RootsChat.Com
England (Counties as in 1851-1901) => England => Durham => Topic started by: cwr1404 on Sunday 20 February 11 19:24 GMT (UK)
-
My ancestor, Thomas Usher, married an Ann Williams (aka Williamson) in 1868 at St John's, Seaham, County Durham. They are listed together in 1871 in South Hylton. As far as I know they were childless.
Thomas is then listed with Hannah (nee Brigham) in 1881, with his two sons, one of them my ancestor.
My first thought was that Ann had died and Thomas remarried, but I have since discovered she actually married a John George Small (father John Small) in May 1881 (after the census taken in April) in St Andrew's, Dalton-le-Dale, Seaham. She states she is a widow on her marriage record, but Thomas was still living, which is something I've learnt a bigamist may do in order to remarry.
I have not searched for divorce papers for Thomas and Ann, but I cannot find a marriage for Thomas and Hannah and I don't think they ever were married. Their son, John William, actually married as, died as, and had children by the name of Brigham, thus taking his mother's name. His brother died young and his two sisters took Brigham as a middle name even though they weren't registered as such.
The above leads me to think that Ann was a bigamist.
The trouble is, I can't seem to find Ann in 1881 or any census thereafter and wondered if anyone could take a look incase I'm missing something? I'm not even sure if John George Small was her second husband's real name as I can't seem to find any birth or death records that would match up to his marriage date.
Any help would be much appreciated, folks. Thanks ;D
PS. Ann was born in Moorsley, County Durham in 1848.
-
divorce was a costly process and not often granted to women! far easier to say you were widowed on a remarriage a divorced woman (or man) would be listed as that as his status on the marriage certificate. you would hardly be likely to say you wasn't free to marry because bigamy was and still is a crime! she could have said spinster though!
from what you have said leads me to believe that Hannah & Thomas didnt marry the fact the child was registered as Brigham rather than Usher. when was John William born? does his birth certificate name his father ?
what do you know about John George Small - where and when was he born etc.
-
Thanks for the reply!
John William was born 1879. His birth certificate has him as John William Usher and his father is Thomas Usher, however he married in 1901 as John William Usher Brigham and his father is Thomas Brigham (obviously incorrect) and his own children had the name Brigham (including my great-grandmother). He did have an older brother named Richard Brigham Usher (1876-1890), born, baptised and buried as such. Also, Richard seems to be the only child that was baptised in the village church as there are no other Usher (or Brigham) baptims there after him. Perhaps the parish curate wasn't happy with baptising their other children if he knew they weren't married, I'm not sure yet.
The only thing I know of John George Small is his father was listed on his marriage record (from Durham Records Online) as John Small, other than that I know nothing else of him.
divorce was a costly process and not often granted to women! far easier to say you were widowed on a remarriage a divorced woman (or man) would be listed as that as his status on the marriage certificate. you would hardly be likely to say you wasn't free to marry because bigamy was and still is a crime! she could have said spinster though!
from what you have said leads me to believe that Hannah & Thomas didnt marry the fact the child was registered as Brigham rather than Usher. when was John William born? does his birth certificate name his father ?
what do you know about John George Small - where and when was he born etc.
-
The only thing I know of John George Small is his father was listed on his marriage record (from Durham Records Online) as John Small, other than that I know nothing else of him.
Was there no age*, address or occupation given for John George, and no occupation given for his father John?
*Obviously his age may have been given, unhelpfully, as "Full".
Also, was an address given for Ann at the marriage, which was tantalisingly soon after the 1881 census?
Who were the witnesses to the marriage?
-
Unfortunately not :( All I got from DRO was:
"8 May 1881 John George Small, son of John Small, married Ann Usher (widow), daughter of Charles Williams"
I feel rather ripped off...
I don't have the certificate for them and don't think it would be worth getting if I can't find them in any census records.
Was there no age*, address or occupation given for John George, and no occupation given for his father John?
*Obviously his age may have been given, unhelpfully, as "Full".
-
Hello,
Not sure how much help this will be but I can offer a similar story from Murton the next town along from Seaham from a similar time period. My great great grandfather's wife died in child birth leaving him with quite a few small children, to help him, he took on a housekeeper, about 1901, who was married and at some point they ran off together, they didn't run far, only as far as Shotton where on the 1911 census they claim to be married and have had two children who took their mum's new 'husband's' name. Meanwhile her original husband is still living in Murton, listed as 'married' and living with his father. They eventually married, presumably illegally, in 1915- her original husband was again still living.
Another possibility regarding the baptisms- I had a load missing from Dalton le Dale and Murton and was told there was a hugely popular Methodist Church which stood in Murton but 5 minutes walk from Dalton le Dale and that they might well be there. Never found if the records still exist for that church though.
Sorry can't be any more help,
Dan
-
Thanks for sharing that Dan. Quite a similar story. Funny I didn't think it was as common until reading more about it.
I thought the Methodists might be involved with the "lost" baptisms but I checked the village Methodist church records and got nothing.
The baptisms aren't too important at the moment though. I guess I'd just like to know where Ann and John ended up.
Hello,
Not sure how much help this will be but I can offer a similar story from Murton the next town along from Seaham from a similar time period. My great great grandfather's wife died in child birth leaving him with quite a few small children, to help him
:), he took on a housekeeper, about 1901, who was married and at some point they ran off together, they didn't run far, only as far as Shotton where on the 1911 census they claim to be married and have had two children who took their mum's new 'husband's' name. Meanwhile her original husband is still living in Murton, listed as 'married' and living with his father. They eventually married, presumably illegally, in 1915- her original husband was again still living.
Another possibility regarding the baptisms- I had a load missing from Dalton le Dale and Murton and was told there was a hugely popular Methodist Church which stood in Murton but 5 minutes walk from Dalton le Dale and that they might well be there. Never found if the records still exist for that church though.
Sorry can't be any more help,
Dan
-
Hello. I've still not solved this and the thread hasn't had much input lately. I just thought I'd post here to see if it would spark anymore suggestions.
-
I thought the Methodists might be involved with the "lost" baptisms but I checked the village Methodist church records and got nothing.
Missing Baptisms always suggests the Baptist church to me. Was there a Baptist chapel in the area?
-
Hello. I've still not solved this and the thread hasn't had much input lately. I just thought I'd post here to see if it would spark anymore suggestions.
She could have been found out - criminal records
They could have "fled" the country. (On FindMyPast the records start in 1890, no Ann together with a George or John).
Loes
-
I thought the Methodists might be involved with the "lost" baptisms but I checked the village Methodist church records and got nothing.
Missing Baptisms always suggests the Baptist church to me. Was there a Baptist chapel in the area?
Thanks for the suggestion, but no, there was no baptist church in the village. There was the CofE parish church, Methodists, Salvation Army (but they don't practice baptism) and later an RC church. As I say though, the baptisms aren't important for the time being.
-
Hello. I've still not solved this and the thread hasn't had much input lately. I just thought I'd post here to see if it would spark anymore suggestions.
She could have been found out - criminal records
They could have "fled" the country. (On FindMyPast the records start in 1890, no Ann together with a George or John).
Loes
Thanks for looking at that. I had considered that they might have emigrated. But seeing as I can't find a likely John George Small on the census, I'm not sure if that was even his real name.
-
As per my reply #3, I still think that if you obtained Ann's 1881 marriage certificate it might provide useful clues. Apart from anything else, you could search the 1881 census on an "address search" basis (for the address given for each party upon marriage). Sometimes an address search finds people who are otherwise untraceable because their name has been mistranscribed, or the index is otherwise unsatisfactory. Witness names are potentially also very useful, not to mention finding out what information the bridegroom gave about himself/his father.
-
Thanks for looking at that. I had considered that they might have emigrated. But seeing as I can't find a likely John George Small on the census, I'm not sure if that was even his real name.
As a lateral thought, if he is trying to hide he just might have become "John George Little" Worth a search?
-
As per my reply #3, I still think that if you obtained Ann's 1881 marriage certificate it might provide useful clues. Apart from anything else, you could search the 1881 census on an "address search" basis (for the address given for each party upon marriage). Sometimes an address search finds people who are otherwise untraceable because their name has been mistranscribed, or the index is otherwise unsatisfactory. Witness names are potentially also very useful, not to mention finding out what information the bridegroom gave about himself/his father.
Yes, I think you're right, that's probably the next best step. I've emailed DRO first to see if they also transcribed the addresses, as it seems odd to leave it out of a purchased record when that info would probably have been on the source they transcribed from.
-
Thanks for looking at that. I had considered that they might have emigrated. But seeing as I can't find a likely John George Small on the census, I'm not sure if that was even his real name.
As a lateral thought, if he is trying to hide he just might have become "John George Little" Worth a search?
Great minds...:-) I previously tried Little, Large, Big, Small etc but nothing that lines up.
-
Pity that, but if it stimulates the thinking of another reader helpful.
-
I've emailed Durham Records Online and the owner has kindly agreed to look up the missing info in the parish register. She advised it was due to the transcriber not having taken those details over 10 years ago.
Hopefully I should get a reply in the next few days and won't have to get the certificate. Will post update once received.
-
Hi CWR,
Not sure if you saw this record, but I came across this in the 1881 England Census: Durham, Sunderland, E. Sunderland
24 Dadnas (?) Court
Joseph William Small (transcribed as "Samell", but original census is "Small"
Head Unmarried 26 Painter b. Sunderland
Anne Ushir Lodger 26 Unmarried No Profession b. Durham
Coincidence? ??? ::) Hoping this is your Anne!
Deb
-
Thanks very much for that Deb. I hadn't noticed that one.
That Joseph William doesn't seem to popup anywhere after 1881, but I won't discount it yet. Hopefully the occupation from the parish register will tie-in.
Thanks again :)
-
Great minds...:-) I previously tried Little, Large, Big, Small etc but nothing that lines up.
A further thought (blimey 2 in one week!) Why not try the French language, i.e. Grand, Pettit etc. which are used as English surnames to my certain knowledge.
-
OK, I now have the extra info from the parish register:
8 May 1881 John George Small (bachelor, painter), age 26, of Murton Colliery, son of John Small (moulder), married Ann Usher (widow), age 28, of Murton Colliery, daughter of Charles Williams (fisherman), at the parish church of Dalton-le-Dale
Witnesses: Richard Emery, Ann Woodcock [Ann's brother-in-law and aunt]
The 1881 entry Gracie mentioned is promising given the "printer" occupation (thanks again for that!). Obviously the first names of the chap are different, but perhaps "John George" weren't his actual first names.
That Joseph William may be the son of a John Small who was a baths lessee in Gateshead and later Cullercoats, as opposed to a moulder. [Edit] Ah, it seems the father John Small was an iron moulder in Sunderland in 1851, so perhaps he was a moulder and baths lessee at the same time. Everything seems to point to John George actually being Joseph William...
Not much further forward with finding Ann and her new husband after 1881, even with the new info, but look forward to any new ideas.