|
#1
17-09-09, 17:34
|
||||
|
||||
Don't know what to think!
There's a marriage cert that I've been meaning to send for for quite a while but never quite got round to it. Well, the marriage has just turned up on the new ancestry databases and hasn't solved anything...so could I have your opinions please
 (I'm doing alot of this from memory cos Ancestry is playing up for me at the mo) My 2x great Grandfather, Frederick Lock, was born c1838. In 1841 he is living with Thomas and Elizabeth Lock in Ridge, Herts who look too old to be his parents and he is given as not being born in county. However, in every following census he says he was born in Ridge, Herts. There is a baptism on the IGI for a William Frederick Nicholl Lock in 1838 in Ridge...mother Hannah Lock. Thomas and Elizabeth had a daughter called Hannah. By 1861 Frederick has married a Susan/Susannah who was born in Lowestoft, SFK. There is a Susan/Susannah Hunton born at the right time in Suffolk, father Jonathan Hunton. The marriage that has turned up on the London Marriages database is between Frederick Lock and Susan Hunton in 1858 at St John the Evangelist, Clapham. What's making me dither is that Frederick gives his father as being Thomas Lock, either knowingly or unknowingly. Sooooo, what I'm asking of you is, how likely do you think that this marriage is my 2x great Grandparents? 
|
|
#2
17-09-09, 17:41
|
||||
|
||||
|
I'd say it's yours, Jeanette.
People often lied about fathers when they got married. I've seen it many times in PRs. He may well have believed it anyway. Tell me more about the Lowestoft connection.
__________________
Gwynne 
|
|
#3
17-09-09, 17:43
|
||||
|
||||
|
Oh my, do you have Huntons in Lowestoft Gwynne? To be honest, I haven't looked into them too deeply as I wasn't absolutely sure of the marriage
|
|
#4
17-09-09, 17:45
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
__________________
 Joanie
|
|
#5
17-09-09, 17:46
|
||||
|
||||
|
Have you got Frederick's birth certificate?
__________________
Joanie
|
|
#6
17-09-09, 17:49
|
||||
|
||||
|
I can't see an appropriate registration Joanie. I'm thinking that if he was illegitimate, and being born just as registration came in, that he might not have been registered
Plus that baptism gives him as William Frederick and not Frederick William. Howver, he did call one of his sons Frederick William but he was known as William   
|
|
#7
17-09-09, 18:09
|
||||
|
||||
|
I don't have Huntons, Jeanette, sorry. But if you had her ancestors I'm betting we'd find a connection.
Many years ago I was walking through Lowestoft with my aunt and people kept saying hello to us. I'd ask who they were and often she'd say that's your gandfather's cousin's son, or something. One day I asked her if we were related to everyone in Lowestoft and she said we probably were if you went back far enough. And most Lowestoft researchers I've been in touch with have a connection somewhere on the tree.
__________________
Gwynne
|
|
#8
17-09-09, 18:12
|
||||
|
||||
|
I don't know if it is any help Jeanette but I could check that baptism when I go to Herts RO next time for you?
__________________
Joanie
|
|
#9
17-09-09, 18:14
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
I think it would be quite normal for Frederick to name his grandfather as his father at the marriage. Either he just preferred to say that was the case, or he believed Thomas was his father.
__________________
"Something has been filled in that I didn't know was blank" Matthew Broderick WDYTYA? March 2010
|
|
#10
17-09-09, 18:15
|
||||
|
||||
|
So alot of interbreeding going on, eh?
 *checks thumbs*Well, I'm almost sure that these are my people on this marriage so it looks like I've got summat to get my teeth into tonight 
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
