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
Marriage after birth of 2nd child
| Profile | Posted by | Options | Post Date |
|---|---|---|---|
|
CelticShiv | Report | 7 Nov 2003 15:14 |
|
In the late 1700s what was the likelihood of getting married after the birth of the the 2nd child, I have a marriage which I am convinced is the right one, but this would mean that they married after they had their 2nd child. |
|||
Researching: |
|||
|
Margaret | Report | 7 Nov 2003 15:18 |
|
Siobhan I think that this is perfectly feasable. I have heard it said that many years ago a man wouldn't consider marriage unless the woman was proved to be fertile. Of course, if she wasn't then the problem could never be on his part could it !!!! Margaret |
|||
|
Annie in | Report | 7 Nov 2003 16:05 |
|
Siobhan,I have a marriage in the 1700's a couple of years after the first child was born.The parents were Thomas Strong and Ann Bolton and the child was named Elizabeth Strong Bolton. I also have one in the 1800's after the 3rd child was born,the first one had the mothers maiden name,and the other 2 the fathers name. I think it happened a lot more than people think,especially in more rural areas. |
|||
|
BobClayton | Report | 7 Nov 2003 17:16 |
|
Out of interest Diane, how do you know the first child had the same father as the second two? I ask because my "assumed" great grandad, a Dixon, married my great grandma Clayton after giving birth to two Claytons but I can't prove the link because he does not appear on certificates. (as they can't unless the father also registers) They all lived as one family afterwards and family legend says he was the father but I cant prove it. Women do change "bulls" themselves! Bob |
|||
Researching: |
|||
|
Annie in | Report | 7 Nov 2003 19:04 |
|
Hi,Robert, I don't! In fact I have always thought that the eldest is more likely from a "different bull",especially given that the next to have the "fathers" surname. Having said that there is only a year between the first and second child,so who knows? This family is on my husbands side,so haven't looked further into it yet. |
|||
|
Kim from Sandhurst | Report | 7 Nov 2003 22:55 |
|
Siobhan, I had the same problem, but I am talking about the very late 1800's. My gt grandma had 3 children before she was 19! the first 2 with no fathers on certs! she got married just after the 3rd! Kim |
|||
|
Twinkle | Report | 7 Nov 2003 23:00 |
|
It's very possible that the couple lived together as man and wife and had kids, even with the woman adopting her 'husband's' name, well before they married. |
|||