Is there any way I can find out more?

[Jomot1]

This is interesting - it could be a coincidence - but Sarah Ann's residence at the time of her marriage was Norfolk Street......

Oh that is quite a coincidence, isn't it! Are there any clues in the witnesses to her marriage?

[Jomot1]

Possibly also a coincidence, but Edward Warnes appears to have included the name 'Sarah Ann' for one of his daughters:

WARNES, HARRIETT SARAH ANN mmn BARNES
GRO Reference: 1882 D Quarter in KING'S LYNN Volume 04B Page 344

She was baptised 19 Nov 1882 along with three siblings - Frances Elizabeth, William George & James Edward - and Edward's address at the time was Norfolk Street.

[Jomot1]

In 1881 Edward & his family were living at California Yard, but looking at the census I think this was a Yard off Norfolk Street, as the addresses go from 103 1/2 Norfolk Street then California Yard, then 104 Norfolk Street (Norwich Arms).

[Jomot1]

Another coincidence....Edward Warnes died in 1883. Sarah Ann's next son was born in 1885 and she named him Edward.

[Teresa Clare]

Yes, I saw that about Edward's daughter Harriet Sarah Ann, I think the clue you gave me yesterday is the best yet! I will still go through carefully to see if there are any other Warnes living in Kings Lynn who could have had an illegitimate daughter, but not found any so far. Its a pity the brother's name is not mentioned in the workhouse entry, and there don't seem to be any more records online for the workhouse during the appropriate dates....Regarding the witnesses to the marriage, one is Augusta Jane Caroline Simpson - I did try to look her up as its an unusual name and I thought she might have something to do with the husband's family - his father was Samuel Simpson Eglinton...but the only person I found (so far) with this name was in Australia....The other witness I think is Charles Lee (looks more like lei or Lu but probably Lee). I have not had time to find out any more about him yet. I only recently received the marriage certificate and was hoping to find Sarah Ann's father's name on it, but with no father's name I wasn't sure how to proceed....will see checking, many thanks!

[Jomot1]

Augusta & her husband are in Kings Lynn in 1881 - in another Yard off Norfolk Street by the looks of it - but other than that I can't see any obvious links to Sarah Ann. I think Augusta was born as Sandrock (mmn Pain) in 1850, and her husband possibly as Alfred Edward Simpson (mmn Bowen) in 1841 (registered 1842).

[Teresa Clare]

That's interesting, the Augusta in Australiawas also Sandrock Simpson, i'll look into this a bit further just out of interest, I only looked very briefly before...

[Teresa Clare]

OK, so forgetting about the witnesses for now as I don't think they are relevant - the best hypothesis, based on the lack of anyone else that I have been able to find with a similar name born around 1862 in Kings Lynn, and the coincidences of address and family names, is that Sarah Ann was the Sarah Warns in the workhouse, admitted by her brother in 1770, who was probably Edward or James Warnes, and that Sarah was the second illegitimate daughter (but unregistered) of their mother Caroline, who had died a couple of years previously, maybe the family was in financial difficulties or no-one could look after Sarah Ann. But I am now stuck as to find any more information to confirm or disprove this idea.....Sarah Ann was married in a register office, she was only 19 - would she have needed parental consent? If so in the absence of living parents would her brother give consent and would there be a record of this anywhere? I have not been able to find any more useful records of the workhouse inmates for those years. Any ideas on any other information that might be out there somewhere, or that I could ask for from the Norfolk records office?

[Jomot1]

Sarah Ann was married in a register office, she was only 19 - would she have needed parental consent? If so in the absence of living parents would her brother give consent and would there be a record of this anywhere?

It's commonly quoted that consent had to be given, but this isn't entirely correct. Before the Marriage Act of 1753 parents had to actively consent, after the Act however, a marriage of a minor by Banns was valid so long as the parents did not publicly object in the church where the banns were read (which was supposed to be in a parish where the couple was known, hence the 'residency' rule). After the 1836 Act marriages no longer had to be conducted in a church, in which case banns would be replaced by Notice, but the same principle applied.

In any event, Horner v Liddiard (1799) established that the consent of parents was not applicable to illegitimate minors - ie the 'natural' parents were not considered parents under the meaning of the law and so could not consent, nor appoint guardians with the power to consent.

[Teresa Clare]

Ah, thats interesting...