snip > > There was a Sarah Wildgoose of the right age, also from Darley Dale, who > married a Joseph Woodhouse in Bakewell district (Matlock parish) on > 20/4/1874. I could see that they had a child in the September so she was > already pregnant when they married. If it was the same Sarah Wildgoose > then she may have ignored the 7-year provision and got married as quickly > as possible. Joseph may have even been the cause of the split from William > Elliott. This Sarah never used any middlename but that could have been a > vague attempt to obfuscate the connection. Unfortunately, that child later > died as an infant. snip > Have you tried contacting Kay Feltham of the Wildgoose one name study? Her contact details will be at http://www.one-name.org/ .
"Tahiri" <el@tyg.notforce9.co.uk> wrote in message news:1OqdnRUidehGmEDMnZ2dnUVZ8tidnZ2d@brightview.co.uk... > snip >> >> There was a Sarah Wildgoose of the right age, also from Darley Dale, who >> married a Joseph Woodhouse in Bakewell district (Matlock parish) on >> 20/4/1874. I could see that they had a child in the September so she was >> already pregnant when they married. If it was the same Sarah Wildgoose >> then she may have ignored the 7-year provision and got married as quickly >> as possible. Joseph may have even been the cause of the split from >> William Elliott. This Sarah never used any middlename but that could have >> been a vague attempt to obfuscate the connection. Unfortunately, that >> child later died as an infant. > snip >> > Have you tried contacting Kay Feltham of the Wildgoose one name study? > Her contact details will be at http://www.one-name.org/ . > Thanks for that suggestion Tahiri. I will try and contact Kay. I made a small error in my original post: Sarah Wildgoose married Joseph Woodhouse in September 1873 (not 1874) and their child was born in April 1874. However, it still means she was pregnant at the time of the marriage. In the 1871 census, there appears to be no matching Sarah Wildgoose. Hence, the fact that she declared herself to be a 31-year-old spinster on the marriage certificate is suspicious. Joseph, in contrast, was a 37-year-old widower. There are two potential Sarah's born around that time in Darley so I'm trying to track them to which one that marriage was for. Tony Proctor