eliabeth wright nee carr nee young

[heywood]

yes arthur did go back to sister and his parents, in 1901 he was in Shoreditch says hes single. in 1911 in Bawtry yorkshire as a windower. i have just got his marriage cert to elizabeth carr in 1931 and confirms he is a widower so definatley seeking a first marriage

What do you think re the Shoreditch person?
I see the tree I was referencing has been altered - is that your tree Clare?
It is difficult,  as the Shoreditch man seems to be the only one in 1901 which hinders your search for any other candidates.

There is a newspaper entry dated 24th March 1900 - Newark
It mentions Arthur Wright of … a ganger.
I cannot access it so not sure if that is correct.
Also, there are many Arthur Wrights.
It us just ‘ganger’ and your find in 1911 that connects.

[mckha489]

Arthur Wright of Retford
Platelayer for Great Northern railway
Assault on a police officer.
21 days prison

He asked for a fine instead “I am a married man”
But that was declined

[heywood]

Arthur Wright of Retford
Platelayer for Great Northern railway
Assault on a police officer.
21 days prison

He asked for a fine instead “I am a married man”
But that was declined

Thanks again.
Is that 24th March 1900 - I can see it is similar but does it mention ganger?

[mckha489]

Sorry! Yes it is that piece.
And it does say ganger, after having said Platelayer.

[heywood]

I think there is a railway employee in 1901, Retford - Arthur Wright married to Mabel. So unlikely. That’s sad!

[mckha489]

I think there is a railway employee in 1901, Retford - Arthur Wright married to Mabel. So unlikely. That’s sad!

And younger, and not born Stamford. 

[mckha489]

How do we know he was a Ganger?  Oh I see. The 1911 census in Bawtry.
What was his occupation on the marriage?

1881 with Parents Thomas & Harriet. Ag Lab
1891 with sister  General Labourer
1901?
1911 either Ganger (widower) or a Farm labourer (but single)
1921 builders foreman with Elizabeth married (but they didn’t marry until 1931)

[heywood]

Yes not sure re 1911 but Clare seems sure of that entry.
If he was widowed in 1931 on his marriage, that means he could have married anytime between 1891 and before 1921 when someone has them cohabiting I think.
If he is the single man in 1911 then that shortens the time.
As Elizabeth ‘s husband was deceased, you would wonder why they didn’t marry for at least ten years - maybe Arthur was still married for part /all of the time.

[mckha489]

As Elizabeth ‘s husband was deceased, you would wonder why they didn’t marry for at least ten years - maybe Arthur was still married for part /all of the time.

Yes. That’s my thought.  On the other hand, if Elizabeth’s marriage to Benjamin Carr is the one in the December quarter of 1901, she clearly isn’t too worried about co-habiting, as she is with Benjamin at the 1901 census.