Moderator Control Panel ]

John and Frances (Leyland) Newton, dau. Florrie

A problem shared is a problem halved. Post your brick walls here and see whether you can offer advice to others

Re: John and Frances (Leyland) Newton, dau. Florrie

Postby DianaCanada » Sat Apr 06, 2019 7:32 pm

I have found a Florrie Newton married William F. Chandler in Farnham district in 1914. A long way from Lancashire, but as the DNA matches, I think this must be her. Could it be a case of Florrie going south to marry her beau who was going off to war? At least one child was born in Burnley.
As I mentioned earlier, Florrie was living with her aunt Louisa Newton Cooper in 1901, and Louisa's only daughter ended up in Surrey as well. Might be a connection there.
DianaCanada
 
Posts: 303
Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 11:37 am

Re: John and Frances (Leyland) Newton, dau. Florrie

Postby DianaCanada » Sat Apr 06, 2019 8:36 pm

MoVidger wrote:Could this be Frances, also remarried, in 1911? There's a 1909 marriage record (Burnley) which also includes the name "Frances Leyland".

Name: Frances Robinson
Age in 1911: 35
Estimated birth year: abt 1876
Relation to Head: Wife
Gender: Female
Birth Place: St Helens, Lancashire, England
Civil Parish: Burnley
County/Island: Lancashire
Street address: 41 Mosley St Burnley
Marital status: Married
Years Married: 2
Estimated Marriage Year: 1909
Occupation: Weaver Cotton
Registration district: Burnley
Registration District Number: 472
Sub-registration district: East Ward
ED, institution, or vessel: 10
Household schedule number: 203
Piece: 24788

Edward Robinson 49
Frances Robinson 35


Found the marriage! It is under Edmund rather than Edward. Looks like John and Frances were divorced. Very unusual for the working class at the time, I think.
All this new information is much appreciated!
DianaCanada
 
Posts: 303
Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 11:37 am

Re: John and Frances (Leyland) Newton, dau. Florrie

Postby DianaCanada » Sat Apr 06, 2019 8:46 pm

I have just found the divorce records for John and Frances on Ancestry. Frances was found guilty of adultery (co respondent named but not the man she later married), she countered with a charge of cruelty.
The two girls were listed, John was given custody, as was the order of the day. Their marriage date and place was also included.
DianaCanada
 
Posts: 303
Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 11:37 am

Previous

Return to General research queries


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google Adsense [Bot], Norfolk Nan and 7 guests