Genealogy Forum UK

Crosscanonby and Maryport comes under Cockermouth Registration district.

The question is that if the 1881 Scottish census is the correct one,then they could have married in Scotland? Is there the equivalent of free bmd for scotland?
I've discovered that the Scottish census was taken on the 3rd April as well!
I'm assuming that people were asked who would be residing in the house that night - there must be some occaisions where incorrect info was given, not intentionally but because peoples plans changed.
Isabella and her parents were living in Crosscanonby on the 1871 census, so they presumably met during this time. Maybe her parents didn't aprove of David, even though he was a presbytarian minister!

Wow, I'm intrigued by this! I'm an Eades, but I don 't think this is my family!

Margarett wrote:Wow, I'm intrigued by this! I'm an Eades, but I don 't think this is my family!

My lot originated in Staffordshire. Solomon Eades married into the Jeavons line of my family. He then moved the family to Middlesborough.
Although this line are not dirrect anscestors they caught my interest. Solomon Eades was a moulder, yet one son Solomon S Eades was on the census as a music professor (I feel this was an exageration) and later went into selling pianos. Solomon S was married but had no kids as far as I kan tell. His brother David (the one who married Isabella) was a prebytarian minister. Two of his son's were in the musical instrument trade, the third became a minister. David and Solomon's youngest sister is a music teacher.
I feel that Solomon Eades senior was a rare man - his children seem to have done well for themselves, they seem to have had a reasonable education and a love of music. I know other members of my family who wanted to go into the church had a fight on their hands - this doesn't seem to be the working class thing to do, at least not in my family!
They seemed to have done better than the Jeavons in laws they left behind in the Black Country!

See link!
http://sjfellows.tribalpages.com/family ... 1&switch=0

Nearly fell off my sofa!!!!

Just read the probate record for David's brother Solomon Samuel Eades - he left about £37000 when he died in 1903! That'd be worth over 2 million in todays money!
http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/curr ... ts.asp#mid

snoopysue wrote:The question is that if the 1881 Scottish census is the correct one,then they could have married in Scotland? Is there the equivalent of free bmd for scotland?
I've discovered that the Scottish census was taken on the 3rd April as well!
I'm assuming that people were asked who would be residing in the house that night - there must be some occaisions where incorrect info was given, not intentionally but because peoples plans changed.
Isabella and her parents were living in Crosscanonby on the 1871 census, so they presumably met during this time. Maybe her parents didn't aprove of David, even though he was a presbytarian minister!

There is a marriage showing as a possible on Scotlands people narrowing it down was in 1881.
Its not free you have to have credits. There is nothing like freebmd for Scottish records.
http://www.scotlandspeople.gov.uk/welcome.aspx

Jo

Theres this on family search

David Eades

England Marriages, 1538-1973
spouse: Isabella Conley
marriage: 03 Apr 1881 - Cross-Canonby, Cumberland, England

record title: England Marriages, 1538-1973
groom's name: David Eades
bride's name: Isabella Conley
marriage date: 03 Apr 1881
marriage place: Cross-Canonby, Cumberland, England
indexing project (batch) number: I03796-5
system origin: England-EASy
source film number: 1472080

Jimmy wrote:I can't see it on Ancestry or Freebmd but,

Married the same day as census taken in 1881.

David Eades.
Bride's Name: Isabella Conley.
Marriage Date: 03 Apr 1881.
Marriage Place: Cross-Canonby, Cumberland.
Indexing Project (Batch) Number: I03796-5.
System Origin: England-EASy.
Source Film Number: 1472080.

All ready got that Jo, but for some reason it is not on Ancestry or Freebmd.

Just noticed Jimmy
Sorry.
Jo

I wonder if it that one on scotlands people then?
Jo:)

grangers14 wrote:I wonder if it that one on scotlands people then?
Jo:)

It sort of is - just paid for the credits! (Glad I haven't got many scottish rellies!)

Marriage: 1881 on the 19th day of April, at 3 Bellevue Crescent Edinburgh. After Banns according to the terms of the Church of Scotland. David Eades (signed) Minister English Presbyterian Church (bachelor). Age 28. High Street, Maryport. Solomon Eades, Ironworks contractor and Jemima Eades (Jeavons). Isabella Conly (signed) (spinster). Age 28. 3 Bellevue Crescent, Edinburgh. John Conley, Naval Officer and Isabella Smith Conley (McNeill).

So no doubt - it's just odd about the one on family search, not the correct date or place - but seems to be the correct people! Can you see if it's submitted or extracted?

The census for 1881 is correct too, as it's 3 Bellevue Crescent, image says Conley, but I can see why it's transcribed as Cowley!

It can be expensive but it costs almost £10 for an English one and the Scottish put so much more information on!

I dont understand what is or isnt submitted or what now!

Brilliant you got it though
Jo

It's been pretty interesting!
I've still got a bit of research to do on that part of the family. One of David's sisters was adopted into the family, it was early on as I have her on the census from 2 years old.
The whole family seem to have done well out of David's brother Soloman's Music buisness, a lot of them worked there. I can't get over the son of an ironworker ended up with what today would be 2 million pounds on his death - I've got to send off for that will!

Jimmy wrote:

Jimmy wrote:I can't see it on Ancestry or Freebmd but,

Married the same day as census taken in 1881.

David Eades.
Bride's Name: Isabella Conley.
Marriage Date: 03 Apr 1881.
Marriage Place: Cross-Canonby, Cumberland.
Indexing Project (Batch) Number: I03796-5.
System Origin: England-EASy.
Source Film Number: 1472080.

All ready got that Jo, but for some reason it is not on Ancestry or Freebmd.

Could this be the Banns.

That would make more sense. The 3rd was a sunday, so it's possible!

Makes sense as far as the census goes too! As it would have been more likely that people were home on a sunday!