Double Checking

[Carla]

Hi everyone

First I want to say that it's been a while since I have had a chance to post here, and looking over the discussions I can see I have missed an awful lot. Hopefully I can now get back to popping in here more regularly.

Anyway I would like to ask for someone/anyone to just have a double check over some information I have found in my indirect ancestral line, please, and tell me I am not going mad!

I have been looking at the brother of my direct ancestor Eliabeth King, and his descendants. Samuel King was born 08 March 1840 in Alvediston, Wiltshire, and he and his wife Martha Kerley had a number of children. At the moment I am interested in their youngest son, Albert William King, baptised 31 May 1885 in Paddington, London. I have found his birth details, and also found him in the 1891 and 1901 censuses. I believe I have also found his marriage details to Ethel Florence Sturgess on 20th December 1917 in Dorking St Paul, London. This is where I would like a bit of feedback please. I had a look at some other ancestral trees on the Ancestry site and followed one link which I found curious. In the 1911 census Ethel Sturgess appears to be staying with her parents, name written as Ethel King, and she has two children. The census states that she has been married for 4 years. The address matches what is stated on the marriage certificate in 1917, as does the name of her father, although he is deceased at that time. So am I correct in thinking that the census details are, in fact, a lie and that Ethel was not married, as is stated? I cannot find another marriage for Ethel to someone else with the surname King. What else should I be looking for to clarify this information?

Thanks everyone

 

[jorghes]

Perhaps they didn't marry until 1917 but told people they were married? I usually would say that you should check the first child's birth certificate, which is what I did when I discovered that my g-g-grandfather apparently hadn't married his second wife until 1913, although they had been having children together since 1887 (she was his housekeeper I have since discovered). I had a look at a couple of their children's birth registers, and found that they had been entering bogus marriage information in them - although they kept repeating the same day, the year of marriage kept changing and there is no actual marriage register entry until 1913.

But I forget that England's birth certificates unlike Scotland's and Australia's don't include information about the parents' marriage! I suppose it would be interesting just to see whether or not there is only one name - i.e. father's name missing, or whether the mother is noted by her maiden name only, as opposed to "King formerly Sturgess" as it would be with married couples.

You could also order and check out their marriage certificate from 1917 too and see what it says.

Unfortunately they both involve a bit of an outlay of cash, and I don't have any ideas about what to do that wouldn't involve paying up money!

 

[MaryL]

No need to buy the 1917 marriage certificate, the church register is on ancestry. Albert William King's occupation is soldier. Perhaps they needed to marry to have a certificate to show to the army authorities. Do you know when Albert joined the army?

I found a baptism for Albert Frederick King, baptised 26 May 1907 in St Paul Dorking. His parents are given as Albert William and Ethel Florence, abode 44 Falkland Rd, cabdriver. This seems to show that they were living as a married couple in 1907.

There is a death index for Albert Frederick King, age 1, in 1908. It is odd that he is not included in the count of Ethel's children on the 1911 census.

 

[Carla]

Thanks for the advice, and you both suggested what I suspected in that they appeared to be living together as man and wife before they actually got married.

I am loathed to order birth ceirtificates for the children, as this is an indirect ancestor and I am only doing it for curiosity right now. Mind you this may 'bug' me so much that I will do so in the end .

In answer to your question, MaryL, sadly I do not know when he joined up. I have searched for his army service records but cant seem to find them. There are plenty of Albert William King soldiers in the medal index but it's almost impossible to narrow down which one is the correct person . If only his regiment number had been on the marriage certificate, as was the case with my grandfather. This enabled me to eventually find his records after years of searching. (See my post 'I found it' under Military discussion)

 

[peter]

Perhaps they needed to marry to have a certificate to show to the army authorities.

It's likely that in the event of his death there would have been no pension paid to his 'widow' - a very good reason to marry!

 

[jorghes]

I am loathed to order birth ceirtificates for the children, as this is an indirect ancestor and I am only doing it for curiosity right now. Mind you this may 'bug' me so much that I will do so in the end .

You could probably wait for the changes to come before delving into that, and maybe they'd be cheaper and easier to get then!!

 

[peter]

I am loathed to order birth certificates for the children

You don't need to order the birth certificates - the surname in the birth indexes tells you all you need to know.

 

[Alexander Bisset]

You could probably wait for the changes to come before delving into that, and maybe they'd be cheaper and easier to get then!!

I suspect that if it is really going to "bug" her then she is unlikely to want to wait 5-10 years possibly more before the new system comes online. Remember they haven't even begun to properly consult about what is required yet. So once the consultation starts it will last at least 6 months then 6 months to a year or so to report back. Then parliament will need to decide what to do with the report, specifically whether to allocate any funds that would inevitably be required. That could easily take a good few years, more so if the registrars view is that it would be "too costly". It's not difficult to make things look costly and expensive in government reports if you don't want to do what was asked.

So likely several years or more before it gets a budget and a project is put out to tender. Then the data needs to be scanned and digitally indexed and a website needs to be designed and implemented all before it goes anywhere near the public.

 

[emjay]

That's cheered me up ! Potentially a longer wait than for the 1921 census, and not really what us oldies want to hear :-(

 

[jorghes]

Well, it was wishful thinking. One would have hoped that they would have been working on digitising the records already, regardless of how they were making them available as it would have made their lives easier when orders came in for their current methods of purchasing certificates.

 

[peter]

Half the records have already been digitised.

I'd encourage everyone who cares about access to the England and Wales BMD registers to contribute to the informal consultation on this forum - it could make all the difference.