Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Genealogy
Original poster

Any social historians around? Re marriage

34 replies

SingaporeSlinky · 27/09/2023 15:15

I’ve traced some ancestors back to a marriage in 1821, in Derbyshire. Their ages aren’t listed at the time, but in the census of 1841 I’ve found them with the same names, husband is now 35 and wife is 40, so about 15/16 and 20/21 at the time of marriage, which seems unusual. The children, all born after they married, all have the mother’s maiden name.

Can anyone think why this might be?

I wondered if something to do with illegitimacy when I found their daughter’s marriage certificate, but they definitely married before the children came along, and clearly the wife didn’t change her name. On their daughter’s marriage cert, he is also listed as the father.

Any thoughts?

OP posts:
TressiliansStone · 27/09/2023 15:23

In the 1841 census ages of under-15s were rounded down to the nearest five.

So your "35-yr-old" could have been 39 years 11 months old. This would put him at a very typical 20-ish years old at his marriage.

TressiliansStone · 27/09/2023 15:28

When you say the wife didn't change her name, do you mean she and the children appear in the 1841 census with one surname, and the man appears in the same census with a different surname?

Because if so I'd suggest the adults in this census aren't a couple.

In the 1841 census relationship is not given. So when there is an extended family living together, or lodgers or visitors, it can be hard to untangle exactly what's going on.

Elefant1 · 27/09/2023 15:29

The first thing you should know is that in the 1841 census ages were supposed to be rounded down to the nearest multiple of 5 for everyone over the age of 15 (I say supposed as it didn't always happen). So the husband could have been 39 and his age would have been rounded down to 35.
Secondly people were often not sure about their exact age, it didn't matter so much back then so ages are often out by a few years due to this (and that's before we consider those that just plain lied about their age!)
I think there is a reasonable chance that they were at least late teens when they married. Do they appear on the 1851 census so you can compare ages?

TressiliansStone · 27/09/2023 15:30

ages of under-15s over-15s were rounded down

Elefant1 · 27/09/2023 15:34

If you would like to post the info you have on them I would be happy to have a look, I'm waiting for paint to dry at the moment 😁

Original poster
SingaporeSlinky · 27/09/2023 16:08

Thanks so much for the replies. That’s really interesting about the ages being rounded down. I think I have them again in 1851, and they’re now listed as 48 and 52, husband and wife, she now has his surname.

They are James Grainger (sometimes Granger) and Anne Goodwin (sometimes Ann) and children John, Elizabeth, Thomas, James, William and Mary.

In the 1851 census, eldest son John is now 24 and living next door to his parents with his wife and children under the name Grainger. This is in Codnor & Loscoe, Derbyshire.

So either my research is mixed up or they were being a bit flexible with surnames.

OP posts:
Elefant1 · 27/09/2023 17:33

Having a look but it is very confusing! Just to add to the confusion I have found the marriage of a Mary Goodwin in 1864, she is aged 20 and a spinster but her father's name is James Grainger 🤔

Elefant1 · 27/09/2023 17:52

I have looked in the birth indexes on the GRO for the births of William b. 1840 and Mary b. 1843 (the 2 children still at home in 1851). The only records I could find was under the Goodwin surname but with mother's maiden name as Boam.

Original poster
SingaporeSlinky · 27/09/2023 17:58

Yes so that’s their youngest child Mary, born about 1844 so age 20 is correct for a marriage in 1864. So again, she’s got the mother’s maiden name. But when son James got married, he used Grainger as his surname, but he was listed as a Goodwin in the earlier census along with his mother and all siblings.

I don’t get it!

OP posts:
Original poster
SingaporeSlinky · 27/09/2023 18:04

Oh sorry I hadn’t seen your last message. I don’t know where Boam comes into it, Anne Goodwin was listed as a spinster at the time of the wedding, so that’s definitely her maiden name. The wedding was witnessed by a Henry Goodwin, so potentially her father or brother.

OP posts:
ShowOfHands · 27/09/2023 18:09

Have you got their marriage certificate? I know you say definitely married, so presume yes.

I had a similar issue but it turned out that despite being listed as married on the census, buried as man and wife etc, the couple in question never actually married.

Elefant1 · 27/09/2023 18:16

Do you know of any children born between their marriage and John's birth in 1827? That's a long gap with no births.

Original poster
SingaporeSlinky · 27/09/2023 18:24

Yes I have a photo of the marriage record, in the parish of Denby, Derbyshire by banns, on 29th January 1821
They are listed as spinster and bachelor, no ages given.

I only have the children from the census, so yes a gap of around 6 years after marriage which I guess is unusual for the time. I will try the GRO index but I’ve never been able to get my head around it.

Looking at other trees as hints, others have listed Henry Goodwin as her father and then Anne’s baptism as 11th March 1802 but I can’t see any source for that.

OP posts:
Elefant1 · 27/09/2023 18:31

There is a christening record on Ancestry 11/3/1802 in Denby, Ann daughter of Henry and Lydia Goodwin.

MMBaranova · 27/09/2023 18:35

If the marriage was in England in 1821, they are covered by the Parochial Registers Act of 1812, which is church based and not centralised. There were standardised requirements for how entries should be made. Not that this was uniformly followed, especially away from Anglicanism.

Original poster
SingaporeSlinky · 27/09/2023 18:36

Thank you, yes that’s the one. But I can’t figure out where it’s come from? Can you see a photo attached?

OP posts:
Elefant1 · 27/09/2023 18:59

Yes there is a photo attached to the record I looked at.
Ok so this could be a coincidence but it is interesting. There is a possible death record for Ann (Grainger) in 1859, then James appears to be married to a Sarah, born Nottingham, on the 1861 census. So I was trying to find that marriage and was looking in the Nottingham area as nothing in Derbyshire. While searching I find the marriage of James Granger, Widower to Ann Goodwin, Widow in 14 Sept 1851 in Selston, Nottinghamshire. He is a collier, father John Granger, her father Joshua Smith. Residence at time of marriage Codnor Park.

Original poster
SingaporeSlinky · 27/09/2023 19:10

Thank you, I’ll take another look for the baptism.

Oh that’s definitely worth looking into, thanks so much for your help! I’ve only been using Ancestry for a few weeks so I’m not the best at finding info. I’m definitely finding lots of errors from other people’s tree ‘hints’ but I’m making sure to cross check everything from census to marriage, to baptisms etc. That’s why this one didn’t make sense, because working up from the children, I couldn’t understand the surname being from the mother. But then the early census seems to confirm, initially at least, she was listing all children with her name, despite being married.

OP posts:
Elefant1 · 27/09/2023 19:15

There is the marriage of Henry Goodwin to Ann Smith 2nd September 1816 in Denby.
I am wondering if there are 2 Ann Goodwins, how about this- Ann Smith marries Henry Goodwin in 1816, Anne Goodwin (possibly sister to Henry Goodwin) marries James Granger in 1821 (note there is a Henry Goodwin as witness). James and Ann Smith/Goodwin then leave their spouses and get together but can't marry as they are both already married. Once their spouses both die they marry but a distance from home as they have been living together for years.

Original poster
SingaporeSlinky · 27/09/2023 19:28

Ha! If only it were that interesting!

OP posts:
Elefant1 · 27/09/2023 19:34

I was serious, I think it is that interesting! You have to remember that divorce wasn't possible back then so living together and pretending to be married wasn't unusual. It explains why in 1841 Ann is calling herself Goodwin, it's because she is married to Henry Goodwin not James.
I have been doing family history for nearly 20 years both for myself and other people and it is amazing what turns up!

MMBaranova · 27/09/2023 19:37

Not sure whether others can see the image properly unless subscribed to Ancestry. Stray things from Elefant1's 17.28 post:

Bachelor and Spinster

Consent of Parents means at least one parent on each side alive.

Both illiterate.

The last is important in that any subsequent documents are being filled in by others for them, increasing the chances of spelling variations, mishearing and so on.

Any social historians around? Re marriage
Elefant1 · 27/09/2023 19:44

Thanks MMBaranova. It is a shame they are illiterate because we can't compare signatures.
The next thing to do would be to try and find the deaths of Henry Goodwin and James's first wife Anne Granger but I need to get on with some painting now!