Genealogy Chat

Mrs Grumpy,

Thanks for the info. I have Charles Clifford and Louisa Cullen nailed. These are my maternal Great Grand Parents, and have just about everything for them through the censuses, children, marriages and deaths. Its been quite a haul getting there.

I went to the LDS family history center this morning and viewed the films. Looks like Charles Clifford and Alicia Eliza Charlotte Imms did not get married.
The Banns were read (three times) but no marriage date was entered at the final reading like most of the others listed on the page.
Regards
Stuart

Dec Quarter 1861:

Marriages Dec 1861 (>99%)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Clifford Charles Lambeth 1d 444
Cullen Louisa Lambeth 1d 444
Garratt Thomas Lambeth 1d 444
Merrett Mary Lambeth 1d 444

Hi Stuart

I don't know where my reply thanking you for the IGI Batch explanation went to - but thanks. I might have to revisit some of my marriages.

I looked on find my past for a marriage but there is nothing that looks remotely likely from about 1860 to 1863. FMP shows birth of Elicia Charlotte Eliza (different order) and it looks like Ims as it comes after Impey. Also Cecilia Emmaline Ims Q1 1844, Strand, 1/386 (not terribly clear). So it does look as though she is Charles' sister in law (or would be if they were married!). Also William James Ims, Q3 1845 Strand, 1/361 and Anne Ims, Q2 1847, Strand, 1/364. You may have all these of course. Cecila and William appear to have been christened together on 13 Jan 1858.

FMP also shows a marriage of John Charles Clifford, Q3 1861, Lambeth, 1d/444, but of course I cannot find a possible wife.

Sorry can't be of more help.

Margaret

Hi All

From what I can gather from speaking with the IGI people there are letters which preceed the batch numbers that are fairly obvious:

B - Births
C - Christenings
M - Marriage

Others are not so obvious

The one I had on my search was an I (capital eye) and it appears these are extracted records.

When the IGI person went into their system the batch number gave a series of film numbers. The film number associated with my batch number was definitely for Banns.

The following may help

My Batch number was I 033463

This yielded the folowing info:

Registers of St Mary's Church Lambeth 1754 - 1928
Authors: Church of England, St Mary's Church, (Lambeth, Surrey)

Banns, 1828 - 1848 - FHL British Film 1041666

Banns, 1848 - 1861 - FHL British Film 1041668

Banns 1861 - 1859 - FHL British Film 1041669

Banns 1869 - 1879 - FHL British Film 1041670

Banns 1809 - 1814 - FHL British Film 2214928

Banns 1879 - 1902 - FHL British Film 2214929

There are a whole load of Birth, Baptism, Marriages and burials films associated with this record. Looks like they are all extracted so should be fairly accurate

Regards
Stuart

Maybe the batch numbers beginning with I are miscellaneous records - like the banns.

I had one couple posted banns in 1868, had a child 9 months later and another child a year or so after that and finally married in 1872! It does happen.

Jill

Hi all

Stuart has these batch numbers beginning with I. I have some of those. No-one has been able to tell me what they mean. Can Stuart or anyone else help please. They don't seem to explain where they are extracted records or submiitted records. This is the first time I have seen such number mentioned.

Regards

Margaret

I'm not sure, but I think batch #s beginning with the letter i are submitted, and not part of any extraction program

Yesterday was a well worth visit to the Who Do You Think You Are show at Olympia. I stopped by the Family Search stand and had an extremely good chat with one of the IGI people regarding the marriage vs non marriage of my ancester.
He pulled the batch number that I had and managed to find a matching film number.
Transpires that the entry is for Banns and not marriage.
I will need to go and see the actual film, but think I may now have solved the issue. Basically tehy did not go through with the marriage, which is why they were able to marry later. Her under her maiden name.

Regards
Stuart

Thanks again to all who replied.

In following up with the 1871 census I can find Charles Clifford maried to Louisa (census shows the wife as Howard , bizar!) occupation Upholsterer, born in Ireland abt 1832.

Have searched the 1871 census extensively for Alecia (Elicia, Alicia) Eliza Charlotte Ims (Imms and Clifford) but have not been able to locate her .

Her Mother (Charlotte (neeReily) Ims) is also listed but living at another residence.

Looks like her father (William) remarried an Eliza (born in Bath,1871 census).

The plot thickens !!

Any other ideas

Regards
Stuart

OK - you could order the film through your local Church of Latter Day Saints - that might help. There is no marriage that matches on FreeBMD is there? Closest I could find was an Alice Sims in Dec Q 1861. I wonder if the name was Sims/Simms originally?

So presumably they are lying about their marital status in the 1861 ... there don't seem to be any children around that might be his?

Sorry - best bet is that film from the LDS which might throw some light on it. Maybe there is a mistranscription from that which is why you can't find the marriage elsewhere.

Jill

Thanks for all the responses.

My male ancester is Charles Clifford (also known as John Charles Clifford) born in Ireland (unsure where, although 1861 census suggests Cork) on 30 March 1834. His profession was an Upholsterer.

His "first wife" was Alecia (also see as Elicia and Alicia) Eliza Charlotte Ims. Born Mar 1841 Strand vol 1 page 352 (also seen as 1844). She appears in the 1851 census living with parents at 37 Greek Street. Sister named as Cecelia.

He "marries" Alicia Eliza Charlotte Imms on 3 Feb 1861, Lambeth (according to the LDS. This source info associated with a Batch No I033463). Note that this is with two "mm's" whereas the 1861 Census document is with one "m".
Sister in law is named as Cecelia Ims.

His second wife was Louisa Cullen ( I have marriage certificate and data checks out) married on 16 Nov 1861. They both appear in the 1871, 1881, and 1891 London censuses. He dies 1899, and she dies 1916.

Alicia Eliza Charlotte Ims marries Frederick Search (index Westminster vol 1a page 937). They both appear in the 1881 and 1891 census as husband and wife. She dies Dec 1896.

All the marriages that appear in the LDS Listing for the Batch I033463 (and there are hundreds of them) only states Lambeth with no church !

If anyone has any more thoughts I would be grateful.

Regards
Stuart

Unless they were quite well off I think divorce would not be a possibility.

They may have lied. I think a lot more lived in sin than we perhaps have been led to expect.

Are you completely sure you have just the one couple here? There are not two chaps with the same name and similar birth years etc? Ref nos are OK but you might need to bite the bullet and buy a few certs to verify things. I know when looking for my elusive gr grandfather I had the most awful trouble pinning him down as there were 3 possibilities. I ended up tracking all of them in the censuses - which was not that straightforward - before I was sure I had my chap.

Jill

Stuart

Can you post some names and dates, please.

On the second marriages, did they describe themselves as "Spinster" and "Bachelor"?

The term "in-law" could have a different meaning then. It was often used instead of "step". Is the sister-in-law unmarried? Have you found the "wife" and her "sister" on any previous census?

I am having some difficulty in finding if one of my ancestors was married or not!!
The 1861 London census shows him living with his "wife" and sister in law. This gives me his "wifes" maiden name, however on going to BMD for the possible time frame there are no records of the marriage.
However going to the LDS site there is a record entry (3 Feb 1861) with a batch Number, but no church or index reference.
My ancestor gets married "again" in Nov 1861. I have the index number and marriage certificate and all looks in order.

On investigating further I find his "first wife" marries in Sep 1880, under her maiden name. I have index number and subsequent census info that again all looks in order.

The question is was the first marriage legal, did they get divorced, or did they give mis information to the 1861 ennumerator as to their marital status.

Any ideas would be welcome as I have been pondering this situation for some time now.

Regards
Stuart