Genealogy Chat

The gro index has a Florence Ellen Blaker married to a Thomas Grenville Sharpe twice once in the 4th quarter of 1885 Paddington and once in the 2nd quarter of 1886 Strand.
I thought to begin with that a mistake had been made when the gro was indexed as I found the marriage parish record image that shows the 1886 marriage. But now I have found on the beta familysearch the details for the 1885 marriage, obviously the beta fs one is a transcript and not an image but the fathers names are the same, the only difference is the ages are a year older than they should be, and the churches are the same.
My only thought is that as Florence was 20 she could have tried to get married without her mothers consent (her father had died by then) by saying she was 21 and was found out.
What do you think?

From Ancestry

Name: Florence Ellen Blaker
Age: 20
Estimated birth year: abt 1866
Spouse Name: Thomas Grenville Sharpe
Spouse Age: 22
Record Type: Marriage
Marriage Date: 26 Apr 1886
Parish: St Matthew, Bayswater
County: Middlesex
Borough: Westminster
Father Name: Richard Henry Blaker
Spouse Father Name: Thomas Sharpe


But she could have married at the age of 14 back then

Yes, she could've married at 14 with her father's, mother if father dead, consent. She'd need the consent until she was 21.

Ozi

Glitz, is the 1885 marriage on Ancestry?

Ozi

Never mind I found the one on beta.

record title: England Marriages, 1538–1973
groom's name: Thomas Grenville Sharpe
groom's birth date: 1862
groom's age: 23
bride's name: Florence Ellen Blaker
bride's birth date: 1864
bride's age: 21
marriage date: 27 Dec 1885
marriage place: St. Martin-In-The Fields, Westminster, Middlesex, England
groom's father's name: Thomas Sharpe
bride's father's name: Richard Henry Blaker
groom's marital status: Single
bride's marital status: Single
indexing project (batch) number: M01361-5
system origin: England-EASy
source film number: 1701793

jerseylily, that though about being a record of banns on the beta site crossed my mind, but that doesn't explain the GRO index for both.

Glitter Baby, I got that from ancestry and in the margin what looks like 'one 2 GK' has been written, haven't a clue what that means.

It looks like your answer to the riddle may be correct, Joseanne. Though how you'd prove it is beyond me.

Ozi

I have seen the same couple marrying twice when the man has been a soldier and possibly didn't have the Army's permission to marry but I see that Thomas is a Tailor in 1891. Was his occupation the same when he married?

Looking at the original for the Bayswater marriage, I would say that the notation in the margin relates to the fact that the bride's father's name has been entered incorrectly, crossed out and the correct name entered.

It looks like One (which refers to the number under the father's name) and then the initials E G H (the initials of the curate).

May be worth getting a look a the earlier marriage record (St.Martin-In-The-Field marraiges aren't on Ancestry after 1834). There maybe some indication on that to say if the marriage didn't happen, but it may have still gone off to the GRO for indexing (i.e. maybe the vicar made note that the marriage didn't happen on his copy but not on the copy that got sent away, so was therefore indexed). Just a thought.
If that were the case, the original parish records held at the local records office (LMA or Westminster??) would be more informative.

have 1 in 1892 & 3...... I purchased both certs



1 reg. office & 1 church....
witnesses different but everything else same......

Someone said to me that Catholics need a registrar at wedding... So if mixed faith marriage maybe did it this way to keep both parties happy....????


Just a thought

Margaret, I thought about that, but both churches mentioned are CofE