Request for temple record help in finding an ancestor's name.
I am trying to find the name of the wife of John Walmsley KHNH-4MP. I have only his name but I have the names and birth dates of 4 of his children, Ann, Thomas, Margaret and Isabel. I have found sources verifying the relationship of these children to their father. Each of the children show that they were sealed to their parents on Oct 28 and Oct 29, 1969 in the Logan, UT temple. I do not have the name of John Walmsley's, it is not on any of the sources, but perhaps it is in the temple records. Margaret Walmsley is my 5th great grandmother, and John Walmsley is my 6th great grandfather. Since the sealing to parents of the children is done, perhaps there is information and John and his wife that is currently not available in the family search database?
I appreciate any assistance you can offer.
Note that for Margaret, the sealing shows that it was to different parents than the current, but for the other three children, the sealing is tied to John Walmsley and his unknow wife.
Private message sent to guest with an update on the issue.0
I notice FamilySearch has more historical records to attach. See https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:NPBD-52H
Also, you may want to work a bit on records of other persons with surname Walmsley in that same parish.0
@guymonmd2 did that help?0
Children could be sealed to their father and an unknown mother, for example, to "Henry Smith and Mother." That appears to be what happened here so it is highly unlikely the temple sealing record has any additional information.
Margaret's ordinance page looks a bit different as a side effect of merging K8HX-29J into the current Margaret. The sealing with the blue box was probably associated with the deleted record and it may be the fact that K8HX-29J did not have her mother listed created the problem. You might be able to change how this shows by undoing the merge then redoing it so K8HX-29J is the surviving record. None of the other three children have any merges done so that is probably why their ordinance page displays correctly.0