Hi Shirley, ----- Original Message ----- From: "Phil O'Donnell" <[email protected]> >I am trying to find a marriage of Jane Ann THORN (b. 1851) & Richard MOURTON (b.1850) Whilst this >is not an Essex area, sometimes our ancestors creep into other districts and marry. After a long >and tedious trek I am getting desperate! Richard MOURTON born West London to Charles & Susannah >MOURTON. I have Richard in the census of 1851 & 1871. I might have him in 1861 but can’t confirm. >I also have him in later census. He dies in 1899. Richard & Jane have their first child in 1877 >(Sophia aka Sofia) and others follow,. This name is mostly MOURTON but it sometimes appears as >MORETON & MORTON. > Any suggestions? I have tried all sorts of computations from the free BMD list and nothing appears > on Ancestry parish index. They could have married between 1871 (Richard is living with his brother > on this census and is unmarried) & the birth of their first born in 1877. However, as I can’t > find them they might have not married at all! > Do you have any MOURTON or THORN’s in your tree? > Thanks,> Shirley in Florida Given the coincidence of surnames, this could be worth following up [e.g. censuses, basptisms of children]: Sep 1862 (>99%) Moorton Richard Charles James Shoreditch 1c305 Thorne Caroline Hannah Shoreditch 1c305 which turns out to be Name:Richard Charles James Moorton [Cabinet Maker, 3 Tyson Street] Age:20 Estimated Birth Year:abt 1842 Spouse Name:Caroline Hannah Thorne [-, 4 Wellington Street] Spouse Age:20 Record Type:Marriage Marriage Date:03 Aug 1862 Parish:St James, Shoreditch COUNTY:Middlesex Borough:Hackney Father Name:James Moorton [Labourer] Spouse Father Name:Thomas Thorne [Dairyman] Source Citation: London Metropolitan Archives, Saint James, Bermondsey[Should be SHOREDITCH -(( ], Register of marriages, P71/JS, Item 014 In 1871 they are in Union Street, Shoreditch, indexed as Charles MOURTON by ancestry. I see from the 1851 census that the two Richards are distinct persons, one born 1842 listed as Charles], the other 1850, but there might be a connection? Regards John Henley