Genealogy Chat
Welcome to the Genes Reunited community boards!
- The Genes Reunited community is made up of millions of people with similar interests. Discover your family history and make life long friends along the way.
- You will find a close knit but welcoming group of keen genealogists all prepared to offer advice and help to new members.
- And it's not all serious business. The boards are often a place to relax and be entertained by all kinds of subjects.
- The Genes community will go out of their way to help you, so don’t be shy about asking for help.
Quick Search
Single word search
Icons
- New posts
- No new posts
- Thread closed
- Stickied, new posts
- Stickied, no new posts
What is your record?!! Mine is Eleven Years!!
Profile | Posted by | Options | Post Date |
---|---|---|---|
|
*** Fuzzy | Report | 2 Jun 2006 15:24 |
Please keep these stories coming, they make fascinating reading!! Grampa Jim, sounds like you have it spot on in your assumption I would think that too x |
|||
|
Unknown | Report | 2 Jun 2006 15:19 |
Ruth Wedrald had 6 children between 1790 and 1809, the 4th was named Thomas Cockbone Weatherald. She married Thomas Cockbone in 1814, and had another child, Obediah Cockbone 9 months later. I don't know what to believe. Until I learn anything different I must assume that Thomas Cockbone is my ancestor although I am descended from Ruth's 3rd child. |
|||
|
*** Fuzzy | Report | 2 Jun 2006 15:09 |
Annie, that is really useful info thanks |
|||
|
fraserbooks | Report | 2 Jun 2006 15:05 |
You find a lot of late marriages around1912 as folks had to produce a certificate to claim the married rate of old age pension. |
|||
|
*** Fuzzy | Report | 2 Jun 2006 15:00 |
The record is 44 years at present held by Suzanne, will take some beating!! it was her grandparents and she even went to the wedding aged 12!! |
|||
|
Unknown | Report | 2 Jun 2006 14:49 |
Mine were on 1871 as married Manchester 1881 as married Manchester 1891 as married Manchester 1901 as married Manchester Eldest child born 1869 Manchester They married late in 1903 when there oldest daghter got married ... BOTH marriages took place in ......... Lambeth, Surrey !!!!! I'd have NEVER have found them if I hadn't searched for daughters marriage. ! Is THIS the record ???? Elaine ;-) |
|||
|
*** Fuzzy | Report | 2 Jun 2006 14:45 |
Nell, My eyes have been well and truly opened, you are so right about our misconception about the victorians being strait laced, what a laugh eh? you also right about the size of the families they were incredible. One poor woman had her first child in 1823 and her last in 1846, thirteen in all!! She must have been permanently expecting!!! |
|||
|
Unknown | Report | 2 Jun 2006 14:41 |
I don't know where the notion that the Victorians were straight-laced came from! Apart from all the liars who were living in sin, there were quite a few who were open about their illegitimate children. Judging by the size of families it was obvious a lot of sex was happening, especially when you consider that a lot of women had miscarriages or illegal abortions too. I don't think our ancestors would have any right to judge themselves morally superior to us. Most of mine and husband's had babies quite shortly after marriage - I think the quickest is a fortnight! nell |
|||
|
*** Fuzzy | Report | 2 Jun 2006 14:38 |
Gwyneth, Yet another mystery, I love all these stories. Agree with you that it is very strange, perhaps a reason for getting married came up, like a will being made etc dont know, but it is facinating eh?!! |
|||
|
Gwyn in Kent | Report | 2 Jun 2006 12:18 |
If only my great grandmother was alive, I'd love to ask a few questions, - but don't know if I'd dare. In 1881 she is in Portsmouth as a widow with a family including a 3 month old son.- I should have known then that she'd be 'trouble' because I already knew that her husband, my great grandfather had died in 1876. By 1891, she is 'married' with 3 more daughters registered in new husband's name but they didn't actually marry until 1892. Why then? 2nd husband John had been previously married but his wife died in 1892 and so why the long delay in marrying, or why bother at all then? I'll never know. |
|||
|
*** Fuzzy | Report | 2 Jun 2006 11:52 |
Elizabeth, What an amazing story, it is fascinating all this isn't it? I didn't realise all this living in sin stuff was so common until I started digging, have several women who have lied on their children birth certs saying that they were married to the father when they weren't, the hussies!! |
|||
|
Elizabeth | Report | 2 Jun 2006 11:47 |
Sixty-Two years!!! My grandparents 'lived in sin' until they died. When my mum tried to get her birth cert. there had to be one made for her, because she hadn't been registered. She and her younger brother went to primary school under a different surname, and didn't even know. The teachers must have just used their Christian names. Grandma had been married previously but her ex-husband had got a divorce, so we don't know why they didn't marry. She wore a 'wedding ring' and used Grandad's name. Oh I wish she were here to ask. We didn't find out until a couple of years ago. |
|||
|
*** Fuzzy | Report | 2 Jun 2006 10:08 |
Suzanne, That is amazing!!! would love to hear the 'long story' when you have a spare mo! |
|||
|
*** Fuzzy | Report | 2 Jun 2006 10:07 |
Merry, I hadn't thought of that, suppose divorce in those days was rare?!! All this tree building has been an eye-opener! Gave up looking for my gg grandparents marriage when I first started out, think I will re-visit that one and check many years after the kids were born!! |
|||
|
Suzanne | Report | 2 Jun 2006 09:54 |
My record........ 44 years!!!!!!!!!! after their only child (my father) was born, ( I personally went to my grandparents wedding when I was 12 years old....long story. Suzanne X |
|||
|
Merry | Report | 2 Jun 2006 09:54 |
Maybe some waited a long time to marry because they were waiting for a previous spouse to die? Hubby's ancestor married in 1839, but split from his wife about 1845. He waited until 1880 to remarry, the year after his first wife died.........however, this marriage was to the fourth so-called Mrs X!! The ''in-between two'' having died along the way! Merry |
|||
|
Unknown | Report | 2 Jun 2006 09:49 |
I've got a missing marriage - 1865 my great grandparents Emma Moore & Thomas Matthews marry in Islington. They have two surviving children, Thomas Emmets Matthews and Annie Eliza Matthews (my dad's mum). 1st May 1879 Thomas senior drops down dead on his 14th wedding anniversary. 3 April 1881 census night Emma and children reappear with Emma's 2nd husband John Garvie, in Greenwich. 15 Jun 1881 Emma and John's first child is born in Greenwich. Now I feel sure that Emma and John would have married as I can't see any reason why not, at that time. No previous marriage for John and Emma was widowed. But there's nothing in the GRO indexes for Matthews/Mathews, Garvie/Garvey or Moore that could be them. I've checked the parish churches in Islington (where Emma's first marriage was) and Greenwich and I can't find them. If there;s a marriage record it could be in any one of umpteen London churches. nell |
|||
|
*** Fuzzy | Report | 2 Jun 2006 09:34 |
Hi sylvia, yes I had one woman who had been married before, and married my ggg grandfather three years after their first child was born, think maybe she had to wait for a divorce!! Love to hear what is on the marriage cert when you get it. x |
|||
|
Sylvia | Report | 2 Jun 2006 09:26 |
Hi Fuzzy, I have suspicion he was already married when they got together. They married because she was dying dont know if it was bigamous or not. I am waiting for marriage cert for more clues. Sylvia. |
|||
|
*** Fuzzy | Report | 2 Jun 2006 09:21 |
Know what you mean Nell, This woman is not alone in my family tree! Wish I could find someone in prison, sure I come from a long line of sinners!! Love the one about the love child, that is so sweet! |