News0 min ago
Mysterious Marriage
I wonder if any of you can suggest a reason why the following occurred, please? My ancestor was originally from Lincolnshire. He married his first wife from Leicestershire in her village in 1863. She died in February 1864, judging by the birth records, I suspect after child birth (their son's birth was registered in the JFM quarter of that year). His second wife was also from Lincolnshire but some distance away, I suspect they met because her brother farmed a neighboroughing farm. However, when they were married on 12 April 1865, they married at Whitton, Presteinge, Radnor/Herefordshire. Her age was given as 30 (which ties in with other records) so I can't believe it was an under age elopement. He was reasonably well off so I can't imagine any objections. Her address at the time of marriage was given as Whitton Rectory - but I can't find any family connection there. There was at least one family member present as the groom's brother was a witness. Their first child was born a year later, back in the family home in Lincolnshire. Were they early wedding tourists? Or is there another explanation?! Why go so far away when there was a perfectly good church in the village where they lived? (He married his third wife in a church in the next town many years later). Any suggestions appreciated, please.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Barmaid. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.This is quite common when there is a need to marry early or the marriage had some controversy, my great grandfather married at farnworth near widnes and his bride lied about her age and his brotyher had dfone the same 5 years earlier, they were from Stockton Heath and sons of a gentleman farmer but did not marry with the parental consent., for some reason the vicar at farnworth allowed them to marry, i know that there were fees payable so to speak.
just because there was a child born a year later does not preclude an earlier pregnancy that did not go fulkl term, hence a need to be off marrying outside the parish in a hurry.
manchester cathedral in the early 1800s used to perform a hundred marriages a day for anyone that could travel and pay the fee. check that out, it was scandalous!!!!
just because there was a child born a year later does not preclude an earlier pregnancy that did not go fulkl term, hence a need to be off marrying outside the parish in a hurry.
manchester cathedral in the early 1800s used to perform a hundred marriages a day for anyone that could travel and pay the fee. check that out, it was scandalous!!!!
Hey! I live in Farnworth...what are you suggesting???
Another reason they could have got married so far away was if she was a servant (which would explain why she lived at an address with no family), because if she was under obligation to the family she lived with they will not have given their consent to the wedding. I wouldn't be surprised though if she was pregnant, but miscarried or the infant was stillborn.
Another reason they could have got married so far away was if she was a servant (which would explain why she lived at an address with no family), because if she was under obligation to the family she lived with they will not have given their consent to the wedding. I wouldn't be surprised though if she was pregnant, but miscarried or the infant was stillborn.