who the resided with. > > It could be that Christopher had married a sister of Martha who has > since died (perhaps giving birth to Amy). > You'd need to check all possible scenarios. > > Peter in Sydney > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > ENG-WORCESTER-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message >

Hi Nicholas Shame you did not put your question last week. Last Friday,Saturday and Sunday there was a three day history event in Beoley church in which I as part of the Bromsgrove BMSGH was giving genealogical advice. On the Saturday the Worcestershire County Records Office was there with the original parish registers. Mike in Droitwich nicholas wilson wrote: > Peter, Gus and Mike, > > Thank you for all for taking an interest in my question. This particular > point has been nagging me for years and as one of you has suggested I should > really get hold of Augusta Ada's marriage or death certificate in order to > learn her maiden name. A few pounds = Problem solved > I am still puzzled by Martha's surname in the 1891 census and though Rouse > seems tobe the most likely choice the first letter looks very much like a > B. The census taker seemed to use a very simple style for writing his > capital Rs on the same page of the census. Long ago when I first started my > search, I had thought she fitted in best as a daughter of Henry and Mary > Rouse, but I am now not too sure. There is an Andrew Whitworth on Ancestry > who is also following Martha, but he has nothing beyond the 1881 census. I > have dropped him a line to find out if he knows anything more about her. I > think the fact that the place of birth is quite different to the Beoley one, > may be in the end I'll find we have two differrent women > .. > > Originally when I posed my question I was hoping to hear from someone who > had access to the Beoley parish records. The village is tiny and there could > not have been very many baptism celebrated during that two year period. > > with thanks, > > Nick > > On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 7:06 AM, Peter Booth <pbo08596@bigpond.net.au> wrote: > >> Nick (Gus & Mike), >> >> When Mike replied with the 1908 marriage, I thought you must have made >> an error in your posting. But I've just been able to see the census image. >> >> The strange thing is that Augusta is shown as born in Stratford on Avon, >> whereas Martha, her supposed sister, is born in Beoley, and all other >> siblings in Northfield. >> >> I've seen the term "sister in law" frequently mis-applied. We now take >> it to mean husband or wife's sister, but in times gone by, it really meant >> "sister at law" or step-sister. I wonder if this might be the case? >> >> I'm also thinking they may not have been married and only tied the knot >> in 1908 as Mike found. I see there was a daughter Amy aged 3 in 1891 >> census. >> It may be worthwhile obtaining her birth certificate to see if Christopher >> is listed as the father. >> >> But to determine the exact relationship of Martha, Nick will have to go >> back and trace both Christopher and Augusta in 1881 and 1871 census and see >> who the resided with. >> >> It could be that Christopher had married a sister of Martha who has >> since died (perhaps giving birth to Amy). >> You'd need to check all possible scenarios. >> >> Peter in Sydney >> >> >> ------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to >> ENG-WORCESTER-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the >> quotes in the subject and the body of the message >> > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to ENG-WORCESTER-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message >

Nick, I think some of the problem has already been solved but you seem reluctant to accept it. Buying the 1908 marriage certificate will only prove what FreeBMD tells us, that Christopher Wilson married Augusta Tidsall. Even if it give parents, Mike has already shown that they are Henry & Mary Tidsall. And the death certificate will no doubt say the same. If, as I've suggested, they lived together for 25 years without marrying, then nothing can prove that except perhaps the birth certificate of Amy or other children. As for Martha, we know from both 1881 census and 1872 christening on IGI that she is the daughter of Henry Rouse the gamekeeper and Mary. What you do not know it the connection between Martha Rouse and either Christopher Wilson or Augusta Tidsall. To establish that you need to find both Christopher and Augusta in every earlier census and see if they had a brother or sister who married a Rouse or a Tidsall or Wilson, or even a sibling of Martha's mother. That's a bit of work. But it's not for others to do. Peter