Moderator Control Panel ]

Marriage , James Smith + Ruth Batchelor

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

Marriage , James Smith + Ruth Batchelor

Postby Simon45 » Fri Dec 01, 2017 10:53 am

I'm trying to find the marriage of the above names
James Smith 1800 - 1842
Ruth Batchelor 1805 -

They were from Godstone / Limpsfield areas in Surrey ,


They had 2 children , Frederick and Betsy

Any help much appreciated

Thanks
Simon




Sent from my iPhone using WDYTYA Forum
Simon45
 
Posts: 349
Joined: Sun May 21, 2017 8:49 am

Re: Marriage , James Smith + Ruth Batchelor

Postby ianbee » Fri Dec 01, 2017 2:16 pm

There is this record on FamilySearch, which just possibly might be them, at Cudham in Kent, not far from Limpsfield.
Name: James Smith
Spouse's Name: Ruth Battila
Event Date: 27 Sep 1829 (this was a Sunday)
Event Place: Cudham, Kent

England Marriages, 1538–1973
Film number: 2145472
Reference ID: item 10

But, even so, beware! I think this is a record of banns, rather than a marriage. FamilySearch are known to index banns as marriages.
And microfilm 2145472 includes both marriages and banns from Cudham.

Most marriages in Cudham in 1829 are indexed twice on FamilySearch, with two different dates. So one date will probably be one of the Sundays that the banns were called, and the later date will be the marriage.

Of course there is the possibility that the marriage was by licence, in which case there would have been no banns called.
But here's the giveaway on FamilySearch
Marriage, 27 Sep 1829, Cudham, Kent
William Killick + Maria Whitehead
from mf 2145472, item 10

Marriage, 17 Oct 1829, Cudham, Kent
William Killick + Maria Whitehead
from mf 2145472, item 7

So item 7 on the film must be marriages, and item 10 banns.
Of course it's also possibile that FamilySearch missed the marriage in their indexing. But, otherwise, it took place elsewhere or not at all.

And this may not be the couple you are looking for. It's the best I could find.
Ian
ianbee
 
Posts: 2282
Joined: Wed Jul 28, 2010 4:51 pm

Re: Marriage , James Smith + Ruth Batchelor

Postby ianbee » Fri Dec 01, 2017 7:40 pm

Now here's a surprise!
I've managed to get hold of those banns in Cudham.
And does it actually say Ruth's name was Battila? I think not!!
Ian
Attachments
James and Ruth Cudham.JPG
James and Ruth Cudham.JPG (128.04 KiB) Viewed 1121 times
ianbee
 
Posts: 2282
Joined: Wed Jul 28, 2010 4:51 pm

Re: Marriage , James Smith + Ruth Batchelor

Postby ianbee » Fri Dec 01, 2017 7:47 pm

Well it doesn't say that one of them was of a different parish. So...

ianbee wrote:Of course it's also possibile that FamilySearch missed the marriage in their indexing.

Either they did, or I missed it on FamilySearch! (Looked again and still can't see it)
12 October 1829 at Cudham
Ian
Attachments
Smith - Batchelor at Cudham.jpg
Smith - Batchelor at Cudham.jpg (296.86 KiB) Viewed 1116 times
ianbee
 
Posts: 2282
Joined: Wed Jul 28, 2010 4:51 pm

Re: Marriage , James Smith + Ruth Batchelor

Postby Simon45 » Fri Dec 01, 2017 8:05 pm

Hi Ian
Thanks once again for your help

If you find anymore information let me know

This is a great site

Well done
Simon


Sent from my iPhone using WDYTYA Forum
Simon45
 
Posts: 349
Joined: Sun May 21, 2017 8:49 am

Re: Marriage , James Smith + Ruth Batchelor

Postby Simon45 » Fri Dec 01, 2017 8:08 pm

Ian
I have another marriage I cannot find

Will put new topic up tonight

Simon


Sent from my iPhone using WDYTYA Forum
Simon45
 
Posts: 349
Joined: Sun May 21, 2017 8:49 am

Re: Marriage , James Smith + Ruth Batchelor

Postby Sylcec » Fri Dec 01, 2017 10:21 pm

Yes - quite clearly it says Batchelor on that record. Would it surprise you to know that for every record 2 people have looked at and indexed it, and then if there is any difference, it comes up before an arbitrator to decide which is correct, (or put in the correct entry)? I have been doing indexing for FS for some years and see some interesting interpretations. The system is now changing though and most records will not be up for review by a 3rd person.
User avatar
Sylcec
 
Posts: 2509
Joined: Sun Aug 17, 2008 4:36 pm
Location: Sydney, Australia

Re: Marriage , James Smith + Ruth Batchelor

Postby Simon45 » Sat Dec 02, 2017 8:35 am

Hi Ian
Please can you send me the link that shows the other 3/4 marriages on the same page

Thank you
Simon :)


Sent from my iPhone using WDYTYA Forum
Simon45
 
Posts: 349
Joined: Sun May 21, 2017 8:49 am

Re: Marriage , James Smith + Ruth Batchelor

Postby ianbee » Sat Dec 02, 2017 8:45 am

Hi Simon
Here it is
https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903 ... cat=990520

You're very lucky, anything from Kent is usually locked up on there. Should have noticed when I first posted!

Sylvia, I think that the rather elongated cross on the t must have fooled the transcriber(s)!

Ian
ianbee
 
Posts: 2282
Joined: Wed Jul 28, 2010 4:51 pm

Re: Marriage , James Smith + Ruth Batchelor

Postby Simon45 » Sat Dec 02, 2017 9:01 am

Hi Ian
Thank you very much

I'll put the other marriage query up today

Simon :)


Sent from my iPhone using WDYTYA Forum
Simon45
 
Posts: 349
Joined: Sun May 21, 2017 8:49 am

Next

Return to General research queries


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests