Marriage registration
Best Answer
-
On my list @EleanorB. I should point out that this is not a marriage registration, but the church record of the marriage. Marriage civil registration only began in England in 1837. This record may not have the names of parents.
1
Answers
-
The access message for that film says it is available at FamilySearch centers and affiliate libraries. You can find one of those on the Locations page: https://www.familysearch.org/centers/locations/.
2 -
@EleanorB If you do not have a FamilySearch Center (FSC) or Affiliate Library nearby, I'll be visiting mine one day this coming week and can retrieve a copy.
It appears there are 2 versions - 1 is a Bishop's Transcript.
3 -
Wow... Áine that is very kind of you! I really would appreciate that - my closest is over an hour away! My main reason for research is to establish parental names. Very best regards - Eleanor
0 -
Yes of course it is! Sorry. My mistake... Thank you once again. Your support is very much appreciated.
0 -
I realise no help with the "finer detail" that might be seen on the original marriage entry, but are you aware that there are profiles for each of these individuals on Family Tree? Samuel's record is M9CG-DCD and Kezia's M9CG-DC5. Parents names are shown here, but you always need to confirm the evidence provided there.
It appears that images for both banns and actual marriage records are on the https://www.ancestry.co.uk website, so I'd take advantage of the kind offer of @Áine Ní Donnghaile, assuming you do not have an Ancestry subscription. However, parents' names would only appear if any of them were witnesses to the marriage event, so I'd definitely check out the Family Tree profiles, too.
1 -
@Paul W FYI - it appears this is another example of the Bishop's Transcript being marked as a duplicate for removal. I'll know more when I retrieve both copies.
1 -
@Adrian Bruce1 you may be interested in this thread/these records in light of the issue with duplicates that aren't.
1 -
@EleanorB Please check your messages for the 2 record copies. The envelope at the top right should have a red number indicating you have a message.
0 -
Áine - you are an absolute star! Thank you so, so much... Best wishes - Eleanor
0 -
You're welcome.
0 -
Unfortunately it didn't help much... Hoped that parents names would be included... Hey-Ho... will continue the quest!
Thank you for your support - Eleanor
0 -
You're welcome.
English church records of that time rarely include the names of parents.
1 -
As advised previously, these records never do specifically name parents. You have not acknowledged whether you have checked out the Family Tree records (references shown above), which do name the parents. Of course that detail should be verified, but I feel there is a good chance it is accurate, so please examine existing Family Tree information, if you have not already done so.
1 -
Sorry @Paul W - I really not as good with this site as I should be so forgive my ignorance.
The matter is that there were 3 Samuel Carr's born in very close geographically & chronologically to each other. 1801 John Carr & Abigale Hide; 1804 Nicholas Carr & Elizabeth ?; 180 again John Carr & Abigale ? ;
So which Samuel is 'mine'?
Did John Carr & Abigale Hide have 2 sons named Samuel - perhaps the first one died?
Are John & Nicholas related? Is Samuel a 'family' name that brothers named for (maybe) their father?
I have access to both Ancestry & Find My Past. I am very confident about Samuel & Kezia Carr & had John Carr & Abigale Hide identified as Samuel's parents until another genealogist brought the alternative to my attention. I am now attempting to confirm parentage.
Do you have any other suggestions?
Thank you - I appreciate your advice...
0 -
I have been examining the details added to Samuel's Family Tree profile and would conclude the current parents are probably not correct. The 1851 census shows a Clerkenwell birth around 1806 and the 1841 census a birth between 1804 & 1808. Unfortunately, I can only access the index in Find My Past without having a subscription, but this shows a 1804 (1803 birth) non-conformist baptism of a Samuel Carr at Clerkenwell. I added a father NICHOLAS to my search and this was a match to that record.
It is not always possible to rely on ages given in the census, however, as illustrated by the c1805 birth shown for Kezia in the 1851 census, when it appears she was born closer to 1811. Also (back to Samuel), one might have expected him to have named one of his children after his father (Nicholas), but that practice was not always the case, even in the 19th century.
Incidentally, I have added an 1871 census record to Samuel's sources and 1841 census records to Kezia and their children (who are found in Samuel's household that year).
Generally, my advice would be to contact (by the internal messaging service) the person most recently working on these records - catherinecarr5 - but I can't be too sure about the accuracy of her searches, especially as she has added the 1801 birth (father John) to Samuel, when I can't see any real evidence for that.
In short, a puzzle like this has sometimes taken me anything between a day and a year (even more!) to work on, before being completely satisfied I have the connected all the correct ancestors and relatives. On the options you have suggested (above), are you sure the 1807 event (parents John & Abigail) is not really the 1801 baptism that has been indexed incorrectly? (I can only find the 1801 and 1804 baptisms in the Find My Past index - nothing for 1807 - and the figures "1" and "7" are often confused.)
Please take your time here as there are probably some "stumbling blocks" to be overcome before you can make a definite decision on the identity of "your" Samuel Carr. In particular, you need to familiarise yourself with the features of Family Tree: examining the "change logs" (click on "Show all" under "Latest Changes") to see what other users have done / assumed in the past. Also, try to visit other websites, especially in an attempt to find missing census records for 1861. Sometimes a burial record can eliminate one of the "options" - so if (for instance) you were to locate an infant burial for the Samuel baptised 1801 to John, you could be more certain of the 1804 baptism being the correct one for your Samuel!
Best wishes with the searches - just remember this requires patience and an open mind about all possible options - as well as (frequently) a lot of hard work!
1 -
Just one further example, to show just how difficult it can be to establish identities. I did a search just now for a "K* Carr", born in the 1803-1817 period and resident in Middlesex between 1841 & 1891. The screenshot illustrates my results.
The 1841 & 1851 results definitely relate to "your" Kezia, and the 1871 one probably does. (That individual is shown as "married" and a Samuel Carr is found living fairly close by.)
The 1851 and 1861 results would appear to relate to the same Kezia (born in Somerset 1813-1815 period), but a more detailed check shows the Kezia found in 1881 was married to a John Carr, Ironmaker, whereas the one found in 1861 was married to a Charles Carr, Shoemaker. Perhaps these are the same person - 1st husband died, then later possibly married his brother? These are the kind of conundrums you will likely have to untangle in your research. (Just an example here - no suggestion of any connection to your Kezia.)
2 -
Success! (Well, apparently.) I have now found what is almost certainly the FamilySearch 1861 census record for the family. However, CARR has been indexed as CORR, Kezia(h) as MERIAH and daughter Laura (?) as ROSALINE. I will leave it for you to attach to the respective Family Tree profiles, or come back if you want help with this. As to the record itself, it shows Samuel with an c1803 birth and "Keziah" / Meriah as c1812 (the whole family with Clerkenwell birthplaces).
See https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:Q2ML-MMZM
2 -
Fortunately, I have a bit of time on my hands today, do dug a bit further and found the below:
Firstly, at https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:QPQC-M47J there is a link to an image showing this Samuel Carr (parents John & Abigail) died in 1879 in South Africa.
Secondly, a Family Tree profile (M9MK-C6V) has been created for the Samuel Carr whose parents were Nicholas and Elizabeth, Unfortunately, to confuse matters, a user has added a Samuel Watson Carr (K2YX-H8Z) as his "sibling". However, there is no evidence for a 1804-07 death of M9MK-C6V, or for a relationship between Samuel Watson Carr (died 1875 Pittsburgh) and these parents. The Find a Grave record** does indicate a father named Nicholas, but civil records suggest an 1813 Pittsburgh birth for Samuel Watson Carr! (See K2YX-H8Z Sources).
In summary, I believe Samuel Watson Carr needs to be removed from this family and that Samuel Carr M9MK-C6V (who does have baptism / birth sources attached to this profile) is your family member.
If you agree with this conclusion, you will need to detach the relationship of M9CG-DCD with the incorrect parents John Carr & Abilgail Hide, then merge him with M9MK-C6V.
All very confusing if you are not too experienced in working within the Family Tree program, but I am reluctant to carry out the "necessary" work myself, as I could have made a wrong deduction, so I think this work is better performed by you, or a close family member. Nevertheless, please return here if you require further advice.
** A further Find A Grave record shows sisters Eleanor Matilda Carr and Sarah Carr Bean being apparently buried at Pittsburgh, but I think these are probably just monumental inscriptions and do not confirm they were actually buried at that particular cemetery. (See https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/89517238/elenor-matilda-carr#view-photo=63082177)
1 -
On second thoughts, I would be very wary about merging M9CG-DCD with M9MK-C6V at present. The profile for Nicholas Carr K2YX-CP5 appears to include many errors, or details without firm evidence. One cannot be sure of the death / burial details added for his children and a lot more research needs to be carried out on this entire branch to establish the true facts. I still believe Samuel Carr (born 1803 Clerkenwell) did have parents named Nicholas & Elizabeth and at least some of these siblings are correct, but cannot see the evidence for much of the further detail that has been added for them.
1 -
So now I am more confused than ever! Nicholas and Elizabeth Carr and their children Sarah (Bean), Eleanor Matilda, Nicholas junior, Elizabeth AND Samuel (Watson) Carr certainly have memorials in Allegheny cemetery, but it is not 100% sure whether they are all actually buried there. As mentioned earlier, Samuel Watson Carr has details attached to his death that would otherwise separate him from the rest of the Carr family. On one document for his 1875 death he is shown as being about 62 and born in Pittsburgh, yet on another record an 1802 birth is indexed, yet his memorial inscription (partly illegible) has been indexed with a 4 October 1807 birth. (Incidentally, I cannot identify Samuel Watson Carr in any US census record.)
Whatever the exact detail, this certainly does not match the Samuel Carr who in found (occupation Labourer) in the Clerkenwell / London area in 1841, 1851 & 1861 census records.
As he definitely does not appear to be the son of John and Abigail, either (that individual died in South Africa), I can only conclude this is a still further, yet to be identified individual, also born at Clerkenwell in the early 1800s.
Sorry if I have provided you with an even bigger headache over this, Eleanor, but this is all very difficult to analyse.
0