Genealogy Chat

Why might some women not marry in the 1840s? 1840s Plymouth to be precise.

I have a few women in one very large family that did not marry. They tended to live with other unmarried siblings (male). For example my relative Susannah Brooks born 1826 Plymouth. The family lived near the Barbican in Plymouth and were pilots and mariners generally.

They stand out as the majority married. Other lines I am investigating all the women married at this sort of time.

Was this likely to be personal choice, lack of choice, men not interested in them, or something else?

My grandmother told me she was expected to stay at home unmarried to care for her elderly parents, she rebelled. This was in the 1920s/30s though.

I also realise there was a lack of men due to WW1 deaths but this is much earlier clearly.

Thanks.

I guess for many it may have been lack of opportunity, I have 2 similar families in my tree, and they were born around 1860/70s, many of the girls didnt marry and tended to live with their sisters that did. I`d be intrested too if there was any reason for this.

Anyone?

Nicky

I think mainly it was a matter of sheer economics, there was little pont in so called "spinsters" living on thier own. I have several cases in my "family". One case in particular is a brother 55 and sister 45 in one household, Why? because he was the manager of a very large well known biscuit manufacturing company so she lived in as housekeeper. As well as siblings, on those days I have lots of nephews/neices and grandchildren living with thier respective relatives.

Thanks.

Yes economic necessity etc makes sense.

Why would there be a lack of opportunity to marry though? There appears to be no shortage of menfolk in Plymouth at the time? The majority of women did marry.

Just wondering why in one family roughly half the women didn't marry. This really goes against the grain with other lines in the same area.

Could they have been physically unappealing :) Would men have looked to marry into families that had means of some sort?

In other fisherfolk and piloting families I have nearly all the women married?

Curious.

I think there are quite a lot in all generations. I suppose it could be that they were academic in some ways and knew a husband might not approve, it is possible they were lesbians and this just wouldn't have been admitted, they had watched their mothers spend twenty-odd years of their lives house-keeping and bearing children.

Could have also been that they were better off for not marrying. My 3xgreat grandad James Worsley was a cotton spinner employing 160 people and I think he was quite well-off. He had four daughters but I think two stayed spinsters. At that time, I think anything a woman owned became her husband's if she married - maybe they didn't want to give up their inheritance from their father.

It's nice to think that they stayed spinsters out of choice, whatever their reasons.

I can understand why daughters of a wealthy man would choose to remain spinsters - such as your cotton spinning relatives.

My Brooks family all seemed to live in large numbers in small properties so were not wealthy by any means.

Surely the smart move would be to marry to improve your lot?

The child every 2 years in a poverty stricken situation does not sound fun. It might be shrewd to remain single as a woman in that sense? Although if you had no descendants you could be left destitiute in your old age?

Surely you'd want to get married if a woman growing up in a poverty stricken situation? Children were your old age pension and security? You could be left destitute?

Thinking about it wouldn't it be prudent (if poor) to do all you could to marry whatever your personal beliefs?

Maybe there is a link between wealth and them choosing to marry. My great-granddad was one of five surviving children, two brothers besides him and two sisters. The sisters - who my dad can remember - lived till 1960 and 1971 but neither married. I think in their case they lived in a cottage on the land that my great-grandad inherited.

The only other thing I can think of is if there was some war or other event that took the men away, but you'd think if there were mariners coming in and out of the area, there would be a lot of potential husbands.

I do keep finding female relatives at the moment who never married but seem to have spent their middle age and elderly years moving between the homes of other relatives, but - as you say - this would hardly be a settled existence. Maybe they were just desperate to stay out of the workhouse because once they got in there it was nearly impossible to get out.

Also take into account they might not have married but may have had children.
I remember looking at my GGGreat-Granny's sister & all through the Censuses there she is living with her parents & then widowed Mother on their Croft.
There were several children at various times living there.It was only when I went a looking to see which of the sisters were the Mothers of these children that I discovered they were in fact all hers bar one.To various Fathers-all named & not looking shamed at all.
She lived to a ripe old age lived near by her eldest son who lived next door to his father & wife.
Single parents are not a modern phenenom!

Thanks Jeannette, wouldn't this have been fairly unusual though? I know it happened and some times and places seemed to be more relaxed about it but it wasn't commonplace, or was it?

Some of my relatives in 1700s Devon appear to have children that were disguised as children of their mother etc.

Could you live as an unmarried mother with several children openly in 1860s Plymouth? Where would your income come from?

Certainly they weren't very open minded about them in the 1940s from my research.

Interestingly from my research things seemed more relaxed in the 1700s. In my family there was often a baby well on the way when the couple married. I suppose this made sense, your comfort in old age depended on your ability to have children?

Just out of interest - is anyone watching Cranford on the tv? Lots of spinster ladies there.

I was reading that in the 1851 census there were 500,000 more women than men - may be thats why there were many spinsters.

There was also the important consideration of them not wanting to marry a man beneath their class (a life less comfortable, if you'll excuse the misquote) and (most of the time) the complete lack of opportunity to marry above one's class (the same principle, reciprocated).

Does anyone know in which century they did away with the concept of dowrys?


Also, I can't help wondering if there were any people back in those days who could not afford a wedding ceremony and simply went by without bothering? I am assuming that the services of the church and the registrar did not come free of charge but I hope I am wrong in that.


If you think about it, the only people who had any concern whatsoever about the legitimacy, or otherwise, of their offspring were those who had wealth and possessions of a level worthy of being called an inheritance.

I've even heard speculation that the whole concept of the certification of births, marriages and deaths was inspired by the desire of the judiciary to de-clutter the courts system, which was spending a great deal of its time dealing with disputed wills.

This has only recently begun to make sense for me, what with reading tales here of 5 children all baptised on the same day. How else can you settle the argument over who of them was actually born first other than with the vital piece of paper? Or, if there is no male heir of a family, brothers and cousins need other proofs of kinship.


The 1851 male/female imbalance is interesting. It's normally something like 49% males to 51% females - any idea what the national population was?



Mark

When it comes to village and small town life - I think it was easier for the men to visit other places or work away, thereby being able to find a wife. Not so easy for the girls/women, who had no trade. Though of course some went into service away from their village.

And because communities were so small, it was difficult to find a partner who wasnt actually already related to you.

Researching my mother's family history - its nearly all in small villages/towns in Somerset and I have so many cousins marrying cousins it gets really confusing. And it didnt stop even when some of them emigrated to Australia!

True, indeed, Susan. I'm really glad my dad moved away from the place he was born because I discovered that his parents would have still been distantly related (albeit by marriage) had they never got together and been married themselves.

There is a similiar incidence with my mum's side - various strands of the family lived in one village between c.1760 and at least 1900. My 4xgreat grandfather married and had a family, as did his sister. Those families then had families and eventually, three generations later, one of his great-grandchildren married one of her great-grandchildren.

I suppose people would have known which of their neighbours were distant relations and - if they were unable to move away from home - maybe staying single was preferable to marrying a family member.