Mistake in marriage register?

[carolchipp]

Thanks everyone for your input. Sorry about the odd layout below - can't do multiple quotes and couldn't find the post where someone explained it recently.

Quote: Originally posted by Pam Downes
'If anyone wants any proof that two people can claim they were born in the same place and same year check out Thomas Young, born 1824 in Worthen Shropshire in 1851. (Well, and 1861.) I'm pleased I haven't got to sort this lot out.'

I THINK THESE TWO ENTRIES (1851 & 1861) ARE THE SAME COUPLE

Quote:
'Are you saying that the Thomas Young and Sarah (maiden name currently unproven) which both Carol and I found in 1851 weren't actually married in 1851 and only married in March quarter 1861 in Madeley registration district?'

THERE IS A CONGLETON MARRIAGE ENTRY (DEC QUARTER 1848) FOR THOMAS YOUNG AND SARAH ANN HEATH - WHICH COULD BE A POSSIBILITY AS ALSAGER IS IN CONGLETON DISTRICT

Quote:
'In 1851 he's probably the Thomas Goring, aged, 14, scholar, born Dawley, living in Dawley with widowed father Richard and seven siblings.
HO107/1988 folio 168 page 16

In 1851, there's a Sarah Ward born Wellington Shropshire 1838, living in Dawley with parents Thomas and Martha and four siblings. HO107/1988 folio 174 page 29. The family were living in Dawley in 1841.'

YEP, THESE ARE BOTH MY LOT. I HAVE BOTH FAMILIES RIGHT THROUGH THE CENSUSES

Quote: Originally posted by Jap1
But where is their mother Sarah??

GOOD QUESTION! I DON'T HAVE AN ANCESTRY SUBSCRIPTION ANYMORE BUT REMEMBER IT BEING A RATHER ODD ENTRY - ALTHOUGH IN THE TRANSCRIPTION, ANCESTRY HAVE KEPT HER LISTED AT THE HOUSE (ALSO AS HEAD) ALONG WITH HER DAUGHTER SARAH. I WONDERED AT THE TIME IF IT WAS JUST A CONFUSION OVER WHO WAS CONSIDERED HEAD OF HOUSEHOLD. I WASN'T ABLE TO FIND HER ELSEWHERE.



All this investigation makes me think my original theory could be right, ie the Sarah Ward/Thomas Young marriage could be the one. I think it's worth the price of a cert. to find out as I can't find any other possible marriage record for them.
Thanks again
Carol

[Pam Downes]

Hi Carol,
You will make sure to let us know what the marriage certificate says won't you?

As for multiple quotes, in the bottom right-hand corner of a message box you have quote, a box with quotation marks and a + sign, and a third box with a sheet of paper and a quill pen.
Click on the middle box with the quotation marks for each message that you want to quote from. Edit out the superfluous bits of the message, taking care that you always leave the [ /QUOTE ] detail at the end of the quote. (There's no gaps in the real thing - had to put some in else it'll mess up my message. )
Doing it that way will leave the name of the person who posted the message in front of the quote.

An alternative way is to copy-and-paste the bit of one message you want to quote into a new message. Then highlight what you've just pasted, and then click on the fourth symbol from the right above the message box. (The symbol looks like writing in a square 'speech bubble'.) You should get quote and /quote boxes either end of what you've pasted.
Then can write your reply to that, before you do copy-and-paste with the next piece you want to quote. Again, highlight and then click on symbol.
Continue until finished. With this method it doesn't give the name of the person who wrote the original message but you can still type it in yourself but put an 'equals' sign before the name.

Then you get something like this.

Pam

[JAP1]

Hi Carol,

Quote: Originally posted by Jap1
But where is their mother Sarah??

GOOD QUESTION! I DON'T HAVE AN ANCESTRY SUBSCRIPTION ANYMORE BUT REMEMBER IT BEING A RATHER ODD ENTRY - ALTHOUGH IN THE TRANSCRIPTION, ANCESTRY HAVE KEPT HER LISTED AT THE HOUSE (ALSO AS HEAD) ALONG WITH HER DAUGHTER SARAH. I WONDERED AT THE TIME IF IT WAS JUST A CONFUSION OVER WHO WAS CONSIDERED HEAD OF HOUSEHOLD. I WASN'T ABLE TO FIND HER ELSEWHERE.

No, I'm sure it wasn't just a confusion over who was considered Head of Household.
The entry for Sarah snr was started but not completed - and what had been written thus far was very deliberately scored through.
I guess we'll never know why!
Perhaps the enumerator just became confused with two people named Sarah GORING ...
It seems more than likely that Sarah snr was there and was HoH.

The entry for Sarah snr is as follows:
Name: Sarah Goring - scored through with multiple back slashes
Relationship: Head - scored through with multiple back slashes
Marital Status: W - scored through with a back slash
Age: 44 - scored through with a back slash
Occupation: completely blank
Place of birth: completely blank

Yes, the Ancestry transcriber messed it up (surprise, surprise!) and left Sarah snr in (as a separate household) despite the deletion.
(The Ancestry transcriber obviously wasn't having a good day! The previous household should be Thomas Norcross Head 37, and Margaret 36, James 9 & Richard 2 Holt as his boarders. Instead the transcriber put Thomas as a separate household, and entered Margaret, James & Richard as a separate household with Margaret as "Brother (Head)" (!) and James & Richard as her boarders.)

All this investigation makes me think my original theory could be right, ie the Sarah Ward/Thomas Young marriage could be the one. I think it's worth the price of a cert. to find out as I can't find any other possible marriage record for them. ...

Carol, I think it's a very safe bet that it is just a transcription error in the original index!

Best of luck,

JAP

[carolchipp]

Thanks Pam. Now I have it in my subscibed threads I can't lose it

Jap - I think your probably right about the enumerator being confused... but having been reminded of this anomoly, I'll probably have another look at the '81 and see if she's hiding somewhere.
Carol

[Wirral]

No, I'm sure it wasn't just a confusion over who was considered Head of Household.
The entry for Sarah snr was started but not completed - and what had been written thus far was very deliberately scored through.
I guess we'll never know why!
Perhaps the enumerator just became confused with two people named Sarah GORING ...
It seems more than likely that Sarah snr was there and was HoH.

I'd disagree with the last line. Not only is Sarah jnr listed as Head, but all the others in the household are listed as brothers & sisters of the Head, not sons & daughters as they would be if Sarah snr was Head. I think it more likely that the enmerator found out that Sarah Snr wasn't actually present in the house on census night, but had been included on the householder's schedule when she shouldn't have been. Maybe the schedule was completed in advance, then on the night of the census Sarah snr was absent.

So Sarah snr may have been Head of Household (living with her 7 children) every other night of the year, but on census night she was elsewhere.

[JAP1]

Well, Wirral, I guess we will never know what actually happened.

Each explanation is possible.

One thing which I did ponder about (before setting finger to keyboard) was when and where the enumerator might have transcribed the household schedule into his enumeration book.

If (thought I), when he collected the household schedules, he had discovered that Sarah snr had been entered in the household schedule but hadn't actually been present that night (yes, of course I thought of that) wouldn't he have crossed her out immediately before putting the household schedule in his bag?

OK, perhaps his pencil had broken. That would certainly be an explanation.

When he got back home or wherever (thought I), why would he have started to enter Sarah snr's details into his enumeration book, and then stopped halfway and so very firmly crossed out what he had entered thus far.
Perhaps (thought I) it was just that he was very tired and confused, or even that he had had more than ...

OK, if he hadn't been able to annotate the household schedule when he collected it, and only remembered halfway through entering Sarah snr's details that she hadn't actually been there, that would certainly be an explanation.

It will be great if anyone can find Sarah snr elsewhere.

However, if she was somewhere else but believed she had been entered (or, indeed, if she had entered herself) on her own household schedule, she might not have agreed to be entered again ...

Aaargh!

JAP