ESSEX-UK-L Archives

Archiver > ESSEX-UK > 2009-07 > 1249064806


From: "Ruth Meloche" <>
Subject: Re: [Ess] Marriage - Help - Re Parker
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2009 14:26:46 -0400
References: <5060D3C14007415E812C5DE01432B23A@RuthPC> <4A721F7D.8020905@blueyonder.co.uk><4A72C4DA.9070002@gmail.com> <4A732E73.2010807@blueyonder.co.uk>
In-Reply-To: <4A732E73.2010807@blueyonder.co.uk>


My Gr. Grandmother married a George Parker, her name was Mary Ann Parker,
and my grandmother said they were cousins. On the marriage certificate it
says that her father was William Parker (a Brewery Servant) and that is why
I was able to find them on the 1951 census. As there were several Mary Ann
Parker
Birth certificates I sent for the birth certificate of a younger daughter
Listed on the 1951 Census and it said her parents were William Parker (a
Brewer Servant) and Mary Ann Parker, formerly Parker. That is why I wondered
if they too were cousins.

There is a FHC very close to me so that will be my next step.

Thank you to all.

Ruth-Canada


-----Original Message-----
From: Dick Mathews [mailto:]
Sent: Friday, July 31, 2009 1:49 PM
To: Firebird
Cc: ; Ruth Meloche
Subject: Re: [Ess] Marriage - Help - Re Parker

There are three points at issue here.

Firstly, did a man named William Parker marry a woman named Mary Ann
Parker (who may or may not have been related to him in some way); and
secondly, if so, is it possible to obtain documentary proof of the
marriage. Thirdly, are the central records accurate?

As to the first point, there is an entry in the IGI which is not a
patron submission but is an 'Extracted marriage record for locality
listed in the record'. The source is M147517, Parish registers for St.
James' Church, Westminster, 1685-1881, Microfilm of original records in
the Westminster City Library, Victoria Library no.: 494/14-47.

Clearly the most sensible course of action for Ruth is to view the film
copy of this register at a local FHC, assuming she is within reach of
one. Marriages for 1833-1841 would appear to be on film 'FHL BRITISH
Film 1042320'.

Whether that marriage entry actually refers to the people Ruth is
descended from is a matter for judgement and interpretation - but the
fathers' names should enable a check to be made to see if people with
those names were baptised in an appropriate timeframe at Ongar and
Norton Mandeville.

Given that a primary tenet of all research is to consult original
records wherever possible, this is preferable to paying to obtain a copy
from the GRO.

For those who have never read it, I strongly recommend the privately
produced book 'A Comedy of Errors' by Michael Whitfield Foster, which
sets out in exhaustive detail how the civil registration system
functioned, particularly in respect to marriages, and the numerous ways
in which the central indexes could become corrupt, and fail to reflect
the truth.

I'm afraid Firebird's comment "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." is not the only conclusion possible - not least
because the groom's forename is not James, but William. As I wrote
previously, William's reference is 1 114, and Mary's is 1 44. But the
image available to the FreeBMD indexer is no doubt the same as the one I
can view via Ancestry, and it is a typed copy of what was originally a
handwritten page. The style of writing at the time would quite easily
allow the figures for a Roman 1 followed by the mainly vertical strokes
for '1', '1', '4' to be mis-read as '4' '4' - or vice versa.

But this is academic - Ruth's best course is to look at the original.

Dick Mathews




This thread: