Dear Brian I have definitely the right person as I have her birth certificate, her two marriage certificates and the entries on the 1871/1881/ and 1891 Census returns. The lady in question is ELEANOR TINDLE born South Shields 1853 who married THOMAS ROBSON in 1867 in Newcastle. While the 1871 census says she is unmarried she is listed in her married name aged 17 with her son GEORGE WILKINSON ROBSON aged 3 living with her brother WILLIAM TINDLE (who is my great grandfather) Doing simple arithmetic on the other census they both give the same details taking her son's age away from hers = 14 years difference. The son was also named after her first husband's father. I too thought this strange but asked many years ago on this forum about the age of consent - I too do not understand why they stated Full Age on the first certificate but the marriage was by Licence. I have always followed your advice to be certain of anything to have a minimum of three pieces of evidence, so I am absolutely certain both certificates are correct (her father on both is GEORGE TINDLE Labourer) and ELEANOR ROBSON nee TINDLE who then marries JOSEPH PEARSON in 1873 is one and the same person. I have her son's birth certificate stating father Thomas ROBSON and mother ELEANOR TINDLE born 1867 and the census returns until he gets married. Marion -----Original Message----- What I do challenge is the specific claim in Maggie's post. It simply does not stand up to scrutiny. Let's look at it closely. Maggie wrote "I have one in my family where it says 'full age' when the bride was 14years old and her father and brother were the witnesses!" If the father was a witness, he obviously consented to the marriage, so the girl would have had no need to lie about being 14 if that was in fact the case. Why would she have risked the serious charge of perjury when she gained nothing. If this was in fact a 14 year-old marrying with her father present, then the marriage would have been quite legal without any need to lie. The conclusion - this girl is not the person Maggie thinks she is. Brian -- Brian Pears (Joint List Admin - NORTHUMBRIA Mailing List) .. Please remember to snip most of the earlier message before you post any reply...... Thank you! The NORTHUMBRIA FAQ page is located at <http://www.bpears.org.uk/NorthumbriaFAQ/> http://www.bpears.org.uk/NorthumbriaFAQ/ ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to <mailto:[email protected]> [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

"Maggie Richie" <[email protected]> wrote: >I too thought this strange but asked many years ago on this forum >about the age of consent - I too do not understand why they stated >Full Age on the first certificate but the marriage was by Licence. I >have always followed your advice to be certain of anything to have a >minimum of three pieces of evidence, so I am absolutely certain both >certificates are correct (her father on both is GEORGE TINDLE >Labourer) and ELEANOR ROBSON nee TINDLE who then marries JOSEPH >PEARSON in 1873 is one and the same person. Maggie As you say, your evidence still doesn't explain why she would claim to be "of full age" when she had nothing to gain. Nor does it explain why, if your scenario is correct, she would claim to be single in 1871 thus labelling herself as an unmarried mother. So she has committed two criminal offences - providing incorect information to a Registrar and to a Census Enumerator - and labelled herself as a fallen woman, without gaining any sort of advantage. Although your evidence sounds convincing, there's something very strange here. Brian -- Brian Pears (Joint List Admin - NORTHUMBRIA Mailing List)