Marriage records

Having checked the census in 1881 it says 'married' by each of their names but I suppose you could say that for the sake of appearances! I have wondered if they ever actually married. Maybe they were married to other people and decided to live together and not get divorced from their partners? Oh dear my mind is going into overdrive.

As for Tim's suggestion!!! Now that is interesting, although I do have Charles Stephen Ward as married to Elizabeth Sarah Townsend, and indeed one of Charles William Ward's sisters had Townsend as her middle name. Elizabeth is also in the 1861 census as Charles S's wife. So I think that was just a census error. Still I will follow that up and double check.

Just a thought, if they got married, where will the original records be found? I mean it could just be possible that the online details have been missed out, although missed out in seemingly all internet sources does seem a bit strange. I think if they did get married then somewhere the surnames may be the root of the problem. I can't even find any banns records.

 

If one of them WAS married it would have been very hard (verging on practically impossible) to get a divorce in those days. Up till the 1920s a woman could only divorce a husband for well-substantiated adultery PLUS incest/sodomy/cruelty. A husband could divorce for 'just' adultery if it could be proved and if there was no collusion (which could be interpreted as the wife not objecting hard enough to being divorced) And for some time after the rules were 'relaxed' you couldn't divorce for adultery if you had committed adultery yourself.
If you were in an unhappy marriage you either stuck with it or moved elswhere with a new partner and made out that you were married.

 

Tim has raised a good point, I had a quick look for them in 1911 and could not find them, do you know when they died ?

 

Charles Ward is there in 1911 at 64 Swaton Road, Bow but as a widower and he has given himself as Mr C Ward and his two children (I think) as C Ward jun & E Ward. Luckily he has mistakenly given the details of his "present" marriage - married 34 years, 7 children, 2 dead, 5 living. Ref: RG14 1710 Sch 171.

Pauline

 

so..notionally married about 1877. Looks like a consistent story - but is it just a cover story?
Does this make the 1881 child premarital? (although they could all be pre- or extra-marital, on current evidence)

 

Wow Pauline! I hunted and couldn't find them either, just like Heather, so now I am off to check it out. Thank you. The address is certainly correct and the C and E are for his son Charles and wife Elizabeth.How on earth did you find them? The marriage year is roughly as I thought, seeing as I dont seem to be able to find their eldest daughter Clara's birth record either . The census suggested 1776 for her birth but I did look around that year too. I think I just got too boggled with it all, and tired, and then couldn't find anything in the end.

 

I hope so Alexander. It certainly appears to be crumbling! Everyone is so helpful and we are chipping away at this bit by bit....

Watch this space!

 

I agree that the C Ward jun is son Charles but is the E Ward Charles's wife or is it daughter Ethel? There is no relationship shown for C or E, the "jun" gives it away that it is son Charles but do we know if Ethel married or when she died? I've looked over the previous posts and there doesn't seem to be any mention of either fact.

 

I think you mean 1876, you are boggled Ha Ha !! I looked up boggle on Google
1. To hesitate as if in fear or doubt.
2. To shy away or be overcome with fright or astonishment:
It's ok Carla, unboggle yourself, we are getting there.

 

The 'obvious' answer would seem to be that E is the daughter. She comes after the son, which is an unusual place to put a wife. Perhaps Carla's family knowledge will cut in here - is 23 the right age for a daughter begining with E? and is there any tradition of Charles taking a second wife/partner 31 years younger than himself?

Pauline's technique looks like an application of the old rule 'less is more'. In this case, don't assume Charles will be down as recognisably 'Charles'. [I have found relatives with completely the wrong surnames, for whatever reason- in one case the head of the household had evidently got fed up of writing down the surname, and some of the people well down the list were on Ancestry as just the Christian name]

The question remains as to the marriage &/or birth of the first child. I'm pretty certain these couldn't be registered with the initials - though babies certainly can be registered without a name (nowadays, at any rate). A litle more lateral thinking and that wall may collapse.

 

In my experience, when a widow or widower filled in information about their "present" marriage for the 1911 census, the number of years they said they'd been married could refer to how long they'd been married when the spouse died rather than how long they would have been married for in 1911 had he/she survived.

So they could have married about 1877 or it could have been 34 years before Sarah's death - which was presumably some time between census days in 1901 and 1911.

Either way it could still have been a cover story.

Pauline

 

Derrr indeed that is what I meant *sigh*

 

I think the most likely birth entry for Clara would be Clara Louisa Ward, Dec Qtr 1875 in the Poplar registration district. This would be consistent with the 1907 marriage of Clara Louisa Ward & Oliver Biggs at All Hallows, Bromley by Bow, where her father is given as Charles William Ward, packer and the witnesses are Charles William Ward & Ethel Ward.

Pauline

 

Looking at the census you will see a ditto mark under the 'mar' next to C Ward, (son) , along the line from E Ward and at that time Charles the son was married to an Elizabeth so that is why I believ it to be her. I cant find Elizabeth anywhere else. That isnt to say it is definately her but looking at the faint words on the 1911 census I think it is. Saying that I thought I had found Charles (son) in an 1911 census married to an Elizabeth. Elizabeth's maiden name, Pretty, and birth records, showed her born 1876 so that means that the E Ward in our census above would be Ethel instead. More research needed here I believe and probably only a marriage certificate will sort this?

 

Well done Pauline, well found !!

 

Carla, do you have the marriage details of all the children? I see that Clara Louisa married in 1907 (as Pauline found) also Emma (Emily Elizabeth) married in 1898, Edward Albert Alexander married in 1902 and Ethel Eleanor married in 1918, haven't found Charles yet but we are chipping away at it, the brick wall I mean.