Charlotte Ellen SMITH / EIGHTEEN

[kiterunner]

Originally Posted by James18

Good job on finding that previous marriage. So what's your theory?

My theory is that young dairymaid Mary Preedy married much older widower John Checkley, and a few years later she ran off to Reading with young Thomas Smith.

[kiterunner]

I posted a link to the Smiths' 1891 census entry before (in post #11), but I didn't note this one of their lodgers:

Catherine Preedy Lodger Wid 70 On her means Oxon Chipton

[Margaret in Burton]

Have you looked for the marriage many many years after you were expecting to find it?
I ask as in my family, an Emma Smith marries. She has three children by this man and then runs off with his cousin. She had a child with him but had to leave her other children with their father. They were told she'd died.
I used to be in touch with the granddaughter of the child of the runaways.
They didn't marry until many years later after her husband had died. In fact I've also made a connection through GR many years ago with the descendants of the first family. It was them who told me the story of her supposed death. They wouldn't believe the truth even though I offered to send copies of certs. I said find the death then, they couldn't. Still refused to believe so I gave up. If people don't want to find a skeleton in the cupboard they shouldn't look into their family history.

I wish you luck in your quest James.

[James18]

Thank you, Margaret.

Finding skeletons in closets is not something that bothers me, and I've found a few so far!

It's quite possible they married later in life, although I suspect if Kate's theory holds up then they probably pretended to be married when they arrived in Reading.

I've tried searching for an Ellen born to a Thomas Smith and a Mary Smith/Preedy/Checkley, and no luck so far. I'm far from giving up on this, but it does look increasingly like no birth was registered. I wonder if it would help to try to find a birth record for one of her siblings, to see what the details look like.

That could help with tracing her, if indeed a record exists.

Still, at least we know when she was baptized and died. That's something, I suppose.

[kiterunner]

I have looked for a marriage between Thomas and Mary long after their children were born, but I didn't find one, Marg.
I can't find Mary on the 1901 census, and there is a possible death for her in the last quarter of 1891. Of course there are so many Mary Smith deaths it may well not be her. But it could be that she and Thomas never got the chance to marry because she died before her husband did.

[kiterunner]

Originally Posted by James18

I've tried searching for an Ellen born to a Thomas Smith and a Mary Smith/Preedy/Checkley, and no luck so far. I'm far from giving up on this, but it does look increasingly like no birth was registered. I wonder if it would help to try to find a birth record for one of her siblings, to see what the details look like.

Mother's maiden name wasn't shown on the GRO birth index in those days, James, and Berkshire BMD doesn't have it on their index for any of the records I looked at yesterday. I'll go back and try to put together the possible birth regs and see if we can rule any of them out without you ordering all of them!

[James18]

Originally Posted by kiterunner

Mother's maiden name wasn't shown on the GRO birth index in those days, James, and Berkshire BMD doesn't have it on their index for any of the records I looked at yesterday. I'll go back and try to put together the possible birth regs and see if we can rule any of them out without you ordering all of them!

Appreciated!

It looks like Ellen was the oldest, anyway, and had a younger sister named Henrietta who appears to have died at some point between the 1871 and 1881 census', with Rose and Anne being born in the mean time.

[James18]

On the 1871 census, Ellen is 1 year old and Henrietta is 1 month, which would mean she was conceived roughly ten months prior. On that basis, Ellen must surely have been nearly two years old on April 2nd, 1871.

Would June 1869 make sense as a rough date of birth? In terms of narrowing down birth indexing.

(Sorry if my maths is rubbish!)

EDIT: Mind you, she's down as being 18 on her marriage certificate, which would make her d.o.b. 1868... but she could have been lying. I assume it was 18 to marry in those days, and she was (we're fairly sure) already pregnant when she married Frederick Syer.

[kiterunner]

Originally Posted by James18

EDIT: Mind you, she's down as being 18 on her marriage certificate, which would make her d.o.b. 1868... but she could have been lying. I assume it was 18 to marry in those days, and she was (we're fairly sure) already pregnant when she married Frederick Syer.

No, you didn't have to be 18 to marry in those days; you could marry much younger than that, and it was 21 to marry without parental consent. But people weren't always very sure of their exact date of birth anyway.

[James18]

Ah, right, then that's fine then. It rules out needing to lie about her age on the marriage certificate. Makes things a bit easier to trace.