Genealogy Chat

Advice please on the following would be greatly appreciated. My ancestors were Harriet Turner and James Parr and married in Sept 1860, but Harriet is still a Turner in 1861 census and is unmarried. How can this be? Any ideas anyone, Thanks Lou

Are you sure you have the right Harriet?

Have you looked for Harriet and James Parr in 1861? Where did they marry? Where were they born?

Hi Wendy, Yes that's how I found them under their single names. Lou

Hi Wendy, Well I haven't actually got their marriage certificate, but have found an entry on Free BMD which has both names and same GRO. I know he married a Harriet Turner in same area as the one on Free bmd. Lou

Have looked at the 1861 and cannot find any James Parr with wife Harriet!

Lou, there is no marriage of James Parr in 1860 except for one in June quarter, Greenwich and the only female names there are Eliza Ford and Mary Ann Hunt.

If you found them under single names in 1861, what makes you think they could be married in 1860? I looked for marriage of James Parr in 1860 on Ancestry and there is only one---he married Eliza Ford or Mary Ann Hunt, not Harriet Turner. Where did you get that from? Snap!

Hi All, sorry having senior moment I mean James Jackman & Harriet Turner 1861 census; Marriage Sept Q 1860 Manchester RG9; Piece: 2942; Folio: 85; Page: 32; GSU Lou

Good to know that others have senior moments, too! Did you see the marriage on Familysearch, Lou? James Jackman & Harriet Turner, 10 Sept 1860, Cathedral Mancester, Lancashire. Margaret

Hi margaret, yes I saw it there too. Thanks Lou

I see what you mean, Lou, they're both showing as unmarried in 1861, both visitors in the same household. She's listed as domestic servant. Do you suppose that in those days when servants were not allowed to marry, they kept their marriage a secret? Margaret

Hi Margaret, that was what I was wondering, but wanted another opinion, just in case I was barking up the wrong tree. Lou

Do you have them in 1871, Lou, with their 2 year old son? Margaret

Could it be perhaps that her employers would not release her, if you like, to get married? Perhaps they thought they would not find another servant - I would imagine a servant couldn't just go up to them and say, 'I'm getting married, madam, so I'm leaving' because I suppose married women were not meant to work then. Or could it be that they needed the money and so hid the fact that the marriage had taken place? I have a curious incidence in 1841 of 3xgreat grandma and 3xgreat grandad working for her parents. He is a labourer and she is a female servant, but they are all living at the same address.

Hi Margaret, yes and I have him in 1881 as a pauper with his 2 sons, I think his wife died in 1873 Lou Hi Kate, Interesting - I'd never thought of looking at it like that. I suppose that's another possibility. I've not come across this before so will remember your comments and that of Margaret too. Thanks again to you both, Lou

Don't know what the answer is...but i've got a couple like that too! Married in 1859 and in 1861 he is living with his parents and she is with hers ..using her maiden name but with a child ... Maybe they had a falling out!! karen

Just another theory. My Gt. Grandparents were married in November 1880. I couldn't find them on the 1881 census but happened to see where her parents were. There she was living back at home with her parents and entered with her single name. I eventually found her husband listed on a boat. Two weeks after the census she gave birth to a son (the first of 9 children) but that particular child never lived at home with the parents but was brought up by the father's parents. How weird.

Hi Everyone, thanks for your comments. I suppose it's a case of I'll never know the true reason why they are listed as unmarried and with maiden name, it's reassuring to know some of you had the same theory I was thinking about, so thanks for that. Good hunting to you all and thanks again for responding. Lou