Am I missing something

[karen8]

Hi

I've been researching my daughter's partners family and I'm not sure whether I am missing something with this family.  All London

Matilda Jane Hemmings b 1811

Married William Stubbins 1828 St Dunstan's

Matilda Jane Stubbins marries William Deason 1835 Hackney

1841 census
Wm Deason aged 30
Matilda Deason aged 30
Wm Deason aged 5
Eliza Deason aged 3
George Stubbins aged 12
Sarah Stubbins aged 9
1851 Census
William Deason aged 41
Matilda Deason aged 41
William Deason aged 15
Matilda Deason aged 6
George Stubbins aged 22
Sarah Stubbins aged 19
Sarah Hemmings mother aged 79

so far all agrees - then I find the baptism records for George Stubbins, Sarah Stubbins and William Deason - all on 3rd April 1836 in Hackney.  George and Sarah on page 105 and William Deason on page 106.  The birth dates agree but George and Sarah's dad is given as William Stubbins but it doesnt say he is deceased.  Also George and Sarah have a different residence listed.  Is it normal not to mention a parent is deceased on a baptism.

Another anomaly is Matilda's second marriage lists her as a spinster.

Sorry for long post - but I wondered if anyone thinks I could have made a mistake anywhere?

Many thanks

[avm228]

There is no reason to be troubled about the fact that "deceased" doesn't appear in the baptism register - that wouldn't be standard information, though no doubt it was sometimes volunteered.

Perhaps the "West Street" address for the Stubbins children was where the Stubbins had lived as a family.

"Spinster" at remarriage must simply be an error, given the information you have collated which looks pretty clear and compelling as to the true sequence of events.

[avm228]

Oh hang on - have you found a death for William Stubbins?  Are you wondering whether these anomalies might be clues that Matilda's second marriage was bigamous?

[Jebber]

Anything is possible.

I have marriages where a widow is described as spinster, another where the groom is described  a bachelor, although he was really still married to his first wife.

In my husband's family two sister were baptised as adults in 1923, the parents were named as normal, but no mention of the fact that their father had died in 1898, or that one of the sisters had already been married for seven years.

[Mabel Bagshawe]

Looks  like a re-baptism for George

George Stubbings
Baptism    13 May 1829  St Mary Stratford Bow
Father    William Stubbings, labourer
Mother    Matilda Stubbings

(no other address given)

[Mabel Bagshawe]

Given that baptism, this looks like a likely burial

William Stubbing
Age    24
Burial    8 Jul 1834, St Mary Stratford Bow

Only other detail is abode; Oldford

[Mabel Bagshawe]

Also, on their marriage both William Deason and Matilda make their mark, so it's unlikely they would have noticed the error in her description. As the record doesn't include father's names, there's no obvious clue to the clergyman that she's married before.

[karen8]

Hi

Thanks for your replies.  I've noticed a few people have Matilda in their tree on ancestry but most seem to have her with William Stubbins or William Deason not both.  I couldn't put all the info I have but to me the census information seems to link to the two marriages pretty conclusively (especially with her mother being listed thus giving her maiden name).  Thanks for the point about illiteracy.  The sticking point is William Stubbins death - i've seen one or two that could be possible but when there's more than one it's hard to be certain.

I did think it would be easier researching a London family (most of my family research as been in the midlands and north) as there are theoretically more documents but I do find they appear to be more sloppily done (especially the censuses)!

Many thanks again