Marriage of William Anderson Temple & Dorothy Robson c1861

[Tyne Traveller]

I am trying to find a marriage record for William Anderson Temple and Dorothy Robson in Newcastle upon Tyne around 1861/2 with no success at all!

William was with his mother and siblings in Hanover Street in the 1861 census where he is shown just as William. Mother is Jane Atkinson, having remarried after her husband William's death. Our William was born about 1835.
Dorothy's family moved from Gateshead to Newcastle and I have a potential record for her living as a servant in Cromwell Terrace Gateshead in 1861. She was born around 1837.
Looking at their children, it seems as if Dorothy had an illegitimate child in 1859, Edward John, and then she and William went on to have 5 children, including great Grandpa Jimmy.

All this detail and yet no marriage record! I can't imagine they strayed far from the West End of Newcastle. The family lived around Buckingham Street, Oystershell Lane, Diana Street most of their lives.

Any ideas please? NB You would think William Anderson Temple is not too common, but there is at least one other in the Tynemouth/North Shields area at this time. Haven't worked out the connection (if any) yet.

[Radcliff]

I do not know how common the name Temple is in Newcastle


Newcastle Upon Tyne
St John the Baptist
1863
William Temple to Margarat Robson

[Tyne Traveller]

Thanks Radcliff. Unfortunately there are a good few Temples in Newcastle and Robsons are even worse - all over the place!

I did find this marriage you suggest, but I have no reason to suppose Dorothy would have been recorded as Margarat.

She appears as Dorothy, wife of William, in the 1871, 1881 and 1891 censuses and there is no indication of a second name or initial. Her mother was Dorothy or Dorathy. No-one else in the family was named after a Margaret, although one of William's brothers had a daughter called Dorothy Ann in 1874.

So if this was the right one, it would have had to be a clerical error and I can't imagine how Dorothy could have got changed to Margarat.

Hope you agree with the reasoning?

Janet

[lizdb]

Mysterious one this!

Where is little Edward in 1861?
There are three Edward Robsons of right sort of age who came up as with grandparents or as visitor in the index, but the images show their mothers to be present - and in 2 cases the mother is Margaret!

If Dorothy is the servant in Gateshead, which looks reasonable, then where is Edward?
Or is Dorothy actually Margaret?

[Tyne Traveller]

Hi lizdb

See if this makes sense to you.

In 1841, Dorothy is with her parents John and Dorathy Robson and a sister, Barbara, in Gateshead. By 1851, they have moved to Diana Street (the area where William Temple and his family live) in Newcastle (Barbara has disappeared, presumed dead.)
In 1861 Dorathy senior is 66, a widow, living in Oystershell Lane, which is just around the corner from Diana Street. Dorothy Junior is the servant in Gateshead.

Dorathy Senior has an Edward GR living with her, described as her son aged 16. I believe this is Dorothy Junior's Edward who would be about 16 MONTHS at this time and this is an original error by the census taker.

By 1871 William and Dorothy are married, living in Diana Street, and Edward, aged 11, is with them named as Edward Temple.

Is this stretching things too far or does it seem to hang together??

Janet.

[Michael Dixon]

  Janet,

   Dorothy Temple nee Robson's son Edward ... do you have his birth registration ?

  The 16 yr old Edward with Dorothy Robson senior on the 1861 census ( page ref 3811-9-11), I think details recorded for him on the census is.... name of " Edward R "  not "Edward GR ". I do not think relationship to head of house is
 "son".  ( look how enumerator wrote " son" on other lines ! ) Could word be " non/e"

 Is it just a co-incidence that William A Temple's step-father was called Edward ? 
   

 Michael.
  Newcastle

[Tyne Traveller]

Hi Michael in Newcastle.

I have a birth certificate for Edward John Robson, born illegitimately to Dorothy Robson, on 26 Nov 1859 in Newcastle. Index ref  Vol 10b page 30.

Yes I think you are right about the word 'son' - it is different from the others. If the relationship is none does this mean this Edward is just a lodger/boarder? They normally say this on the census. Also wouldn't you expect a 16 year old lodger unrelated to the head of house to have an occupation recorded?

William A Temple's Edward on the 1871 census is named as his son, never as stepson, and is 11 years old. I was unable to find a birth record for an Edward or Edward John Temple for 1859/60. I did find a death certificate for an Edward John Temple in Newcastle, 20 year old son of William Temple for 21 Feb 1880. Ref: 10b 22.

Hence the house of cards I've built to explain this! I'm happy for you to knock it down - can you build me a better one?

Best wishes, Janet

PS I have noticed with this family (William had three brothers) that they passed their offspring around a lot. One brother died young and a son of his was 'adopted' permanently by another brother. Just makes life more interesting!

[Tyne Traveller]

Just looking further to identify the 16 year old Edward R living with Dorothy senior in 1861 - if indeed he is 16 years old and not Dorothy junior's 16 month old illegit son!

 I can find no record of a birth for an Edward R Robson in 1844/5 in Northumberland or Durham. There are some Edward Robsons born in Northumberland/Durham over this period so that is inconclusive, but you might expect the middle initial to be recorded in the birth registration.

The only marriage for an Edward R Robson in Newcastle is in 1917. No conclusive death record. Once again, too many plain Edward Robsons to be sure of anything.

Michael recognised that the description did not say 'son' and might be 'non'. Could it just possibly be Gson (grandson)? The enumerator does not extend the lower loop of his Gs below the line in other entries. Still clinging to my  pet theory!

Janet.

[Michael Dixon]

 Janet,

 Chew on this.....  You are assuming 16 yr old Edward is " Edward R Robson".
 Enumerator only wrote " Edward R "  , no Robson or ditto marks.

 Enumerator may have meant age as 16 months for Edward's age.  1861 census was taken as at 7th April
 1861.  ( One month in 1859, 12 in 1860, 3 in 1861 = roughly 16 months)

( I am looking for your missing marriage, but first trying to straighten out the families in my foggy mind)

 Michael