who married whom?Help!!

[BettyL]

I know someone out there will know!! when looking up marriages I have come across only three people on a page how do I find out where the other person is and are they all in pairs as printed, as they seem to be in alphabetical order.I am trying to find the surname of my Gr.grandmother, Louisa_ married to Thomas Turner from Worcester, she was born approx 1848 and she died in 1930.I have them on the 1881,1891 1901 census,but can't find them on the 1871. Many thanks in advance bettyL

[v.wells]

I don't know why sometimes there are odd numbers on a page but if you are positive she is a Turner, order the marriage cert of Thomas Turner - leave off her surname and if it is not the right couple GRO will not charge full fee. You could order b cert of one of the known siblings as well. Hope that helps

[Alan Welsford]

I assume you are looking at them in FreeBMD ?

If fully transcribed,there clearly should be an even number of people on a page, half male, half female. (Maximum of 2 couples for later marriages, but up to 4 couples per page for earlier ones).

If that's not the case, either...

1) FreeBMD haven't yet fully transcribed that quarter - check the coverage charts on the information page.
2) They think they have, but there's an error, and someone has ended up with wrong volume or page recorded. (It could be there are too MANY people on the page - any where the district is different from the others have something wrong with them).
3) There's a problem in original GRO indexes.

If there's more than one couple on a page, you cannot tell from the indexes who married who, (unless it's after around 1912, when the surname of the other partner started getting recorded).

You can often work out who married who, by finding a couple together in a census after the marriage, who were single (or widowed), before. That obviously doesn't work where brides or grooms have same forenames.

Or try and find the marriage in parish records, (try the IGI).

The only way to be 100% certan is to buy the certificate.

Alan

[Alan Welsford]

Actually....

If you give details of the marriage you think you have found, I'll take a look, and see what I think.

Alan

[v.wells]

I found this Thomas Turner 1875 Birmingham vol 6d p 270

Louisa Oakes on same page

[ChrisKelly]

If they married before 1871 (?) and Thomas comes from Worcester, I think a better match might be Thomas Turner and Louisa Low:
1868 / Q3 / Worcester / vol 6c / p.330
:)

[Alan Welsford]

I found this Thomas Turner 1875 Birmingham vol 6d p 270

Louisa Oakes on same page
H'mm, not sure...

There's 4 people on that page. I thought the question related to a page only showing 3 people.

Quite a few Thomas TURNER's marry Louisas, so I think we need Betty to point us in the right direction.

If they married before 1871 (?) and Thomas comes from Worcester, I think a better match might be Thomas Turner and Louisa Low:
1868 / Q3 / Worcester / vol 6c / p.330
:)

Still 4 on that page though!

[v.wells]

Chris' is certainly a lot better than mine. And there are verrry large number to go thru!

[Alan Welsford]

If you want an example of what can go wrong on FreeBMD, here's a cracking one....

Surname First name(s) District Vol Page
Marriages Jun 1870 (>99%)
---------------------------------------
HACKER Louisa Clifton 6a 247
HUMPHREYS Emma Kington 6a 247
Lavis George Clifton 6a 247
Lee George Henry Clifton 6a 247
ROBINSON Elizabeth Kington 6a 247
TURNER Thomas Kington 6a 247
Wooster Emily Sarah Clifton 6a 247

There are no fewer than seven bodies on this page, when we should have a maximum of 4.

All the 'Kington' ones appear wrongly transcribed. All the original indexes are typewritten, all clearly say Volume 11b, whereas 6a has been transcribed. I find this bizarre, as all are crystal clear but 3 different transcribers have all decided to go for 6a not 11b. (None of them have yet been double keyed).

That probably means that there is a page elsewhere that should have 4 people on, which likely only has 1.

I've submitted corrections, but I've a feeling something a bit more than poor transcription must account for three similar anomalies on the same page, particular as it was not objecting to the volume/page combination being out of range for Kington.

Alan

[BettyL]

Hi. I would like to say many thanks to Vanessa, Alan, and Chris for there replies to my Question.

Vanessa I tried sending for one marriage cert but it was the wrong one,I have yet to find Thomas's birth cert only got as far as the census.I think the Thomas in 1875 is too late as the 1871 census shows a child born around 1867 and another 1870 so I think at least hope they were married before that,but thank you anyway.Hope you have some decent weather where you are

Alan.As you say the only way seems to send for certificates.I have just been trying another family member John Hales (I know another common name)and there are 2 women and three men come up on the page 6d-232 I was trying to find his first marriage

Chris. I did find Louisa Low last night and am thinking of sending for that cert, but will have another look at the census to see if I can find them in 1871 .
Anyway once again thank you to you all BettyL
[/I]

[Geoffers]

If this is a family for whom you are tracing descendents, the birth certificate of one of their children will show the mother's maiden name, making it easier to identify which marriage certificate you need.

[BettyL]

If this is a family for whom you are tracing descendents, the birth certificate of one of their children will show the mother's maiden name, making it easier to identify which marriage certificate you need.
Many thanks Will do it now BettyL

[Alan Welsford]

Hi. I would like to say many thanks to Vanessa, Alan.As you say the only way seems to send for certificates.

No, hold off on any more marriage certificates. Not unusually I wasn't thinking deeply enough about the problem, (should have been in bed!). :o

If you know the couple had children and you can reliably identify the correct birth registration for one of them, then what Geoffers says is by far the best way to go. Once you have a mother's maiden name, then finding the right marriage for the parents should be a doddle.

TURNER is still not that unusual a surname, so try and pick a child with the least common forename you can find, as it should increase your chances of being sure you have the right one.

In the meantime, if you want to give details of a "3 names on the page", (or any odd number!), marriage, I'll take a look, and say what I think has caused it.

Alan

[BettyL]

Thanks Alan I was just going through the family now. The query I had with the three on one page has now been updated i checked earlier.
I did have one today though 5 on one page I was looking for John Hales first marriage and the 5 were on page 6d page 232 thanks BettyL

[Alan Welsford]

I was looking for John Hales first marriage and the 5 were on page 6d page 232 thanks BettyL
Thanks Betty,

Here's the 5 person page...

Marriages Sep 1865 (>99%)
---------------------------------
Burton Alice Birmingham 6d 232
Hales John Birmingham 6d 232
Mulroy Thomas Birmingham 6d 232
Payne Mary Birmingham 6d 232
Symes Henry Albert Birmingham 6d 232

The "impostor" on this page is Thomas MULROY. Looking at the original image of the hand-written GRO indexes, he should clearly be on page 282, not page 232.

As a result what's appearing as Birmingham 6d 282 has two brides, but only one groom.

Marriages Sep 1865 (>99%)
-------------------------------------
Cunningham Ann Birmingham 6d 282
Faragher Mary Birmingham 6d 282
HART John Birmingham 6d 282

This is a straight transcription error in FreeBMD, so I'll submit a correction.

(There's another problem too, I think, as an Aston, and a Warwick entry also have the same volume and page number, but let's keep it simple).

If you are planning to buy a certificate, always look at the original image yourself, and don't rely on the FreeBMD transcript without checking it.

Best wishes,

Alan

[BettyL]

thanks Alan, I have printed a copy to keep as I am still trying to sort out the Turner side,having trouble with 1871 census, trying to find a family member to get a birth cert, but not having much luck at the moment.Will try an early night perhaps that will help,the house work is going to pot thanks again BettyL

[ChrisKelly]

1881 census, RG11; Piece: 2983; Folio: 36; Page: 13
1891 census, RG12; Piece: 2378; Folio: 54; Page: 2

Assuming the above is your Thomas and Louisa residing in Birmingham, you have some 8 children (Annie, Thomas, William, Sarah J., Charles H., Arthur, Ethel and Harold) for whom you could obtain a birth certificate to identify Louisa's maiden name. Here are some pretty good matches:
William Turner / 1875 / Q4 / Worcester / vol 6c / p.331

Charles Henry Turner / 1879 / Q4 / Birmingham / vol 6d / p.72

Harold Turner / 1890 / Q1 / Birmingham / vol 6d / p.72

[BettyL]

hi CHRIS, thanks for the input,I have finally(I think found Sarah ) i am trying at the moment to order a birth cert but the site is playing me up, i cannot get to the checkout, will keep trying. thanks again.Betty,

[jimdearden]

As a general (quick and dirty) tactic - you've found the wedding (BMD) but you don't know which ones married each other.

So - make a careful note of the names and then do a census check for the census year following the marriage. (gives first names of head/wife and ages)

It falls down if the first names are the same e.g. Ann smith, Ann Jones but its worked for me.:)

[BettyL]

HI Thanks eveyone thanks again for your help, I have now found the maiden name I was looking for,but am still have trouble as her name was Louisa Jordan on her son's birth cert, I still cannot find the Turner family in 1871 census or Louisa and Thomas's marriage so will keep looking. Thanks again Betty

[MythicalMarian]

HI Thanks eveyone thanks again for your help, I have now found the maiden name I was looking for,but am still have trouble as her name was Louisa Jordan on her son's birth cert, I still cannot find the Turner family in 1871 census or Louisa and Thomas's marriage so will keep looking. Thanks again Betty

Was she possibly a widow at marriage, Betty? The GRO index would give her married name, but the birth certificate would give her true maiden name.

[BettyL]

Was she possibly a widow at marriage, Betty? The GRO index would give her married name, but the birth certificate would give her true maiden name.
Hi. I don't think so. I did some more searching and have found a Louisa Jordan in marriages in 3rd quarter 1865 but no groom, so I have sent for the cert to make certain,I cannot trace Thomas Turner 1n 1865 though and there is a child shown on the 1881 census as 14,I can only suppose the 1871 census the name has been spelt wrong I am still trying different spellings. Thank you anyway much appreciated.

[BettyL]

[Q UOTE=BettyL;150859]Hi. I don't think so. I did some more searching and have found a Louisa Jordan in marriages in 3rd quarter 1865 but no groom, so I have sent for the cert to make certain,I cannot trace Thomas Turner 1n 1865 though and there is a child shown on the 1881 census as 14,I can only suppose the 1871 census the name has been spelt wrong I am still trying different spellings. Thank you anyway much appreciated.[/QUOTE]

Hi all thought you might like an update, I have still had no luck with Louisa Jordan, the GRO said the groom was not Thomas Turner, I have been going through the 1871 census but still no luck.
I found a Thomas Turner in Worcester and also Louisa Jordan in Worcester, both up to 1861, then they both seem to dissappear,(perhaps they never married)? Then from 1881 to 1901 they are on the census. Anyone got any other ideas I might try its really driving me crazy. Thanks in anticipation Betty

[Waitabit]

Betty may I join you ? |banghead||banghead|

I spent an interesting half day with these folk. I wonder did they have a late honeymoon trip with the kids between young Thomas & William?
The Thomas Turner I found on 1861 if correct had Father William from Fife, Scotland & Mother Harriett from Worcester. Perhaps they were visiting rellies in Scotland or elsewhere to show off the Family.

Ignore them for a day & they may pop up.!

Lot of luck,
Wendy

[BettyL]

Betty may I join you ? |banghead||banghead|

I spent an interesting half day with these folk. I wonder did they have a late honeymoon trip with the kids between young Thomas & William?
The Thomas Turner I found on 1861 if correct had Father William from Fife, Scotland & Mother Harriett from Worcester. Perhaps they were visiting rellies in Scotland or elsewhere to show off the Family.

Ignore them for a day & they may pop up.!

Lot of luck,
Wendy
Hello Wendy, Thanks for your input,I'm going cross eyed today, I am working on the Thomas Turner you found, I have William the father right through from 1841 to 1881also have a Jordan Family from Worcester, but as I cannot find a marriage or 1871 census showing Louisa and Thomas so I cannot be sure I have the right family as info on the 1881 census said Thomas was born in Worcestershire. will keep going, thanks again Betty

[Waitabit]

Betty, I butted in there because we found in 1871 census the name Burns transcribed as "Bevins". Image showed Burns but easy to see how the error was made. I tried all sorts of bad writing to see what Turner may become but no luck.
Hang in there !!
Wendy

[BettyL]

Hello Wendy, Many thanks for your help I really appreciate it, I have tried all the combinations I can think of, I found a birth of a Thomas and Annie Turner, trouble is there is more than one, i will keep trying and I may send for a birth cert on Thomas as he would have been between 1 and 2 years old and it would probably have where they were living at the time. anyway many thanks and good luck with your search, Hope the weather is better than here.Betty