+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 8 of 8
  1. #1
    Loves to help with queries
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    dunstable
    Posts
    128
    Thanks
    17
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Maynard brothers

    Hi everybody haven't been around for a while but I'm back as they say and I know you all love a puzzle and I have a good one that I have been trying to solve for ages concerning the Maynard branch of my family who are, shall we say at times quite elusive.
    Frederick William [1870-?] and [Charles] Ernest [1874-?]two of the younger sons of Joseph Thomas Maynard and Eliza Parrish would seem to have married the same woman, a Clara [Maria] Clark [1872] the daughter of Christopher Clark. Her name is usually down as Clara but I have also come across it is Clara Maria but then this might be a confirmation name
    Fred married a Clara Clark in 1890, he was 20 and she was 18 at St Marks Parish Church, Islington however in 1903 a Clara Clark now aged 31 married Charles Ernest Maynard at Edmonton Registrar Office. I have both marriage certificates and everything about the two fathers matches as does the dates of birth and on each certificate it states Clara is a spinster.
    The last census that I can find in relation to Fred is 1901 when he is living with Clara and their two daughters - Clara Harriet [1894] and Hilda Blanche [1896] after that I have been unable to locate anything.
    Charles on the other hand is missing in 1901 but turns up in 1911 with Clara and four children Clara [1896], Hilda [1897] Ernest [1904] and Lavinia [1907] and they state that they have been married for 18 years which makes it 1893 however according to his military record he signed up in 1894 and lists his father Joseph as his next of kin. I have been unable to find a marriage in 1893
    I have been unable to find a death certificate for Fred, so any ideas anyone or perhaps somebody out there knows what happened to my grandmother's two uncles. Perhaps Fred deserted Clara sometimes between 1901-1903 and Charles stepped in and did the decent thing but of course this would have been an illegal marriage.
    Any suggestions as it is driving me slowly insane trying to work this one out and boy oh boy the Maynard's at times are proving to be a hard bunch to crack
    Many thanks
    Prue

  2. #2
    Valued member of Brit-Gen
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Northwich, Cheshire
    Posts
    282
    Thanks
    4
    Thanked 17 Times in 15 Posts

    Default

    Hi Prue,

    There is a death for Frederick William Maynard on GRO which could be your Fred

    June Qtr 1901 age 31 Edmonton 03A 209.

    freebmd is showing the age as 3 same registration No 03A 209

    Hope it helps

    Marj

  3. #3
    Loves to help with queries
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    dunstable
    Posts
    128
    Thanks
    17
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by marj View Post
    Hi Prue,

    There is a death for Frederick William Maynard on GRO which could be your Fred

    June Qtr 1901 age 31 Edmonton 03A 209.

    freebmd is showing the age as 3 same registration No 03A 209

    Hope it helps

    Marj
    Hi Marj,

    it does because I came across the same reference and kept on thinking there was something wrong because everything seem to fit and I am convinced he died but of course that still doesn't explain why she would put herself down as a spinster when more than likely she was a widow and then of course the mix up with the year of marriage on the census.
    If this is correct I don't think the marriage would have been illegal under the Act due to Fred's death or would it have been?
    Many thanks
    Prue

  4. #4
    Super Moderator almach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    3,362
    Thanks
    526
    Thanked 1,131 Times in 1,052 Posts

    Default

    If this is correct I don't think the marriage would have been illegal under the Act due to Fred's death or would it have been?
    Hi Pru, yes in 1903 the marriage would have been illegal.

    It wasn't until 1921 a man could legally marry his brother's widow. However, I think the worst which could happen, should they have been 'found out', was the marriage would be void.
    Alma

  5. #5
    Super Moderator almach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    3,362
    Thanks
    526
    Thanked 1,131 Times in 1,052 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by marj View Post
    Hi Prue,

    There is a death for Frederick William Maynard on GRO which could be your Fred

    June Qtr 1901 age 31 Edmonton 03A 209.

    freebmd is showing the age as 3 same registration No 03A 209

    Hope it helps

    Marj
    The above death looks very likely. You could get a pdf copy from the GRO for 6
    Alma

  6. #6
    Loves to help with queries
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    dunstable
    Posts
    128
    Thanks
    17
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by almach View Post
    Hi Pru, yes in 1903 the marriage would have been illegal.

    It wasn't until 1921 a man could legally marry his brother's widow. However, I think the worst which could happen, should they have been 'found out', was the marriage would be void.

    Morning,

    I thought it was when I was trying to make sense of the Act [heavy reading] and it is not the first case of this type of marriage happening in the family either and I don't expect it is going to be the last. This is only the third line in my family that I have done an in depth study of so far, I have a few others but they are only partially done, so God knows what kind of mischief I am going to find.
    So many, many thanks
    Prue

  7. #7
    Super Moderator almach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    3,362
    Thanks
    526
    Thanked 1,131 Times in 1,052 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by prue View Post
    Morning,

    I thought it was when I was trying to make sense of the Act [heavy reading] and it is not the first case of this type of marriage happening in the family either and I don't expect it is going to be the last. This is only the third line in my family that I have done an in depth study of so far, I have a few others but they are only partially done, so God knows what kind of mischief I am going to find.
    So many, many thanks
    Prue
    Hi Prue, it's a lovely morning isn't it?

    It's the mischief, as you endearingly put it, that gives our trees an interest. Wouldn't it be boring if all our ancestors were born, married, worked as ag.labs, then died with no story for us to unravel? Enjoy hunting mischief, and remember we're here if you need us.
    Alma

  8. #8
    Loves to help with queries
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    dunstable
    Posts
    128
    Thanks
    17
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default

    Hi, yes it's a gorgeous morning and I really should be out in the garden sorting out the patio but a coffee awaits. Now I have plenty of mischief in my family to keep me going for some time from bigamy to changing names to heroes and villains with an occasional saint thrown in for good measure.
    I suspect when I come to look at the Westbrook line a little more closely then my headache shall really begin - oh what fun.
    Many thanks
    Prue

+ Reply to Thread

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: