Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 20 of 20
  1. #11
    Newcomer to Brit-Gen
    Join Date
    May 2020
    Location
    Hertfordshire
    Posts
    7

    Default

    Firstly, a very big thanks to you all for trying to help me with this puzzle.

    Quote Originally Posted by christanel View Post
    I see that the witnesses at the marriage of George Guyatt and Elizabeth Thurston were a John Guyatt and Martha Guyatt. Do you know anything about these two?
    I had already considered John and Martha Guyatt. Not sure whether this would've been a married couple (I've been unable to find a John Guyatt who married a Martha) or maybe the relationship could be brother and sister. Again, I've not been able to find a family with both a John and Martha.

    After I posted, I did some more research and found, like you, the 1861 census containing Elizabeth and William Clark along with her two children, so came to the conclusion that the Elizabeth staying in Benjamin's household wasn't George and Elizabeth' daughter after all but who could she be? She is recorded as married but her relationship to family has been crossed out and replaced with 'dau' but I can't make out what has been crossed out which could be a clue.

    Where are they all pre-1851? Benjamin and Elizabeth don't seem to be around and even George and daughter Elizabeth are nowhere to be found and ELizabeth would've only been 2 so presumably she would've been living with family.

    I found a website with quite a detailed Guyatt family history https://www.terrys.org.uk/charts/g/guyat600.htm which is where I got the information that Benjamin & Elizabeth were witnesses to Thomas' marriage (the Thomas who was staying with George in the 1851 census I would guess). Apart from the witness information, there is no Benjamin on this site and I can't see how they all fit together. Presumably they are family of some sort. On another page at the same site https://www.terrys.org.uk/charts/g/guyat700.htm Thomas' parents are John Whatt and Rachel Attwood so if George is Thomas' uncle, he must be a brother of John?

    Like you say, what is it with this family? I'm no further finding out anything about Elizabeth Thurston either. Her birthplace on the censuses seem to repeat where they're staying at the time so no clue as to where she really comes from. Haven't even been able to find any likely candidates for her parents.

    Again, thank you all for trying to help.

  2. #12
    Newcomer to Brit-Gen
    Join Date
    May 2020
    Location
    Hertfordshire
    Posts
    7

    Default

    A bit more digging on that website and I found this https://www.terrys.org.uk/charts/g/guyat800.htm which shows that George is indeed John's brother. However, he was born in 1797 which would've made him 38 when he married Elizabeth Thurston who was barely 16 at the time of marriage. Still nothing on Benjamin though.

  3. #13
    Brick wall demolition expert!
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Lancashire
    Posts
    3,152

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by chantilly View Post
    him 38 when he married Elizabeth Thurston who was barely 16 at the time of marriage.

    It was not until 1929 that the minimum age for marriage was increased to 16. Prior to that it was 12 for girls and 14 for boys.

  4. #14
    Newcomer to Brit-Gen
    Join Date
    May 2020
    Location
    Hertfordshire
    Posts
    7

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Megan Roberts View Post
    It was not until 1929 that the minimum age for marriage was increased to 16. Prior to that it was 12 for girls and 14 for boys.
    Oh, so that makes this marriage make more sense then, thank you.

  5. #15
    Newcomer to Brit-Gen
    Join Date
    May 2020
    Location
    Hertfordshire
    Posts
    7

    Default

    I have just been searching trees on Ancestry and found a Benjamin Guyatt down as being a son of John Guyatt and Rachel Attwood, but with a birthdate of 1829, not 1822/3 as on census records. This would make him a brother of Thomas William Samuel Guyatt (which would also make sense with Benjamin being a witness at his marriage. Also, Elizabeth's husband, George Guyatt, was Thomas' uncle, so again, a connection. This tree also has Benjamin having a sister, Elizabeth Guyatt, b1832 so this could be our mystery Elizabeth on 1851 census. Sadly, it seems she died in 1852 so maybe she needed nursing and so was staying with family. If this really is my Benjamin, it would all make sense. I have contacted the owner of the tree in the hope that he can shed some light on where he got this information from as I still can't find any evidence of these suppositions. What do you think? I am being over-optimistic perhaps?

  6. #16
    Super Moderator christanel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Wairarapa New Zealand
    Posts
    9,665

    Default

    Hi
    You have nothing to lose by considering the relationships given in the tree on ancestry. I know when I first put my basic tree on ancestry (to try an match DNA results) I didn't give any sources so maybe the tree owner you have contacted has done the same. Hopefully they will be able to provide proof. Birth dates didn't matter so much back then and could vary wildly especially when you consider that up until Sept 1/4 1837 we are relying on baptismal records and people weren't always baptised close to their year of birth. I have a couple of instances where they were baptised prior to their marriage and one baptised along with their much younger sister.
    If the tree owner isn't able to provide sources at least you have information which you can work on to try and prove its veracity.
    Christina
    Sometimes paranoia is just having all the facts.
    William Burroughs

  7. #17
    Brick wall demolition expert!
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Lancashire
    Posts
    3,152

    Default

    It won't help you find Benjamin, but if Elizabeth Thurston did have a "marriage" with more than Guyatt, and they were blood relations then its likely that there won't have been a second marriage because of something called various things such the Table of Affinities or Prohibited degrees of Kinship.

    In essence the 1662 Common Book of Prayer set a list of prohibited relationships in terms of who could marry who. This has varied over time with different marriage acts, and is now fairly brief but back in the 19th century was pretty long. For instance you could not marry your late wife's sister. But perhaps what is a surprise for many is that your could always marry your cousin.

    The 1835 marriage act changed things significantly and not necessarily for the better. Certainly not as far as my family was concerned. One of my gt gt grandmothers was 20 when she married in 1828. Her husband was 48. It was his 2nd marriage. He died in 1844, and within a matter a months she took up with my gt gr grandfather who was 5 years younger than she, but was also the nephew of her late husband, and for that reason they were banned from marrying. If it had happened 10 years earlier they would have been free to marry.

    So I simply raise this as something that might be worth bearing in mind when looking for your elusive ancestor.

  8. #18
    Newcomer to Brit-Gen
    Join Date
    May 2020
    Location
    Hertfordshire
    Posts
    7

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Megan Roberts View Post
    One of my gt gt grandmothers was 20 when she married in 1828. Her husband was 48. It was his 2nd marriage. He died in 1844, and within a matter a months she took up with my gt gr grandfather who was 5 years younger than she, but was also the nephew of her late husband, and for that reason they were banned from marrying. If it had happened 10 years earlier they would have been free to marry.
    This certainly sounds a very similar story to what I imagine has happened in my family. Elizabeth marries George (over 20 years her senior), then she takes up with Benjamin, his nephew, (probably about 5 years younger than her) but can't marry because of these laws. If only I could find some sort of birth record to prove that George was his uncle, everything would fall in place (and I would also have parents names to enable me to continue with the tree!)

    Thank you everybody for trying to help. It's very much appreciated. At least I have a story that makes sense and fits in with the facts now.

  9. #19
    Knowledgeable and helpful
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Location
    England
    Posts
    567

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by chantilly View Post
    This tree also has Benjamin having a sister, Elizabeth Guyatt, b1832 so this could be our mystery Elizabeth on 1851 census. Sadly, it seems she died in 1852 so maybe she needed nursing and so was staying with family.
    The only person with a similar name I can find dying in 1852 and in the right quarter is in Andover, Hampshire, aged 81.

    The Elizabeth on the 1861 census with Benjamin was originally noted in the relationship column as married. This was then changed to daughter, with married then entered in the correct column. No proof, but I think she is the daughter and has been recorded twice.

    I noticed that several of the family baptisms were Catholic, which may explain the lack of earlier records, but its very frustrating not being able to find Benjamin in 1841!

  10. #20
    Newcomer to Brit-Gen
    Join Date
    May 2020
    Location
    Hertfordshire
    Posts
    7

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jomot1 View Post
    The only person with a similar name I can find dying in 1852 and in the right quarter is in Andover, Hampshire, aged 81.
    Hmm, I hadn't got round to checking that yet. The person whose tree it is hasn't got back to me yet (and as he hasn't visited Ancestry for 9 months, I'm doubting whether he will). It's a shame, I'd really love to know where he got all this information from.. It does mention on the profile page of Benjamin 'Farvy's Uncle' and on Elizabeth (the sister, not wife) "Farvy's Aunt". I have no idea who Farvy is but most of the family are annotated like this which is why I assumed there was some personal knowledge of this family. There is certainly no record trail to prove all this.

    The Elizabeth on the 1861 census with Benjamin was originally noted in the relationship column as married. This was then changed to daughter, with married then entered in the correct column. No proof, but I think she is the daughter and has been recorded twice.
    That could well be true. So maybe Elizabeth is the wife of another one of Benjamin's brothers (or other relation) who was staying with them at the time. What a tangled web!

    I noticed that several of the family baptisms were Catholic, which may explain the lack of earlier records, but its very frustrating not being able to find Benjamin in 1841!
    Another thing I hadn't noticed. Indeed, this family is causing me a great deal of frustration. Not sure where else I can look to be honest. Think I might just have to accept it as a dead end!

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Select a file: