Help - cant find a marriage anywhere

[Battmanforever]

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

[iluleah]

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

[Annette7]

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

[Battmanforever]

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.

[Pheno]

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

[Battmanforever]

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.

[josey]

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.

[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

[Battmanforever]

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.