Sacred to the memory of Edward BUDDEL Born 13th July 1800 Died May 29th 1883 Also Ann Saxby BUDDEL Born 24th July 1802 Died 4th May 1886 The beloved wife of the above Edward Buddel Both of this parish. (Have Photo)

Marriage certificates list fathers' occupation. But what if the father is dead at the time of the marriage - is it still listed, or is the word "deceased" used? -Nigel

Hello Nigel Yes Sometimes the fact that the father is deceased is not recorded, sometimes it gives his occupation, then (deceased) but it should give his name, whatever the cirumstances (but no checks are made) See http://home.clara.net/dixons/Certificates/marriages.htm#COL8 Colin ----- Original Message ----- From: "Nigel Horne" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, August 28, 2009 6:58 PM Subject: [Isle-of-Thanet] Marriage Certificates > Marriage certificates list fathers' occupation. But what if the father > is dead at the time of the marriage - is it still listed, or is the word > "deceased" used? > > -Nigel > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without > the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Andy/Colin, Thank you for your replies. This all relates to Daniel Edwards (b. 1807 somewhere in Kent) and his daughter Johanna Brooker Edwards (b. 1832 in St. Lawrence). Daniel is listed in the 1841 census as living in St. Lawrence, which ties nicely with Johanna's birthplace. Johanna was married in 1851 and I have a copy of her marriage certificate. Her father's occupation is listed as labourer, but he is not marked as deceased. I can find no record of Daniel in any census after 1841 which is why I wondered if he may have died before his daughter's marriage in 1851 (assuming he didn't end in a poor house). There is record of a Daniel Edwards who died in 1847 in Thanet in FreeBMD. I asked my question because if the answer was "he would be marked as deceased on the marriage certificate" then I would have known that the death in 1847 wasn't that of my ancestral Daniel, but of someone else. I can find no other records of any type relating to a Daniel Edwards after 1841, so there's a likelihood this was him, hence my research. But a likelihood doesn't mean proof! I may purchase a copy of said certificate, but even if he's listed as aged around 40 at death, that still wouldn't constitute proof (though it could pass a "beyond reasonable doubt" test). -Nigel (http://freepages.family.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~nigelhorne/) -- Nigel Horne. Arranger, Adjudicator, Band Trainer, Composer, Tutor, Typesetter. NJH Music, Barnsley, UK. ICQ#20252325 [email protected] http://www.bandsman.co.uk

Dear Nigel, If you look in the 1851 census, there's a Johanna EDWARDS described as a widow. Children match up (with a couple missing) to 1841, including daughter Johanna, age 20 . So my guess would be that the death you see in FreeBMD is the one you're looking for, Best wishes Elizabeth On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 5:02 PM, Nigel Horne <[email protected]> wrote: > > Andy/Colin, > > Thank you for your replies. > > This all relates to Daniel Edwards (b. 1807 somewhere in Kent) and his > daughter Johanna Brooker Edwards (b. 1832 in St. Lawrence). > > Daniel is listed in the 1841 census as living in St. Lawrence,  which > ties nicely with Johanna's birthplace.  Johanna was married in 1851 and > I have a copy of her marriage certificate.  Her father's occupation is > listed as labourer, but he is not marked as deceased.  I can find no > record of Daniel in any census after 1841 which is why I wondered if he > may have died before his daughter's marriage in 1851 (assuming he didn't > end in a poor house). > > There is record of a Daniel Edwards who died in 1847 in Thanet in > FreeBMD.  I asked my question because if the answer was "he would be > marked as deceased on the marriage certificate"  then I would have known > that the death in 1847 wasn't that of my ancestral Daniel, but of > someone else. I can find no other records of any type relating to a > Daniel Edwards after 1841, so there's a likelihood this was him, hence > my research.  But a likelihood doesn't mean proof!  I may purchase a > copy of said certificate, but even if he's listed as aged around 40 at > death, that still wouldn't constitute proof (though it could pass a > "beyond reasonable doubt" test). > > -Nigel (http://freepages.family.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~nigelhorne/) > > -- > Nigel Horne. Arranger, Adjudicator, Band Trainer, Composer, Tutor, Typesetter. > NJH Music, Barnsley, UK.  ICQ#20252325 > [email protected] http://www.bandsman.co.uk > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

On 28/08/09 22:50, Elizabeth Clark wrote: > Dear Nigel, > If you look in the 1851 census, there's a Johanna EDWARDS described as > a widow. Children match up (with a couple missing) to 1841, including > daughter Johanna, age 20 . So my guess would be that the death you see > in FreeBMD is the one you're looking for, > I can't find that entry in the 1851 census. Come to think of it I checked there yesterday to see if there was a widow and couldn't find it then either. I'm looking on ancestry's 1851 transcription, and can find no Johanna Edwards there. How did you find it? -Nigel

>> Dear Nigel, >> If you look in the 1851 census, there's a Johanna EDWARDS described as >> a widow. Children match up (with a couple missing) to 1841, including >> daughter Johanna, age 20 . So my guess would be that the death you see >> in FreeBMD is the one you're looking for, > > I can't find that entry in the 1851 census. Come to think of it I > checked there yesterday to see if there was a widow and couldn't find > it then either. > > I'm looking on ancestry's 1851 transcription, and can find no Johanna > Edwards there. How did you find it? Found it :-) The 1851 entry has been incorrectly transcribed as Edward, not Edwards. By the way the "old search" found it straight away - I always had my suspicions about the usefulness of the "new search" on Ancestry's site. -Nigel