Why would a couple who lived and presumably met in Leicesterhsire marry in London?
Thomas Fisher (b1811) of West Deeping, Leics, a carpenter and Mary Bull (b1813) of Hambleton, Rutland, a farmer's daughter (a farm owned by the Bulls since mid 1700s) are married in a London parish.
The record is defintely there's as the fathers of both the above are mentioned, the ages of both check against the DOBs I have for both and Thomas is recorded as a Carpenter on the marriage entry. This has to be their marriage record.
But why were they living at an address on Newgate Street, London at the time of marriage. What were they dong there?
Carpentry contract or Newgate Prison? I am intrigued!
Why would a Midlands couple marry in London?
Moderators: grangers14, admin, Northern Lass
-
CarlFisher
- Posts: 3
- Joined: Sun Mar 21, 2010 4:53 pm
- Primary Surname Interests: Fisher, Harrison, Deacon, Bull
- Primary Geographical Research Areas: Leicestershire, Rutland, Nottinghamshire
-
Suzanne44
- Posts: 4
- Joined: Sun Mar 14, 2010 11:37 pm
- Primary Surname Interests: Preston Haywood Clarke
- Primary Geographical Research Areas: Birmingham/Woverhampton Liverpool
Re: Why would a Midlands couple marry in London?
Hi
If you look at the 1951 census list..
Thomas Fisher is classed as a Joiner (journeyman) so its very possible that he was used to travelling about for work and had a had a contract in London at time of marriage and was living there at the time.. !
Suzanne
If you look at the 1951 census list..
Thomas Fisher is classed as a Joiner (journeyman) so its very possible that he was used to travelling about for work and had a had a contract in London at time of marriage and was living there at the time.. !
Suzanne
-
MarkCDodd
- Posts: 4157
- Joined: Mon Aug 24, 2009 12:55 pm
- Primary Surname Interests: Homer, Dodd, Murphy, Cutler, Ford
- Primary Geographical Research Areas: Shropshire, Staffordshire, Worcestershire, Yorkshire
Re: Why would a Midlands couple marry in London?
Did any of the parents sign the register?
Was it by Banns or Licence?
Even if he was a journeyman, a trip back to his home parish would be the norm for a wedding.
Maybe they eloped....and if none of the parents signed the register that would be my guess.
Was it by Banns or Licence?
Even if he was a journeyman, a trip back to his home parish would be the norm for a wedding.
Maybe they eloped....and if none of the parents signed the register that would be my guess.
Black Holes happen when God divides by zero.
-
CarlFisher
- Posts: 3
- Joined: Sun Mar 21, 2010 4:53 pm
- Primary Surname Interests: Fisher, Harrison, Deacon, Bull
- Primary Geographical Research Areas: Leicestershire, Rutland, Nottinghamshire
Re: Why would a Midlands couple marry in London?
Hi Suzanne - yes I thought he may have been contracted for work in London but I would have thought he/they would have gone back to his or her parish in Leicesterhsire for the marriage as they both had substantial family members there who would have expected to attend their wedding.
Hi MarkCDodd - the entry I found is the original (on-line) entry in the London, England Marriages and Banns, 1754 - 1921.
The entry is written entirely in one person's hand so the fathers did not sign (therefore not present?) the register.
The entry states "Married in the Parish Church according to the Rites and Ceremonies of the Established Church after Banns by me, J V ?ovah M A Curate" (Italics where hand written).
It is possible they eloped. However later on in Thomas's life (census) I find that he has left his home in Leicester to retire in Hambleton, his father in law's house, and so could surely not have been badly thought of? Perhaps they did elope but the families settled their differences over the following years, enough for Thomas to see out his days in his wife's family home.
I love a mystery, but get so frustrated when I know the fine detail may never be discovered!
Hi MarkCDodd - the entry I found is the original (on-line) entry in the London, England Marriages and Banns, 1754 - 1921.
The entry is written entirely in one person's hand so the fathers did not sign (therefore not present?) the register.
The entry states "Married in the Parish Church according to the Rites and Ceremonies of the Established Church after Banns by me, J V ?ovah M A Curate" (Italics where hand written).
It is possible they eloped. However later on in Thomas's life (census) I find that he has left his home in Leicester to retire in Hambleton, his father in law's house, and so could surely not have been badly thought of? Perhaps they did elope but the families settled their differences over the following years, enough for Thomas to see out his days in his wife's family home.
I love a mystery, but get so frustrated when I know the fine detail may never be discovered!