Genealogy Chat

Thanks, Sue, I hope that if I persevere an explanation will come to me my rellies. That's a good idea about keeping details of same name in the area, I think I'll do that too. You never know, in a few years, I may have a 'Eureka!' moment & it will all fall into place

I've got something a bit similar in my tree.

My 2x great grandfather was supposedly married 3 times but I couldn't find an actual wedding for number 3 wife.

I have found him living with her and some unexpected children in 1901.

Fortunately it's an unusual surname and I've been saving examples of it from the area. I suddenly realised I recognised this woman and her children. She's the widow of my ancestor's cousin so already had the surname and children.

It doesn't look as if they bothered to actually get married but she wasn't fibbing about her name LOL.

Sue

Yes, can't wait for 1911 census!

Bilbo - regarding the extra 13 year old, no haven't found her in 1891, though I haven't had time to do a rea\lly extensive search.

Having re-read my notes & put things in order a bit there is another extra child who is 18 yrs also. I am now wondering if they are nieces/nephews, though they are def described as daughters & son.

Watch this space!

Hayley,

It doesn't help you to find who the 'new' husband was - but it could simply be that he was 'away' on the night the Census was taken. Certainly, I have found several instances where a family were not all together on the time of a particular Census.

Roll on 2011, eh? Then we can see the 1911 results...

Simon

You mention an 'extra' thirteen year old child on the 1901 census. Have you managed to find her on the 1891 census too?

Thanks, Jill.

Think I'll do that. His death record will be difficult to find as it a common name - Thomas Price. Though once I get Margaret's birth cert I may have a bit more to go on.
When I was just working on the basis of Margaret's wedding in 1904, I had found a possible death in 1899. I hadn't even considered that they may have split up for a while - and maybe even got back together later. Funny, you never really think of your ancestors having the same type of relationship probs that we have these days!

Maybe her husband did not die until after the 1891 - and the "wid" on 1891 was an error. Or maybe they'd split up or separated at the time so she was calling herself a widow.

Have youl looked for his death record between 1891 and 1901?

(I wouldn't send off for all three of those birth certs in one go - I would plump for just one of them to start with - maybe the middle one.)

Jill

Yes, that would seem most likely to me. For her to be described as married but there being no husband in evidence is a bit odd, don't you think?
I do have a great-grandparent on other branch of family in a similar situation, but she is not described as head of household, but as the ' ... wife of Edward Scarlett, RN' .... In that case her husband was at sea at the time of the census.

I think I will get those 3 birth certs, I feel there may be a famil.y mystery there

Thanks, Jill. That's good advice.

Just done a quick search on free bmd & can't find a local marriage, that's assuming she would have married under Price as her previous name rather than her maiden name.
When I get Margaret's birth cert & know the maiden name I'll make sure I check that again, though!

It's a bit of a longshot but could her mother have married a chap with the same surname? If Price is a common name at the time in that area then it's a possibility?

Have you looked for marriages of mum between 1891 and 1901?

Jill

Wonder if anyone out there can help me please, if they have encountered similar problem.

I am on the trail of my great-grandmother, Margaret Jane Price born in Neath, South Wales, 1883.
With a surname like Price I did not think I would have much joy, but I really lucked out & stumbled across the family in the 1891 census.
I have now - with a year of birth & reference found - sent for her birth cert to totally confirm it's the right Margaret, but I am at present as sure as I can be it's her as they are living in the street she got married from in 1904 & where she brought up her own children until at least 1933.
The problem is thus - in 1891, she is living with an older brother, Llewellyn c1876, sister Sarah c1887 & her mother, Mary. I have viewed the original census page where Mary is a washerwoman, head of the family, 'wid'. This was not unexpected as when Margaret married in 1904 her father is down as Thomas Price deceased.
However, when I try to locate the same family in 1901 there were some unexpected results. Though there is no adult male living at the address & Mary is again the head of house, she is described as married. There are also an extra 3 children, the eldest of whom is 13 yrs.
Allowing for mistakes on age, would you think these children are bastard children? If so, though none of them are direct ancestors of mine, do you think it worthwhile sending for their birth certs too, in case a father is named on them?

Thanks for your patience!
Hayley