Where else might I find UK marriage records?
Hi, I have temporary CORVID related access to genealogy paysites and Ancestry has a tree which gives a date to a marriage I have been trying to find for years; James Symington Shortt to Ann Harvey on May 14th, 1842 in Kent. It also has a DoB for the bride, which I've never been able to find anywhere. Unfortunately my limited access won't allow me to contact the owner, but I've scoured the records on Ancestry, FS, FMP, Freereg, and FreeBMD and those newspapers of the day that I can see on line and none have anything to confirm this. I've tried searches just for James or Ann. So my question is; if it's accurate, where could a post 1837 marriage record be found other than any of the places I've looked? James was a soldier, but that shouldn't have stopped his marriage being recorded by the GRO, and it doesn't appear under military searches. The Ancestry tree has a lot of correct information on it, but doesn't give a clear source for these 'facts', it just says Ancestry Family Trees for the source citation, and the link takes me to a sign in/up page, so I guess my library account doesn't stretch to that info. Thanks
Answers
-
.
If it is another User's/Patron's "Tree" in "Ancestry_com", unless it is "Sourced"; then, it means very little ...
.
In fact, it means NOTHING, if you cannot find "Evidence" (ie. Proof) of such ... which it seems that you have not been able to find any (and, your research seems to be thorough).
.
Plus, if it "... says Ancestry Family Trees ..."; then, it means ABSOLUTELY "Nothing" - especially, if such "Trees" are "UNSOURCED".
.
Provided you have exhausted the variant "Spellings" of the Names, unless it is 'critical' to your research, move on, you can always come back to it at a later date when the "Family History Centres" of the Church (or, Affiliate Libraries) are "Open" once again, following the relaxing of restrictions due to the Worldwide "COVID-19" Pandemic.
.
Just my thoughts.
.
Now ...
That said ...
.
It took me a couple of goes ... I am persistent ...
.
I think I found it; but, it was NOT in 1842, a little earlier; and, the Names were slightly different ...
.
Free BDM
https://www.freebmd.org.uk/cgi/search.pl
.
Event: Marriage
Time Period: Second Quarter ( April; May; June) in 1839
Place ( Registration District ): Eastry, Kent, England
Volume: 5
Page: 197
Parties:
.
SHORTT, James Lymington
https://www.freebmd.org.uk/cgi/information.pl?r=2154424:8540&d=bmd_1591169490
.
[ You will note the "Note" added later to the above record. ]
.
HARVEY, Mary
https://www.freebmd.org.uk/cgi/information.pl?scan=1&r=2128375:8483&d=bmd_1591169490
.
I hope this helps.
.
Brett
.
0 -
Yes, I quite see your point, but as I said, they have a lot of stuff right on that tree, fairly obscure records from Canada and India which someone might not think to look for, so why would they put something on that is not accurate. Mind you, they have given James and Ann a son they couldn't have had, and missed other children they did. Even if they copied it from another Ancestry tree, which I guess is the case, that tree must have got it from somewhere, I just thought someone might suggest another source. In fact, James had been married to Ann's sister so they really shouldn't have been allowed to marry and we always assumed they didn't. They went to India around this date and I suspect she left as Miss Harvey and arrived as Mrs Shortt. I suppose they might have wed on the voyage when nobody was around to raise an objection.
0 -
Sorry, somehow I only saw the first part of your reply. Thanks for looking. Sadly, that marriage has the right groom but the wrong bride. As I wrote since, James had married Ann's sister Mary Harvey who died shortly afterwards and it's feasible that there was another marriage in 1842. This isn't the only time Symington gets transcribed as Lymington, and the second T gets left off Shortt, which makes searching newspapers nigh on impossible as every 'short', ie not a name, is highlighted.
I've just about done all I can with the tree and was just taking the opportunity to check while I can see records at home; one or two new records have been added, which was nice to find. James and his father and uncle had extremely interesting lives - unlike endless lines of Ag Labs which make up most of my tree, so they have been the centre of attention and it would be good to know whether that marriage ever took place.
0 -
I wonder if there is anything in the Research Wiki that may be of help to you:
https://www.familysearch.org/wiki/en/United_Kingdom
0 -
.
Having that new insight ...
.
For starters ...
.
For the later "Marriage" ...
.
Have you tried?:
.
Families in British India Society (FIBIS)
.
National Library (UK)
India Office Family History Search
https://indiafamily.bl.uk/UI/Home.aspx
.
'FamilySearch' "Wiki"
Families in British India Society 1600 to 1947
https://www.familysearch.org/wiki/en/Families_in_British_India_Society_1600_to_1947
.
National Archives of India
http://nationalarchives.nic.in/
.
'FamilySearch' "Wiki"
India Genealogy
https://www.familysearch.org/wiki/en/India_Genealogy
.
You may find something there ...
.
I hope this helps.
.
Brett
.
ps: In my Wife's Ancestral lines there is an individual/person (through Marriage) who was Born in India (ie. British East Indies, part) who has "Symington" as a 'Middle' name - not uncommon.
.
We have used the above "Links" with some good results.
.
0 -
Thanks Brett, I've tried all those places, but my problem is that the Ancestry tree gives a marriage in Kent on an exact date and I was wondering whether there was any chance there could have been such a marriage that isn't recorded in the regular places, and not just something private like the family bible, though there is a very old and very extensive manuscript Harvey family tree that has James's first marriage but not a second. James's first marriage was widely reported in the papers, his father in law was an admiral, but perhaps this dodgy second marriage would have been kept quiet. Our Symington name came from a Canadian relative.
0 -
.
No problems worth a try; but, if you have tried those "British East India" references, without any luck; then, that SECOND Marriage does sound a 'bit dodgy'.
.
As to "... any chance there could have been such a marriage that isn't recorded in the regular places ...", always possible [ never impossible - as mistakes are made - I have found "Definite" ERRORS in the ( Government ) "Indexes" of "Civil Registration" records, that I reported, which I supported with 'Evidence', that were later corrected ]; but, highly unlikely. Even if the SECOND Marriage was NOT in a 'Church' or 'Registry Office', it would ( and, should ) have been ( Officially ) "Registered" by the/an ( Official ) Marriage "Celebrant".
.
'Common Law', perhaps ...
.
Unfortunately, currently, just another one of those little mysteries ...
.
Brett
.
0 -
Thanks again. Yes, I've seen mistakes or missing spouses, but to miss both partners and there not to be a parish record or newspaper report either makes me think we are right to assume they didn't actually marry - unless it was on the ship, which sailed in early June that year. I just nags that someone clearly thinks there is a record somewhere.
0
