Nicholas, The usual site I use for British Overseas Marriages in family.relatives.com but that site is not responding. Using the others, as Maureen has suggested, draws a blank, meaning that neither marriage was a Consular Marriage as such. There are Public Member Trees on ancestry that show the name of Francis Henry Trevithick's wife to be Okuno Yoshi, but no defined marriage date or place. The name of Richard Francis Trevithick's wife does not appear to be known at all. There are details of some of the brothers' children on ancestry as well. Generally, Google and Google Books searches throw up all sorts of references to the two brothers, but even RFT's obituary makes no reference to his wife. Apparently Francis Henry had two sons whose descendants remain in Japan and use the surname Okuno. One thing I have not tried is whether there are any newspaper references to either of the bothers - you could try The Times Digital Archive and 19th Century British Newspapers.

Hello Noel, Thanks for looking so deeply into my problem. Unfortunately on my side of the family all three Trevithick first cousins, twice removed, failed to have children during the first half of the 20th century and so I have no Trevithick second cousins to turn to to-day. I spent a lot of time in Japan when I was a young man and can understand very well what the attraction was for these two Victorians and many others in those days. It has always touched me that one brought his mixed blood daughter back to Britain and was willing to face the consequences. It is good to know there is still an Okuno - Trevithick link to-day. The Japanese are as ethnocentric as the British and it is no small thing for a Japanese to own up to having Gaijin blood in his veins! Unfortunately the main library in Vancouver ceased subscribing to The Times On Line archives. A great loss to a UK researcher like me. best wishes, Nick On 19 August 2015 at 17:30, Noel Clark via <india@rootsweb.com> wrote: > Nicholas, > The usual site I use for British Overseas Marriages in > family.relatives.com > but that site is not responding. Using the others, as Maureen has > suggested, > draws a blank, meaning that neither marriage was a Consular Marriage as > such. > There are Public Member Trees on ancestry that show the name of Francis > Henry Trevithick's wife to be Okuno Yoshi, but no defined marriage date or > place. The name of Richard Francis Trevithick's wife does not appear to be > known at all. > There are details of some of the brothers' children on ancestry as well. > Generally, Google and Google Books searches throw up all sorts of > references > to the two brothers, but even RFT's obituary makes no reference to his > wife. > Apparently Francis Henry had two sons whose descendants remain in Japan and > use the surname Okuno. > One thing I have not tried is whether there are any newspaper references to > either of the bothers - you could try The Times Digital Archive and 19th > Century British Newspapers. > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > INDIA-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes > in the subject and the body of the message >

Hello List Noel, in one of his recent posts, mentioned familyrelatives.com Until recently, I have used familyrelatives.com for the free British Army Overseas Index records. However I have been unable to access this site for the past few weeks, and I am wondering whether it has closed down, although I have not been able to find any information online which confirms this. I note there is a Facebook page which can still be accessed, but I cannot see anything after 22 July (presumably 2015), although I am not a Facebook member. https://www.facebook.com/Familyrelatives Does anyone know anything about Familyrelatives.com? Can anyone access the website http://www.familyrelatives.com/ ? Cheers Maureen On 20/08/2015, at 10:30 AM, Noel Clark via <india@rootsweb.com> wrote: > Nicholas, > The usual site I use for British Overseas Marriages in family.relatives.com > but that site is not responding. Using the others, as Maureen has suggested, > draws a blank, meaning that neither marriage was a Consular Marriage as > such. >