NEGenealogy@aol.com wrote: > I don't really follow the logic of this. The name of > anyone's birthplace is not really relevant to where they might be living at the > time they were married. Geoff I assumed that Carol meant that, although the couples were married and supposedly resident in Newcastle, their previous and subsequent children were born elsewhere. Suggesting that their residence was elsewhere and they'd just temporarily moved to Newcastle to marry. Funnily enough I found a similar case with a couple from Winlaton. In 1851 they were cohabiting at Winlaton - in 1853 they married at Newcastle and were listed as resident there - in 1855 they had a child and were resident at Winlaton again. Like Carol, I wondered if the couple had moved to Newcastle simply to allow them to marry there, though, of course, it is no more than a possibility. They may have genuinely moved to Newcastle with the intention of staying, but subsequently changed their minds and moved back to Winlaton. As to motive - I wondered (again it is only surmise) if the couple had lied about their marital status and all their friends and neighbours thought they were married when they weren't. They couldn't marry locally without revealing the lie, so when they decided to tie the knot they had to do so away from Winlaton. Brian -- Brian Pears (Gateshead, UK) http://www.bpears.org.uk/ Joint List Admin NORTHUMBRIA Genealogy Mailing List GENUKI Northumberland Maintainer