ESSEX-UK-L ArchivesArchiver > ESSEX-UK > 2009-07 > 1249035482
From: Firebird <>
Subject: Re: [Ess] Marriage - Help - Re Parker
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2009 11:18:02 +0100
Dick Mathews wrote:
> Hello Ruth
> Curious how some requests to the Essex list garner loads of replies,
> while others don't get very many!
> In the 1851 census William is 38 and Mary Ann is 36, and the oldest
> child listed is Jane aged 11. (Presumably you noticed also George, born
> Norton, described as 'brother' but more likely actually a brother in law?)
> The 1851 census was taken on 30th March, so Jane should have been born
> on 30 March 1841 or up to almost a year earlier - not as you suggest in
> 1842. So she should also appear in the 1841 census which was taken on
> 6th June. Also, given William and Mary Ann's ages, I would have
> expected them to have been married in the mid to late 1830s. There is
> no entry on FreeBMD for a William Parker whose bride could have been
> Mary Parker before the late 1840s, and there are none in geographically
> likely locations. This originally led me to suspect that they were
> married before the start of civil registration on 1st July 1837. But
> William and Mary Ann's marriage is actually in the IGI. They were
> married on 30th July 1837 at St James, Westminster, and so should appear
> on FreeBMD for the very first quarter of the new registration system.
> The problem is that the original index pages were handwritten on vellum,
> and before the withdrawal of the physical index volumes (referred to by
> other Essex listers a couple of days ago) the GRO started to produce
> typed copies - and as inevitably happens errors occurred in the
> transcribing. There is an entry on FreeBMD for a marriage Sep 1837 St
> James Westminster where the volume and page is shown as 1 114, but there
> is no Mary Ann Parker listed for that reference. But there is a Mary
> Ann Parker listed for St James Westminster with a reference of 1 44. A
> note at
> says that the page number should be between 91 and 135, while 44 should
> refer to St George, Hanover Square, and 144 should belong to St Martin
> in the Fields.
A check of the images on FreeBMD (if available) would sort that out.
Otherwise checking on FindMyPast, FamilyRelatives or Ancestry would do so.
However, having had a look at the images, the reference for James is
clearly vol 1 page 101 and that for Mary Ann is equally clearly vol 1
page 44 which means that James and Mary Ann did NOT marry one another.
> I'm not sure given these discrepancies how you would order a certificate
> from the GRO - especially via the internet, as you are in Canada.
You either order on one name, either James or Mary Ann and give the
reference as per FreeBMD for the relevant person. Or order on both
giving the reference as 1 **4. The GRO are well aware of FreeBMD and
the anomalies. They are also aware that some of the images are not as
clear as they might be so they will do a check.