Newsletter – 21st May 2022

 

 

Marriage register confusion

Mothers’ names shock

The Shape of Things to Come? EXCLUSIVE

Findmypast add half a million Wiltshire and Lancashire records

Get a bonus when you subscribe to Findmypast.co.uk EXCLUSIVE

Women in history ONLINE

Tackling a ‘brick wall’ with the help of an expert

Microphone diplomacy

Peter’s Tips

Stop Press

 

The LostCousins newsletter is usually published 2 or 3 times a month. To access the previous issue (dated 14th May) click here; to find earlier articles use the customised Google search between this paragraph and the next (it searches ALL of the newsletters since February 2009, so you don't need to keep copies):

 

 

To go to the main LostCousins website click the logo at the top of this newsletter. If you're not already a member, do join - it's FREE, and you'll get an email to alert you whenever there's a new edition of this newsletter available!

 

 

Marriage register confusion

A year ago a new system for marriage registration came into effect across England & Wales – one which meant that the names of both parents could be included in marriage register entries. The Explanatory Notes to the Civil Partnerships, Marriages and Deaths (Registration etc.) Act 2019 include a section headed Policy Background which includes this paragraph:

 

Since 1837, the marriage register entry in England and Wales (and consequently marriage certificates, which are a certified copy of the entry) has included details of the fathers of the spouses, but not their mothers. Although changes to the content of the register entry could be made by secondary legislation (as the particulars required to be registered are prescribed in regulations under section 55(1) of the Marriage Act 1949), any change would necessitate replacement of all 84,000 marriage register books currently in use. The change to an electronic system will enable the form and content of the marriage register entry to be easily amended to include, for example, the details of both parents of the couple, without having to replace all marriage register books.

 

The Act came into force on 4th May 2021, and in my newsletter dated 10th May 2021 I wrote:

 

The campaign for equality dates back several years, and involved an online petition. At the time my comment was "be careful what you wish for", and unfortunately this turned out to be spot on. To avoid the cost of replacing tens of thousands of handwritten marriage registers the government decided to introduce an electronic system, which means that whilst churches may continue to have marriage registers, they will no longer fulfil any legal requirement, and any certificates issued by the church will be ceremonial rather than legal.

 

What I didn’t realise until this month is that just one week before the Act came into force the Home Office approved a Statutory Instrument issued on behalf of the Registrar General for England & Wales. When it is proposed to change the law by way of an Act of Parliament it’s big news – there are debates in Parliament, and often changes are proposed – which may or may not be accepted. Primary legislation is big news.

 

However, when Statutory Instruments are laid before the Houses of Parliament they usually go through undiscussed, unamended, and unnoticed by the world at large. Secondary legislation is rarely controversial and rarely newsworthy – except, perhaps, when price rises are being imposed.

 

The Marriage (Keeping of Records in Churches and Chapels) Regulations 2021 are short, but include this important provision:

 

 

In other words marriage registers will still be kept by churches and chapels of the Church of England and the Church in Wales. That’s good news for genealogists – but there’s also some bad news that you might not have anticipated….

 

 

Mothers’ names shock

Marriage registers (and certificates) for Scotland have included the name and maiden name of the parties’ mothers since the introduction of civil registration in 1855; the mother’s occupation was added from 1965. (See this page at the National Records of Scotland site for more information.)

 

I’m sure that, like me, you were anticipating that the much-acclaimed changes in England & Wales would produce a similar result. However, if you refer to the Guidebook for the Clergy issued by the General Register Office on 1st July 2021 you’ll find that in the examples in the Appendices there’s no sign of the mother’s maiden name:

 

   

This example is from Appendix N, but others tell a similar story. I didn’t notice this anomaly at the time – it was only when I was contacted by a LostCousins member who is planning to marry this summer that I realised what a difference there was between my expectations and reality.

 

I suspect I won’t be the only one to be disappointed – how ironic that legislation intended to remove perceived discrimination against mothers won’t allow their maiden surname to be recorded!

 

 

The Shape of Things to Come? EXCLUSIVE

As a boy I read all of the HG Wells science-fiction novels that I could lay my hands on, but I don’t believe I came across his 1933 work The Shape of Things to Come – though perhaps this is just as well, if the reviews on Amazon are anything to go by!

 

Because of the way that government works a close examination of legislation can sometimes provide clues to future plans. For example, when I was researching the anomalies in marriage registration I was obliged to sift through numerous pieces of secondary legislation, including The Births, Deaths and Marriages (Records and Fees) (Amendment) Regulations 2020.

 

Statutory Instrument 2020 No. 1093 (which you can find here) was signed by Kevin Foster, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State at the Home Office, over 18 months ago, on 7th October 2020. But I doubt that one family historian in a thousand read the amendments set out in the Statutory Instrument, or even the Explanatory Note that explained the effect of the new regulations – which is a shame, because there’s more than a hint of exciting new services to come…..

 

 

Is this the shape of things to come? For as long as I can remember family historians with ancestors from England & Wales have been envious of the online access to historic registers provided by ScotlandsPeople, and when we were offered the opportunity to purchase PDF copies of birth and death certificates in November 2016 it was certainly a step in the right direction.

 

Should one infer from the reference to an "online view service" that the General Register Office are considering taking another step in the right direction? What good news that would be for family historians!

 

 

Findmypast add half a million Wiltshire and Lancashire records

In the past two weeks Findmypast have added 150,000 workhouse records for Oldham, Lancashire and added 350,000 transcribed records to their Wiltshire collection, including nearly 70,000 baptisms, over 27,000 asylum records, over 250,000 tithe records, and WW1 hospital records from the Old Sarum Isolation Hospital, the Harnham Red Cross Hospital at East Harnham and the Salisbury Infirmary (Fisherton Street).

 

Tip: patients in the asylums and hospitals could well have come from farther afield.

 

Remember, searching at Findmypast is always free – though you will need to log-in or register (if you haven’t done so before).

 

Oldham, Lancashire Workhouse records

Wiltshire baptisms index 1530-1917

Wiltshire tithe award register 1813-1882

Wiltshire Asylum registers 1789-1921

Wiltshire WW1 Hospital records

 

 

Get a bonus when you subscribe to Findmypast.co.uk EXCLUSIVE

From now until midnight (London time) on Friday 10th June you can get a free 12 month subscription to LostCousins (worth up to £12.50) when you purchase a new 12 month Plus or Pro subscription to Findmypast.co.uk using the special link near the top of your My Summary page at the LostCousins site. (If you qualify and already have a LostCousins subscription I’ll extend it by 12 months.)

 

With a Plus subscription you’ll have access to all of Findmypast’s British and Irish historical records with the exception of the 1921 Census, which is not included in any subscriptions; with a Pro subscription you’ll also have access to Findmypast’s worldwide records and newspapers (including more than 50 million pages in the British Newspaper Archive). Pro subscribers also get a 10% discount on 1921 Census records.

 

The LostCousins subscription offer will be funded by the commission that we receive from Findmypast, so you need to be a new or returning subscriber (not a current subscriber - since commission is never paid on renewals).

 

Please ensure that your purchase is tracked as coming from LostCousins: this might mean that you have to temporarily change the settings in your browser (see the end of this article) or disable certain browser extensions. If we don’t receive commission then sadly you won’t get your free subscription, so if you normally use a browser that is designed to block tracking it is simplest to use a different browser – I recommend Chrome.

 

Because the link on your My Summary page is unique to you it won’t be necessary to claim your free subscription (or extension to your current subscription); up to 30th May I’ll be able to update your account within 24 hours, but after that date it will probably take longer as I’m having a cataract operation on 31st May. A joint subscription will be awarded provided you have linked the two accounts by entering the Membership Number of one on the My Details page of the other (remembering to click Submit at the bottom of the page). You’ll find your Membership Number on your My Summary page, or in an email reminder of your log-in details.

 

To check your Chrome browser settings choose Privacy and security, then Cookies and other site data; look down the page for Send a ‘Do Not Track’ request with your browsing traffic and ensure that it is switched OFF, ie the button is switched the left (white), not to the right (blue). This is the default setting so you probably won’t need to change it.

 

To check your Edge browser settings choose Privacy, search and services from the Settings menu, then Privacy, search and services; make sure that the Tracking Prevention box at the top is set to either Basic or Balanced (not Strict), and that lower down the page Send ‘Do Not Track’ requests switch is to the left (white on a black background), not to the right (white on a blue background). These are the default settings, so you probably won’t need to make any changes.

 

Note: if you’re not sure it’s going to work, don’t make an immediate purchase, instead click the test link on your My Summary page. I will email you to confirm that it worked (email me if you don’t hear within 24 hours).

 

 

 

Women in history ONLINE

Local historians and family historians have a lot in common – we just look at things from a different perspective. This year’s Local History Day, organised by the British Association for Local History, features an afternoon talk by Oxford lecturer and BBC broadcaster Dr Janina Ramirez based on her forthcoming book A New History of the Middle Ages, Through the Women Written Out of It.

 

Local History Day is Saturday 12th June: you can attend online or go along to London’s Conway Hall – a venue I last visited to hear a distinguished LostCousins member speak (though on a subject far removed from family history). Either way the cost is just £10, which includes a talk in the morning by Mark Forrest entitled Using post medieval manorial documents for local history research (it’s even cheaper if you are a BALH member like me). If you attend online you’ll also be able to watch Q&A sessions led by the two speakers.

 

To find out more and book please follow this link.

 

Note: on the evening of Thursday 26th May there’s an opportunity to attend a one hour online talk entitled ‘Women Hiding in Documents: Women’s lives in 16th century patriarchal society’ – you can find out more here.

 

 

Tackling a ‘brick wall’ with expert help

Earlier this year Linda won one of the top prizes in my competition – the chance to knock down a ‘brick wall’ with the help of an expert genealogist, Sarah Williams, who is also the editor of Who Do You Think You Are? magazine. Linda kindly agreed to write about her ‘brick wall’ and how she is attempting to knock it down – hopefully the article that follows will inspire you to try new ways of solving the mysteries in your own tree. At the very least it will emphasise the importance of going about it logically, methodically, and thoroughly.

 

And now I’m going to hand over to Linda, who has written the rest of the article….

 

In the graveyard of St Mary the Virgin at Langham, Essex is a large weathered memorial stone which reads:

 

In memory of William Sargeant who departed this life June 28th 1796 aged 80 years

 

And next to it and to the right, another of similar size which reads:

 

In memory of Mary wife of William Sargeant who departed this life Jany 24 1795 in the 72nd year of her age

 

The parish register records Mary’s burial on 30 Jan 1795 as “Mary wife of William Sargeant”, but there is no burial record for William – possibly due to poor record keeping as there are only two burials recorded for 1796, which compares to 10-14 burials for 1794, 1795, 1797 and 1798.

 

We can conclude that the above were born circa: William 1716, his wife Mary 1723.  My main quest is to find out where William was born.  It does not appear to be at Langham as the earliest records for ANY “Sargents” in Langham are the baptisms for William & Mary’s sons:

 

Samuel son of William Surgeant 31 Mar 1751

Daniel son of William and BLANK Serjeant 14 Oct 1753

John son of William and BLANK Serjeant 25 Jan 1756

James son of William and BLANK Serjeant 22 Oct 1758

Joseph son of William & Mary Sergeant 8 Feb 1761

Thomas son of William & Mary Serjeant 24 Jul 1763

 

Later there are marriage entries for some of their children:

 

               Mary Sargent and John Cason 21 Nov 1773

               Samuel Sargent and Mary Gray of Nayland 14 Jul 1782          

               James Sargent and Sarah Smith of Langham 21 Nov 1784

               Joseph Sargent and Sarah Smith of Stratford 2 Oct 1787

               Ann Sargent and Daniel Leggitt of Wormingford 11 Sep 1791

 

I am descended from their son Joseph born 1761, and have DNA matches with two descendants of Mary Sargent & John Cason, and two descendants of Daniel Sargent & Mary Elizabeth Winny.

 

In the Will of William Sargeant born c.1716 (D/ACW 36/6/2 at Essex Record Office) it seems he had another son – he was called William and appointed an Executor of his father’s Will made on 22 Feb 1791 which states “I William Sargent of Langham, Wheelwright appoint John Bedford of Ardleigh, Wheelwright and my Son William Sargent of Great Bromley, Wheelwright Executors.”

 

In essence he instructed that his Copyhold at Langham and his Copyhold at Wivenhoe were to be disposed of “for the best price that can be got”, and the monies invested. He left Household Goods, Furniture etc to Mary his wife for her lifetime together with the interest and dividends from the investments, but after her decease all his assets were to be realised and given “unto my four Sons Samuel, John, James and Joseph Sargent, and my two Daughters Ann Sargent and Mary the wife of John Ca..on to be equally divided between them”.

 

(In fact William’s wife Mary died 18 months before he did. The cover of the Will states that he died on 28 Jun 1796 in Great Bromley – perhaps he moved there to be cared for by his son William after the death of his wife?)

 

These additional questions arise:

 

Why would his son William be made an Executor but not a beneficiary?

Had his son William already been given or inherited property from his father or another source?

Where was his son William born and baptised? Was he a son of a previous marriage?

 

Note: Daughter Ann married Daniel Leggett at Langham on 11 Sep 1791 (ie after William made his Will but before he died)

 

In his Will, William’s main assets were his Copyhold messuage at Langham and his Copyhold messuage at Wivenhoe.  It is most likely that he spent his working life as a Wheelwright in Langham, but how did he acquire Copyhold in Wivenhoe?  Did he originally come from Wivenhoe?  Looking in the parish registers for that area we find no record of the birth of a William Sargent about 1716, but we do find that a William was baptised in Wivenhoe on 26 Oct 1743, to a William and Sarah Sergeant.

 

Following this avenue, it appears that a year earlier William Sergeant of Wivenhoe married Sarah Sergeant of Wivenhoe on 17 Oct 1742 at Elmstead. Was she a cousin? Was she a widow? The record does not give the “condition” of either. Probably a widow, for on 1 May 1738 Sarah Pim of Elmstead married James Serjeant of Wivenhoe at Elmstead:

 

28 Dec 1741 Baptism of their son, James, at Wivenhoe.

 

Six days later, on 3 Jan 1741/42, “James Serjeant” was buried.  This was probably Sarah’s husband, because seventeen days later on 20 Jan 1741/42, “James Serjeant infant” was buried.

 

It seems then that Sarah was a widow when she married William in 1742. Was this William born about 1716?

 

Their son William was baptised on 26 Oct 1743 at Wivenhoe. He could be the William who was an executor but not a beneficiary of his father’s will.

 

Sadly Sarah, wife of William Serjeant was buried on 17 Mar 1744/45 at Wivenhoe.

 

It seems that William remarried because four years later, William and Mary Serjant had a daughter Mary who was baptised on 22 Oct 1749 at Wivenhoe.  Could this daughter Mary be the one that later married John Cason? I have not yet found a marriage for William and Mary the parents. Did William and Mary then move to Langham and have other children … Samuel … Daniel … etc ?

 

Having unsuccessfully scoured the parish registers at Langham and surrounding parishes and at Wivenhoe and surrounding parishes for:

(a)   the baptism of Ann Sargent,

(b)   the marriage of William and Mary between 1745-49, and

(c)    the baptism of a William Sargent around 1716

I then turned my investigations to the “property” he had in Wivenhoe (and which was to be sold after his death).  Which property was it?  From whom did he acquire it?  Did he inherit it or did he buy it?  Could it provide clues to his past?

 

At Essex Record Office and online there is the 1799 Survey Map of Transcribed Occupiers of Wivenhoe (D/DBm P31).  This is 3 years after William Sargent died, but certainly worth looking at to see if there are any Sargents on it. There was one: a Hannah Sarjeant who owned and occupied a property called “Cocks”.  Was she a relative?

 

Some research shows that she was a widow:

 

18 Jun 1795 Burial of Samuel Sarjeant, age 41 at Wivenhoe (this puts his birth about 1753/54).

24 Apr 1795 Samuel Sargent, Blacksmith of Wivenhoe made a Will which was proved on 13 Aug 1795 (PROB 11/1265) and in it he left everything to his wife Hannah. 

24 Apr 1783 Samuel Sargent (bachelor) married Hannah Hynard (spinster) at Wivenhoe. 

7 Sep 1753 Samuel Serjeant born, and baptised next day to Samuel & Mary Serjeant at Wivenhoe.

21 Sep 1751 Mary Sergeant born, and baptised 4 Oct 1751 to Samuel & Mary Sergeant at Wivenhoe.

26 Dec 1750 Samll Serjeant married Mary Riddlesdale of Wivenhoe at Alresford

 

Could this Samuel Serjeant be a relative of my 4x gt grandfather William born about 1716? The only other record of a Sargent at Alresford that I have found so far is the marriage of Thos Serjant and Rachel Allen on 29 Jan 1748.

 

MORE RECENT RESEARCH

 

I spent a day at the Essex Record Office in Sep 2021 and looked at various documents relating to properties in Wivenhoe but none yielded any more information for my quest.

 

Where next?  Back to parish registers?  Very frustratingly, the parish registers for Elmstead are lost/missing for the following crucial years:

 

Baptisms                        1662 – 1728

Marriages                       1659 – 1728

Burials                             1661 – 1677

 

Elmstead is the parish where Sarah Pimm married firstly James Serjeant and secondly William Sergeant.  Maybe I should investigate her!

 

Research on Sarah Pimm shows she was a daughter of Ralph Pimm, yeoman, and a beneficiary of his Will (D/ACW 28/1/17) which states he had Freeholds in Wivenhoe and in the parish of St Leonard and elsewhere in the Town of Colchester. If my hypothesis proves correct that Sarah Pimm’s second marriage to a William Sargent in 1742 was to my 4G grandfather William Sargent born about 1716, their son William baptised 26 Oct 1743 could well have inherited lands/funds through his mother benefitting from her father’s Will, and so was not needing to be a beneficiary of his father’s Will.

 

In February I was very fortunate to win one of the LostCousins prizes – a session with Sarah Williams, Editor of Who Do You Think You Are? magazine, to bust an English ‘brick wall’. Peter also gave me a link to an excellent article written by Dr Janet Few (another ‘brick wall’ expert) which helped me focus on the pertinent facts.

 

Because wheelwrights would have needed an apprenticeship, Sarah suggested that I should look at these on Findmypast. I found five of interest, but they will require a visit to The National Archives in Kew to see the details. She also suggested I checked Images at FamilySearch as they had quite a number from some Essex parishes. I found some for Wivenhoe listing occupants liable for poor relief contribution and assessments for window tax and land tax. In summary I found that the following lived in the parish and were liable for some or all of the said “taxes”:

 

1722-1727                            Ralph Pimm (Overseer in 1725)

1728-1731                            Widow Pimm

1728-1734                            Ralph Pimm

1735-1743                            John Pimm (Witness in 1735, Overseer in 1736)

1740-1741                            James Sergeant (Overseer in 1740)

1742                                      Widow Sergeant (Sarah Pimm)

1743-1750                            William Sergeant (Constable in 1743)

                                              In 1750 he is bracketed with Widow Maddox, suggesting he was an occupant for part

                                              of the year. He does not appear in further years)

1749-1765                            Samuel Sergeant (1750 noted Blacksmith’s Shop; Constable in 1751 and 1761-1764)

1766-1767                            Widow Sergeant (Mary Riddlesdale)

 

It looks possible that the William Sergeant resident in Wivenhoe from 1743-1750 is the same William Sergeant who was resident in Langham from 1750 onwards.  If so, was he born in or near Wivenhoe, or possibly Elmstead where the parish registers are missing for that period?

 

Summary so far:

It seems very likely that William lived in Wivenhoe from at least 1743-50 and during that time at Elmstead married to Sarah Serjeant, widow (nee Pimm), who bore him a son William, who was baptised in 1743.  Sarah died 18 months later, and William remarries before Oct 1749 when Mary daughter of William & Mary Serjeant is baptised at Wivenhoe.  He then moves to Langham where 6 sons are baptised.

 

How will I prove that this is so?

 

I read an article about Manor Court Rolls written by Rita Harris, a professional genealogist and published in the Essex Family Historian. These Rolls record property transactions, agreements and disagreements, appointment of local officials, deaths of tenants, and inheritance. The best way to check which manors were in your parish of interest is the Manorial Documents Register. 

 

The ones of interest to me are held at the Essex Record Office, and as I am not easily able to get there myself, I commissioned Rita to look at them for me. From her research of the Manor of Wivenhoe she confirms that “Sarah was first married to James Sargent, widowed, and then married to William Sargent”.  However, there was no earlier history of Sargents in Wivenhoe, but in 1758, 1792 and 1797 some property transactions specifically mention “William Sargent, Wheelwright of Langham”! Her research of Langham reveals the properties he rented and owned there, but again no earlier records of Sargents.

 

It seems that William’s parents did not come from Langham or Wivenhoe, but probably from an area near Wivenhoe, possibly Elmstead – where some parish registers are missing/lost.  Searches of more Manor Court Rolls are now needed!

 

 

Microphone diplomacy

Thanks to everyone who wrote in to express their appreciation for the How to share your know-how article in the last issue. I aimed to keep the article as simple as possible to avoid worrying those readers who sometimes struggle with technology – whilst I was conscious of the fact that some of you are still using desktop computers which don’t have a microphone I thought it best to deal with this in a separate article.

 

The good news is that there’s a simple solution which won’t cost you a penny, because it doesn’t require any additional software or hardware – provided you own (or can borrow) a smartphone or tablet.

 

Just follow the instructions in the last issue, but send a copy of the Zoom invitation to the smartphone or tablet. Start the meeting on your computer, then join the meeting on the smartphone or tablet – which you can then use to provide the voiceover.

 

Incidentally, whilst this particular application only makes use of the microphone in the smartphone or tablet, there’s no reason why you can’t use the camera as well (though you might need some sort of stand – you’ll find some examples here). So you could use it to record memories, as suggested in my first newsletter of the month.

 

Note: in case you’re wondering why you couldn’t do the whole thing on a phone or tablet, Zoom only allows local recording on a computer. If you have a Zoom subscription you can store your recording ‘in the cloud’, but it’s an expensive solution if the free basic plan meets your other needs.

 

 

Peter’s Tips

Already this month I’ve explained how, even if your computer doesn’t have a camera or a microphone, you can make use of free Zoom software to record your memories and know-how. So please excuse me for devoting this issue’s Tips column to some memories of my own!

 

Last month I mentioned that my wife and I were watching The Pallisers – the 26-episode 1974 BBC adaptation of Anthony Trollope’s novels which I had recorded (but not watched) when it was reshown in 2014. Watching Anthony Andrews as Lord Silverbridge, and Jeremy Irons as Frank Tregear, it’s crystal clear why they were chosen for the parts of Sebastian Flyte and Charles Ryder when Brideshead Revisited was so memorably brought to our television screens in 1981.

 

The biggest shock of the series was the discovery that episodes 24 and 25 had not been recorded back in 1974 – or rather, the programme that had been recorded was the wrong one. There must have been a last-minute change in the BBC schedule, but whatever the reason, urgent action was required to appease my wife – and fortunately I was able to find the complete DVD set on eBay for £10.99 including postage.

 

Another recent shock was the death of actress Jennifer Wilson at the end of March. Her name might not mean much to you – she appeared mostly on the stage after 1977 – but she played roles in several TV series that I watched in my teens and 20s. The first was Compact, a BBC soap about a glossy magazine that ran from 1962-65 (it was the creation of Hazel Adair and Peter Ling who later came up with Crossroads); then came A Man of Our Times in 1968, a 13-part series in which she appeared alongside George Cole.

 

I must have seen her in Special Branch in 1969, but the role for which she is most remembered – and not just by me – came a few years later, when she played Jennifer Kingsley in The Brothers. This drama about a family-owned haulage firm ran for 7 series from 1972-1976 and the last series had just started when my mother died – in fact, it was the last thing I ever spoke to my mother about.

 

Her parents were Frederick Lohr and Irene Morgan, but her parents divorced and her mother married Herbert Wilson, whose surname Jennifer took – it can’t have been much fun going through World War 2 with a German name.

 

Frederick Lohr had been born John Frederick Carl Lohr, the son of Conrad Lohr, an immigrant German pork butcher, but by 1921 he was using Frederick as his first name:

 

 © Crown Copyright Image reproduced by courtesy of The National Archives, London, England. Used by kind permission of Findmypast.

 

Note that his father, Conrad, was a naturalized British subject – the London Gazette dated 3rd June 1910 confirms that he had taken the oath on 2nd May.

 

In the 1939 Register Jennifer and her younger sister Christina were living with their mother’s sister, Hilda, and her husband in Loughton, Essex:

 

© Crown Copyright Image reproduced by courtesy of The National Archives, London, England. Used by kind permission of Findmypast.

 

Note that Jennifer’s new surname of Wilson is shown against her register entry, but not against her sister’s entry – that’s because Christina sadly died at the age of 4 in early 1941. Did her death in some way contribute to the break-up of their parents’ marriage, I wonder?

 

This newsletter began with articles about the marriage regulations that came into force last year, so it’s perhaps appropriate to speculate what names would have appeared in the marriage register had Jennifer Wilson remarried (under the new regulations) after her second husband died in 2021? Would she have named both her father and her stepfather – and under what name would her mother have been recorded (I believe she married for the third time a few years before she died)?

 

Stop Press

This is where any major updates and corrections will be highlighted - if you think you've spotted agn error first reload the newsletter (press Ctrl-F5) then check again before writing to me, in case someone else has beaten you to it......

 

 

Description: Description: peter_signature

 

Peter Calver

Founder, LostCousins

 

© Copyright 2022 Peter Calver

 

 

Please do NOT copy or republish any part of this newsletter without permission - which is only granted in the most exceptional circumstances. However, you MAY link to this newsletter or any article in it without asking for permission - though why not invite other family historians to join LostCousins instead, since standard membership (which includes the newsletter), is FREE?

 

Many of the links in this newsletter and elsewhere on the website are affiliate links – if you make a purchase after clicking a link you may be supporting LostCousins (though this depends on your choice of browser, the settings in your browser, and any browser extensions that are installed). Thanks for your support!