Genealogy Chat
Welcome to the Genes Reunited community boards!
- The Genes Reunited community is made up of millions of people with similar interests. Discover your family history and make life long friends along the way.
- You will find a close knit but welcoming group of keen genealogists all prepared to offer advice and help to new members.
- And it's not all serious business. The boards are often a place to relax and be entertained by all kinds of subjects.
- The Genes community will go out of their way to help you, so don’t be shy about asking for help.
Quick Search
Single word search
Icons
- New posts
- No new posts
- Thread closed
- Stickied, new posts
- Stickied, no new posts
Are they widow and widower?
| Profile | Posted by | Options | Post Date |
|---|---|---|---|
|
Brit | Report | 9 Jun 2006 20:51 |
|
Hi Glen I had no idea they could marry as young as 12! Thanks for that. It does widen the search area though, so I had better have another look. Rgds Maggie |
|||
|
Glen In Tinsel Knickers | Report | 9 Jun 2006 20:35 |
|
The reference to Minor just means she was younger than 21 and had to marry with parental consent (under license). The legal age for marriage was only 12 for girls. So 1857 subtract 20 equals 1837, 1857 subtract 12 equals 1845. So anywhere between 1837 and 1845 would be possible. Glen |
|||
|
Brit | Report | 9 Jun 2006 20:28 |
|
Whoops, just noticed the date for the birth of Sarah in Lambeth. It is too early I think, 1833. All the censuses give around 1838/39.. I have her marriage cert. and she was a minor in 1857 when she married. Would that have been under 18? I think 14 was a bit young even for those days though. Sorry this is a bit of a mess. |
|||
|
Brit | Report | 9 Jun 2006 20:21 |
|
Suzanne Sorry I missed part of your post, I didn't scroll up far enough. I don't have any record of any of them in that area, which doesn't mean they couldn't have been there. I checked my list of London reg. districts and Clerkenwell does sound as if it is most near their usual haunts. However, it does seem very much of a coincidence with the birth in Lambeth don't you think? On my (little) map of the districts it does look as if they next to each other. Do you know if they are that close? I think I will have to order the cert and see. Thanks so much for looking. Maggie |
|||
|
Brit | Report | 9 Jun 2006 20:15 |
|
Thanks Nell and Suzanne Suzanne: No, they did not have any other children. I have not been able to isolate Sarah Jnrs. birth yet. It says she was born Clerkenwell 1839 on the 1851 census. I haven't found a Sarah Merritt born in Clerkenwell. She was not with her parents on the 1861. Nell : I don't have access to parish records I'm afraid. Do I have to look those up in person? Rgds Maggie |
|||
|
Suzanne | Report | 9 Jun 2006 20:03 |
|
Can you not order the childs birth cert? Were there any other children and when and where born? Suzanne Could this be the William and Sarah married in Southwark's daughter, no other children to them christened in Lambeth? Perhaps her birth on census is wrong? SARAH MERRITT Christening: 14 APR 1833 Saint Mary, Lambeth, London, England Father: WILLIAM MERRITT Mother: SARAH |
|||
|
Unknown | Report | 9 Jun 2006 20:00 |
|
I'd guess w means widow/widower. But you'd need to see the parish marriage record or find an earlier marriage to confirm this. nell |
|||
|
Brit | Report | 9 Jun 2006 19:51 |
|
Trying to find the maiden name of the wife of William Merritt, born c 1811 Middlesex. She is shown as born Woolwich Kent on the censuses where I have found them. I have found several Sarahs who are possibles on Pallotts. One is a Sarah Faris and the image shows 'w' for both of them. Does this mean they were both married before? Their one daughter Sarah was born in 1838 and I have only found one Sarah and William married in 1837 at Southwark and it is probablynot that one as they all came from around Westminster. Any advice from the sages out there? Thanks a lot. Maggie |
|||