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
still in need of help Pre-1881
| Profile | Posted by | Options | Post Date |
|---|---|---|---|
|
Patricia | Report | 5 Sep 2003 20:37 |
|
I am trying to find out the maiden name of Mary A Baker (b circa 1847) who Married Charles Baker from Aston Birmingham Warwickshire, Please someone help this has put my tree at a halt, any info will help |
|||
|
Annie in | Report | 5 Sep 2003 20:50 |
|
There is also a marriage in the march 1/4 of 1880 between Charles Baker and Mary Ann Heeley in Aston on free bmd |
|||
|
Patricia | Report | 5 Sep 2003 20:52 |
|
I think that it was before 1869 because there eldest child Emily Baker was b 1862 and normally children were'nt concieved before wedlock. This is a mystery that is causing me many headaches, thank you for looking for me a really appreciate your kindness |
|||
|
Shelli4 | Report | 5 Sep 2003 20:56 |
|
Patrica I too always believed that in the 'old days' it was frowned upon to have children before marriage but thru this site have discovered that this just isn't true. I believe that it was called living over the brush, or something similar. One of my ancestors just never married, tho she took his name and i assume the neighbours thought they were married!! Shelli |
|||
|
Patricia | Report | 5 Sep 2003 21:02 |
|
its weird, you always assume that your rellies did things legally, perhaps i am working on the wrong logic Ha. |
|||
|
Rosi | Report | 5 Sep 2003 21:02 |
|
Being pregnant before marrying seems to have been the norm - if, for whatever reason, the woman could not conceive- then the chap would be wasting his time marrying her! She almost HAD to prove her fecundity to stand a chance! He after all wanted to pass his sed to the next generation -and his family expected him to do so(!) |
|||
|
Annie in | Report | 5 Sep 2003 21:02 |
|
I have a lot of marriages where they married quite close to the birth of the first child,but one lady,Celia Wraight,had an illegitimate child named Mary Wraight,then had 3 more children with the surname Law,before Marrying Samuel Law and having 4 more legitimate ones![hi,Rosi] |
|||
|
Patricia | Report | 5 Sep 2003 21:04 |
|
I think the Baker clan were as popular as Smiths today ! |
|||
|
Helen | Report | 5 Sep 2003 21:22 |
|
Funny Patricia, I too prefer to be 'popular' rather than 'common'!!! |
|||
|
Debbie | Report | 5 Sep 2003 21:36 |
|
Im Common then as I have 2 children and still not married, oldest nearly 8 we often talk about it but thats about as far as it gets. one day perhaps. Debbie the common one |
|||
|
Patricia | Report | 5 Sep 2003 21:42 |
|
Oh dear what have i started :-) Ps does anyone have any ideas as to finding out about Mary A, I have all the names of the children if that is any help and an address for 1881 |
|||
|
Oz Mozz | Report | 5 Sep 2003 21:49 |
|
We are the same by half Debbie! Everyone assumes we are married as we have 4 children (9, 7, 4, 2) own a house and have been together 12 years! We often talk about it but never quite get there as we always manage to find use for that money elsewhere. I usually don't have the heart to disillusion the masses! BTW I took 'popular' as opposed to 'common' to mean prolific! Like those damn bunnies!! We have Smiths and worse still they are called Edward and Jane!! Aaaaaaaaaaaaaarrrrghhhhhhh! Warm regards Sonja |
|||
Researching: |
|||
|
Shelli4 | Report | 5 Sep 2003 22:26 |
|
Have you got Mary Ann's marrage cert surley that will give you her DOB. Silly question really if you did then you wouldn't be asking for help would you? Shelli |
|||
|
Patricia | Report | 5 Sep 2003 22:29 |
|
Unfortunatly not funds are low this is costing me a fortune, my family tree is huge they all had loads of kids. |
|||
|
Rosi | Report | 5 Sep 2003 23:05 |
|
Sonja- for goodness sake don't get married! My son and his wife married after 14 years together, but within a year the marriage was in trouble and now, less that two years later they are splitting. I have heard since of many other similar instances. So sad - particularly for the kids but for everyone involved too. |
|||
|
Patricia | Report | 5 Sep 2003 23:33 |
|
Aston, Warwickshire, Birmingham |
|||
|
Kim from Sandhurst | Report | 5 Sep 2003 23:49 |
|
Patricia, Sorry to make things sound worse for you, but my gt grandmother waited until she had her 4th child to get married, and she was only 19 when she married, that was in 1896. Kim |
|||
|
Patricia | Report | 5 Sep 2003 23:55 |
|
I am finding this ever so funny i thought things were done right in those days !! So why do people say things are getting worse these days, Any excuse hey !! |
|||
|
Shelli4 | Report | 5 Sep 2003 23:55 |
|
Patrica Think you're gonna have to look for and send off for Mary Ann's marriage cert, tha'll give you maiden name and rough DOB. I do agree it is expensive I've got 5 certs that I need to carry on but no funds at present. Have been asking for certs as birthday presents family now think I've totally lost the plot!! Also due to lack of funds am only following direct ancestors if i find out about brothers or sisters on the way that's a bonus, when i've got more money will explore those braches.good luck Shelli |
|||
|
Patricia | Report | 5 Sep 2003 23:57 |
|
shame we dont know someone who works there and could do them half price Ha |
|||