Moderator Control Panel ]

Missing marriage : Lucas & Obart

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

Re: Missing marriage : Lucas & Obart

Postby Jenaheldd » Tue May 01, 2018 5:17 pm

woodchal wrote:You say "They had 3 daughters & are listed everywhere as married ... apart from John’s army discharge papers where he’s shown as single but next of kin is ‘friend Nelly Titford’"

What is the date of the discharge papers - if its after the "non-wedding" I think you already have your answer.

The unmarried father can be named on the birth certificate (if they are present at the registration). From the GRO all 4 children have the father(s) named, though the maiden name given by Nelly varies.


Exactly ....
Nelly's eldest daughter (b. 1888) shows Thomas Hays as father and mother as Ellen Hays formally Obart (she didn't marry this Thomas fella)
Next daughter (b. 1892)- John Lucas as father and mother as Ellen Lucas formally Obart
Next one (b. 1896) - John Lucas father, mother Ellen Lucas formally Titford
Last one (b. 1898) - John Lucas father, mother Ellen Lucas formally Titford

Johns army papers show he enlisted April 1916 and discharged in January 1919

Nelly is shown on her death cert as Nelly Lucas, widow of John Lucas

Even though they did have the banns read, I believe my original thinking that they didn't get married at all ... for whatever reason. They lived as a married couple and as far as anyone was aware (family included), they were married.
Jenaheldd
 
Posts: 115
Joined: Fri May 29, 2015 3:43 pm

Re: Missing marriage : Lucas & Obart

Postby AdrianB38 » Tue May 01, 2018 7:29 pm

It still bugs me though that the May 1915 banns are annotated "married". Give that the whole point of the annotation is to tick off that they were married - why did this annotation fail?

I wonder if they spun the parish priest a story about being married in a register office and wanting a church ceremony? In which case the parish priest could have gone through all the standard wedding rigmarole - including the banns - and then done what we would today refer to as a blessing, instead of a "proper" marriage. As such that couldn't be in the legal book because it wasn't a legal marriage ceremony. (I presume). But the banns were annotated "married" because the banns were indeed followed by a ceremony.

Though he still seems to have 'fessed up to the legal truth on his Attestation Papers...

I suspect we'll never know....
Adrian
AdrianB38
 
Posts: 2516
Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2010 4:07 pm

Previous

Return to General research queries


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests