RootsChat.Com
General => The Common Room => Topic started by: Battmanforever on Tuesday 25 September 18 21:35 BST (UK)
-
Hi,
I know roots chatters love a challenge.
Looking for a marriage between William Westwood and Margaret Newman
Children
Edward - B 1886
Margaret - B 1890
Richard - B 1892
Betsy - B 1894
Mary - B 1898
George - B 1900
Found Newman as maiden surname via GRO birth records for all 6 children. All children born Fulham/Kensington areas. Found some baptism records on ancestry that give evidence for parent first names also.
I'm beginning to think that they didnt actually marry despite 1891 and 1901 census having westwood as surname for Margaret and 1911 having her as Widowed.
Thank you in advance.
Paul
-
Same time frame as a marriage I was looking for and searched for years with no luck, waited for the 1911 and it stated they were married for 18 yrs, still never found it...... it was only when I was looking for one of thei chidrens marriages I found theirs 2 weeks earlier, then the 'can of worms ' opened as he was already married and 1st wife had only just died a couple of weeks before they 'eventually' married
-
From their occupations and continual change of birthplaces on census, I suspect there may be a Romany element here. If so, they often had their own 'marriages' rather than a legal one which could be the case here.
Annette
-
From their occupations and continual change of birthplaces on census, I suspect there may be a Romany element here. If so, they often had their own 'marriages' rather than a legal one which could be the case here.
Annette
Annette did you find any other census returns other than 1891, 1901 and 1911?
Interestingly if as I suspect s.giles from 1891 is St Giles this is just a stones throw from Westminster (her birth place as shown in 1911) and Fulham and Kensington.
My feeling is that 1901 showing durham is incorrect - probably as its very difficult to read anything else into the handwriting.
Cant explain away the difference between wallingford and what looks like watford for william however.
Thank you for the suggestion and help.
-
GRO would of course, give Margaret's maiden surname of Newman but if she had been married prior to her marriage to Westwood it would likely be in her previous married name.
So what I am saying is that the marriage may not have been between a Westwood and a Newman but a William Westwood and a Margaret ? although still correct to put Newman as her maiden name when registering the birth of her children.
Pheno
-
good point Pheno - hadn't thought of that possibility as being the barrier. I guess I thought of her as too young to be married twice.
But then thinking about this further the 1911 census suggests Margaret had 12 children. 10 of which died. I had only found 6 of those 12. Looking at the births of the 6 I've found maybe she was indeed old enough to be married twice as the other 6 children would have been born earlier at a guess. Her age certainly fluctuated between censuses.
-
The 1911 question asked 'how years & how many children of THIS marriage' though many twice married women did put the children they had borne in more than one marriage.
-
Just to add that I checked for a marriage between William Westwood and a Margaret (no surname 1866 +/- 10) last night and, although three came up, none were in the London area - the nearest was Richmond in 1876.
Gadget
-
Just to add that I checked for a marriage between William Westwood and a Margaret (no surname 1866 +/- 10) last night and, although three came up, none were in the London area - the nearest was Richmond in 1876.
Gadget
Thanks Gadget. If the 1911 census is to be believed (though by then Margaret was a widow) they were married 21 years so a marriage around 1890 is likely. However I had been searching since posting and also found the Richmond marriage.
-
Just to add that I checked for a marriage between William Westwood and a Margaret (no surname 1866 +/- 10) last night and, although three came up, none were in the London area - the nearest was Richmond in 1876.
Gadget
Thanks Gadget. If the 1911 census is to be believed (though by then Margaret was a widow) they were married 21 years so a marriage around 1890 is likely. However I had been searching since posting and also found the Richmond marriage.
Margaret Mary Horn was a spinster father Henry Horn, so not her.
-
I thought that none of them looked likely so didn't even check that far, Lizzie ;D
-
I can only find William Westwood in 1871 Kingston, Surrey where he is shown as born Wallingford, Berkshire, Hawker.
Annette
-
He also shows Wallingford* as his place of birth in 1891, Annette. Margaret is shown as born St Giles *.
Added - I believe that the Richmond family are still in Richmond in 1891
* possibly Watford and Durham, resp, in 1901
-
Has anyone found a death record for William :-\
Workhouse burials/deaths often go unnamed but the lack of a record further adds to Annette's view that there is a Romany connection.
-
There is a death june qtr Kensington aged 46
-
I can only find William Westwood in 1871 Kingston, Surrey where he is shown as born Wallingford, Berkshire, Hawker.
Annette
Going on age listed at 1891 census of 35 and his occupation of hawker (flower seller in 1901 - with hawk written above it) I'd say this census in 1871 where he is a lodger is very plausible as being him.
Hol i also found that death index entry - remember thinking he must have died right after the 1901 census return was filled in.
Definitely interested in the possibility of a Romany angle - would certainly make for an interesting search considering my OH has Romany roots
-
No sign of a birth registration in Wallingford district. Can't see any other Westwoods in Wallingford at all who might be parents or siblings. Either a very itinerant family or he's changed his name for some reason.
-
Been doing a district/county search on freebmd to see if there were any possibilities.
Nothing at all in Wallingford or berks for that matter.
Looking at the 1901 census, place of birth listed is transcribed as watford but staring at it today I wonder if it actually says hertford as it clearly also has herts written next to it.
If that is the case there is a possible birth on freebmd
sept quarter 1858
Westwood William J Hertford 3a 236
by his age on 1891 and 1901 census (35 and 45) this would be around 2 years out.
Definitely a puzzle this one
-
I would say that the 1901 is Watford, compare the W with other W & H entries on the page.
-
Mystery deepens
Having a search into more places to hopefully find something I found a Margaret Westwood on the 1939 register born in 1853 and listed as a widow along with another westwood whose name I'm unable to decipher and hasnt been transcribed either.
There is a corresponding freebmd birth for a Margaret Newman in 1853 in Kensington (there are 5 others in other locations but none that match an area I've so far seen in other records)
-
There is a Margaret Westwood around the same age living in the same area as the 1939 one, a widow bn Lancashire in 1901 and 1911. I think she may have died in 1940 same area.
ADDED I can't read the other name either
-
Perhaps when William completed his 1901 return he put a shortened version of Wallingford and the enumerator read it as Wa(t)ford. The 'Herts' would have been added on the enumerators schedule after the original enumeration was done.
So should you be looking at Berkshire/Oxfordshire given Wallingfords proximity to the Thames boundary
-
Best match for Oxfordshire is this one
Births Dec 1854
Westwood William Wycombe 3a 336
Wycombe and Wallingford are not a million miles apart on a map. Its entirely possible registration was done in Wycombe although i would have thought a more local church would have been the place to do it.
Berks has nothing on freebmd
-
Wycombe reg district covers lots of places https://www.ukbmd.org.uk/reg/districts/wycombe.html
The birth you have given gives mmn Heather - James Westwood married Sarah Heather in 1844.
1861 living Wycombe RG09 /856 f98 p45 with parents
still with parents in 1871 RG10/1403 f104 p24