Am I between a Rock and a Hard Place?

[Colin Rowledge]

I'm currently looking at - London England Marriages and Banns 1754 1921.

On Deceber 8, 1872 the 3rd and final was read between Alma Elizabeth Shores and Michael Hayes. They then married on December 25, 1872 at the Parish Church in Battersea. The parents of each were Thomas Shores and James Hayes [which is correct] as their daughter Sarah Jane Hayes is my dad's Great-Grandmother.

The marriage certificate says they are both of 'full age' - witnesses were George and Mary Larkin [friends of Thomas Shores]

I have yet to confirm her birth, and so far have not found a birth registration to order a certificate. Thomas was a Miller as the means of earning a living. The only Thomas Shores, occupation Miller that I found, with a daughter Alma, was in the 1861 census. He was married to a Mary [who was his 2nd wife] with 2 sons from his 1st marriage and Alma age 4 on King St. in Battersea - TNA ref. and crown copyrigh RG370/9//107/13

If this is correct, then she was born in 1857. The marriage took place in 1872 aqnd she wouldn't have been 16, let alone 'of full age'

Am I thinking the obvious, which is that someone misled the vicar, or am I on the trail of the wong Alma and Thomas Shores?

Thanks
Colin

[suemalings]

The 1881 census shose Alma born abt 1857 and her first daughter Mary being born in 1874, so Alma, who married Michael Hayes was only 17 when Mary was born. Possible this is the Alma you have on the 1861 census (naming her firstborn after her mother?) Have tried to find Alma on the 1871 but haven't had any success.

[louisa maud]

Never be surprised, I had a family member in 1898 state she was 21 and she was in fact 15 and a half, how she passed that off I do not know, it was not a shot gun marriage either.

The marriage could be at 12 for a girl and 14 for a boy, but consent of parent(s) was required for both up to the age of 21. In 1926 the age of marriage for both parties was raised to 16 but consent for both was still required until 21. Now, the age at which people can marry is still 16 but the age for consent has been lowered to 18."


Louisa Maud

[Jellylegs]

I think Alma Elizabeth is enumerated as a 16 year old servant at RG10/730/60/8. Where born: Not Known. There is no s on the end of her name, so SHORE.

Jellylegs

[Pam Downes]

Colin, If you've traced the right people back on the census, and if their ages have been consistent then you will know, give or take one year, when they were born. You then look at the ages of the children to find out how old mum was when she had the first child. That in turn should give you an approximate age at marriage - assuming that they did marry. That in turn will give you an approximate year of marriage, and if that is the only marriage (I assume that you've double-checked on the GRO Index because the Ancestry London marriages doesn't include all marriages) then that must be the one.
Don't forget that the marriage age was much lower in those days - can't remember off the top of my head but google will tell you. [Edited to add - or even Louisa Maud!] And did the 'full age' in this case just mean of an age to be married? You know how stupid our ancestors were at times (couldn't add ten to their previous age from one census to another, couldn't remember where they were born, etc, etc,) so they could have thought that 'full age' just meant that they were old enough to legally marry, and that's what they told the vicar.
Pam-last-in-the-queue-as-usual

[Lizzy9]

Hi Colin,

When did Thomas and Mary marry, and what was her surname?

[Thomasin]

I think Alma Elizabeth is enumerated as a 16 year old servant at RG10/730/60/8. Where born: Not Known.

I agree with Jellylegs on this one. She is working in Camberwell, which is not far from Battersea, and she has been given her second initial.

I wonder if she really was a 'daughter' in 1861, because Mary Shores would have given birth at 53 (or 51 if the 1871 is correct). She could be the child of the eldest son

[Pam Downes]

I've said it before, but people (apart from Sue Malings ) still seem to be overlooking one fact.
What are the ages of Michael and Alma in the various census?
Colin has them as Michael aged 25 and Alma aged 24 in the 1881 census, which equates to Alma being born in 1857. RG11/649 f 7 p 9.
1891 The enumerator couldn't decipher Michael's name correctly, so read it as Richard (write the two names and look at the shape of the letters if you don't believe me) RG12/1050 f39 p 20.
Definitely the correct family, because in 1901 they're in the same civil parish as in 1891 and Michael's almost back to normal - just being misspelt as Micheal - RG13/1228 f 120 p 4.
Michael and Alma's ages and birthplaces are consistent throughout the census, so

if that is the only marriage (I assume that you've double-checked on the GRO Index because the Ancestry London marriages doesn't include all marriages) then that must be the one.

Census references in the care of TNA and crown copyright.

Once you agree with Alma definitely being born in (about) 1857 - which is basically what Colin's query is about - then you can look further into her parentage.
Pam

[Colin Rowledge]

Hi Colin,

When did Thomas and Mary marry, and what was her surname?

Hi Lizzy9
Here is the information on the 2 marriages of Thomas:

Wife #1
Emma Sibley, born 1812, daughter of John Sibley and Sarah Callingham and was born in Hampton, Middlesex. According to Palott's Marriages, they married in Heston in 1833.
They had 5 children, 4 before 1841 - Ellen[1834], William [1836], Maria [1838] and Eliza [1840]. In 1841 the family was living in Hampton and Thomas was an Ag. Labourer. In 1843, the 5th child, George was born. It was shortly after his birth that Emma died [burial August 7, 1843 in St. Mary, Hampton, Middlesex].

Wife #2.
A year later, Thomas married Mary Sargeant - Jul.-Sep.q. 1844 in Lambeth. Mary [from the 1851 census] was born in 1825-26 in Richmond. At the time of the 1851 census, they had 2 daughters - Mary [1846] and Sarah [1847] and were living in Wandsworth where Thomas was now a Rails Labourer. The address was Edwards Place, and the name had been incorrectly transcribed as Shaw. This was later 'corrected' to read "Stores" but is definitely mty family. With them were 3 of the children from his 1st marriage - Mary, Eliza & George.
Sometime after 1857 Thomas and family moved to Battersea, where Thomas is now a Miller. In 1861, they had Alma Elizabeth [[who was born in Wandsworth] possibly in 1857 - but cannot locate a birth registration. In the house on King Street, were just William, George and Alma aged 4
In 1871, still in Battersea, but now on Sheepcote Lane, there was only the son William living with them There were also 2 lodgers. Around the corner from them were the Larkins who were witnesses to the wedding of Alma and Michael Hayes. Thomas is still a Miller and George Larkin age 27 is a Railway Porter.

Thomas Shores died in last quarter of 1873 - less than a year after Alma's marriage

[Colin Rowledge]

Following up on Pam's response, I think the above will also be of benefit in addressing her comments.

Not having found any births yet - but still looking - after Sarah in 1847, and prior to the arrival of Alma in 1857 or so, I wonder if she was 'adopted' by Thomas and Mary?