Genealogy Chat

See below in a minute.....

I've located my 3 x grandparents on the 1841 Derbyshire census. They married in 1840 but with them on the census are 6 children, 2 of whom have the same christian name! So it looks like they were both married before despite their marriage certificate not saying that they had been! I've looked on IGI and can't find a baptism that would fit for any of the children other than my gggrandmother who's baptism I already had (she's the youngest child with them, just 2 months old) I need to establish who they were both married to before and which of these children belong to who as they're all listed as Smitherd on the census. Any suggestions gratefully received and do you think it's worth a phone call to Derby to ask whether they could double-check that the Batchelor/Spinster bit is correct! Thanks Lou

Hi Sheleen This is what I have...see whether you can make sense of it or if I'm just not seeing something obvious. Joseph Smitherd marries Esther Bradbury 5th May 1840 in Derby. 1841 census (I know it's the right family cos, bless 'em, they stayed at the same address till 1898, just to make my life a bit easier!): Joseph 36 Esther 33 James 14 William 12 James 10 Sarah 8 Joseph 6 Esther 2mts Now AGES ago I stumbled across a marriage on the parish and probate bit on Ancestry for a Joseph Smitherd, Tailor, and Sarah Robey. Thought what a coincidence, same name and MY Joseph is a Tailor too but dismissed it cos I assumed my Joseph was sorted. Seeing the census info tonight, I'm not so sure, BUT I can only find one death for Sarah Smitherd and that's 1868! Any help very much appreciated Lou

Hi Lou! Sheleen - nice theory, but Melbourne Australia is named after Lord Melbourne - British prime minister (1834-1841). Nothing to do with Melbourne the place in England I'm afraid, so I think that's a red herring! Lou - do you have youngest child's birth certificate, as opposed to just the baptism record? The cert will confirm Esther's maiden name, which may or may not have been Bradbury (if she was a widow when she married Joseph, she probably would have used her married surname at her 2nd marriage). Strange that she is listed as a spinster on the marriage cert though - either a mistake, or maybe she had illegitimate children before the marriage? Or maybe she was covering up a bigamy, and was already married! (it happened a lot in the days before easy divorce). But then it seems that at least one of the children is Joseph's (one of the James) - it's unlikely that they both would have run off from their previous spouses or both had illegitimate children from before their marriage. If that were the case, Joseph's kids would have been more likely to have stayed with the mother. Therefore the most likely explanation is that there is a mistake on the cert and they were in fact both widowed (was the cert from the local RO or the GRO?). By the way, Esther junior is down as SMITHARD on FreeBMD: Births Jun 1841 SMITHARD Esther Derby 19 500 You say that they stayed put at that address, so do you have the household details for 1851/61? Also, were they all confirmed as being born 'in county' on the 1841? Richard

Kaz - but in this case, they're both alive at the same time - 1841 census!

The 1841 doesn't give the exact relationships to the head of the household, does it? Might it be possible that these were nieces and nephews and some of them were their children (am also clutching at straws here).... By the way - 5th May - what a brilliant day to get married, my birthday!! My aunt (through marriage) remarried on the 5th May 2001, my 18th! She still can't remember my birthday though. LOL. Chloe

Good morning all! Thanks for all your suggestions! Richard - No, I haven't got Esther's birth cert. I was content with the information off the baptism record cos it all seemed pretty straight forward at the time so I think her birth cert is the way to go. Luckily Derby are incredibly quick with issuing them so will get a request off to them tomorrow and see whether that yields any clues. The spelling of the surname is interchangeable all the way through and they are all listed as born in the county on the 1841 census. I have the family details from the 1851 and 1861. On both we have Joseph and Esther with children Joseph and Esther and two more daughters they had in '45 and '48, Martha and Emma. No sign of the other children. So the suggestion that possibly they were neices and nephews is certainly an option and one I hadn't considered when I unearthed this information at well past midnight and suddenly thought Oh B***s! In addition, given that Derby ARE so good (and the Superintendent Registrar has dealt with me so often in recent months that he no longer signs his e mails and compliment slips Mr Clark, we've got to the 'Jim' stage!), I think I WILL explain my confusion and ask whether he would mind checking to see whether there has been an error when copying the marriage cert for me! I guess I should have been suspicious a while ago. Was it usual back then to have your 1st marriage when you were both pushing your 40th birthday? Probably NOT! Lou

Well, they were very sweet about me questioning the information contained in the certificate although the lady I spoke to did have the air of 'You're quite mad' in her voice! Anyway, a revised certificate has arrived this morning and Joseph is indeed a Widower, Esther is still listed as a spinster but that doesn't mean she didn't have any children before she got married. She was 34 when she married Joseph! So, I now need to try and locate a 1st marriage for Joseph that hopefully ties in with baptisms for at least some of the children with them on the 1841 census. Some of them must be his from his previous marriage, I'm sure!

Hi Lou! But haven't you already located his 1st marriage... i.e. to Sarah Robey in 1825? That ties in with eldest son James being 14 in 1841? Seems more than a possibility! Richard

Hi Richard Definitely a possibility BUT round the corner from Joseph and Esther on the 1841 census is Joseph Smitherd Widower with 2 daughters aged 17 and 15! So don't want to just assume that my Joseph married Sarah, the other Joseph may have been married to Sarah. Does that make sense!!! Lou

Ah! You didn't tell us about the other Joseph Smitherd!! But was he also a tailor (as was yours, as was the one who married Sarah apparently?)

Lou! I suppose that you've seen this on FreeBMD??? Deaths Jun 1839 SMITHARD Sarah Derby 19 405

Maybe the other Joseph is a cousin, which would lend support to the theory that one of the Jameses with your Joseph in 1841 is a nephew (or cousin once removed) rather than a son?

Richard Will you stop telling me off...I only found the other Joseph on Tuesday night but yes he was a Tailor as well, so must be related. Funnily enough, Esther's father is a Tailor as well so the families are possibly business connected as well as by marriage! However, I can't find any of my Joseph and Esther's children under either Smitherd or Bradbury on BVRI or IGI with parents that match BUT the other Joseph's daughters come up (right area, right time) with parents Joseph and Mary. So it looks like Joseph married Sarah...my Joseph that is. WHY do these people recycle their names constantly! Hadn't seen the death so thank you very much, ties that one up although he didn't waste much time keeping the other side of the bed warm, did he???? Will now do some digging into Joseph and Esther's siblings, see whether any of the children with them could be nieces and nephews as suggested! Lou

Lou I wouldn't tell you off LOL! This looks like a possibility for the other Joseph's wife's death: Deaths Sep 1839 Smithard Mary Burton on Trent 17 18 Burton on Trent? Does that sound right? 'Mainly in Staffordshire, but included parts of Derbyshire' according to Genuki. You've got your hands full on this one I think, two Joseph Smithard's both tailors both widowed at around the same time! And the kids all born before civil registration too!! Sounds like one for the 13 commandments thread!! Richard

Richard That's brilliant and ties it all up quite neatly with regards to the First Wives Club. Now onto their brothers and sisters.....! Lou

Mmmm... anyone else remember the Australian 'Bruces' sketch from Monty Python? Everyone was called Bruce, to 'avoid confusion'!! If you want to refresh your memory (as well as get some light relief from those Josephs & James) , it's online at: http://orangecow.org/pythonet/sketches/bruces.htm

Richard YES...I used to love Monty Python! My other half has also just helpfully chipped in with 'Wish my bloody 1st wife was as easy to get rid of'!!! Lou

Well, I finally have it worked out....at last! The 10 year old James in 1841 and Joseph are Joseph's children from his marriage to Sarah Robey. The older James, William and Sarah are Esther's illegitimate children, the scandalous woman!!! She had them all baptised at different churches just to confuse me as well! I imagine in a village that only had about 100 people living in it in the 1830's, she must have caused a huge scandal and how many women would have been giving their husbands/sons the 3rd degree about who was responsible. Wish I could have been there!!! Lou

Well done Lou, congratulations! 'filthy, dirty little trollop' is being a bit harsh on poor old Esther though, don't you think? :o) Richard (PS it's raining here in Perth today - 1st rain for months!)