Genealogy Chat

Top tip - using the Genes Reunited community

Welcome to the Genes Reunited community boards!

The Genes Reunited community is made up of millions of people with similar interests. Discover your family history and make life long friends along the way.
You will find a close knit but welcoming group of keen genealogists all prepared to offer advice and help to new members.
And it's not all serious business. The boards are often a place to relax and be entertained by all kinds of subjects.
The Genes community will go out of their way to help you, so don’t be shy about asking for help.

Welcome to the Genes Reunited community boards!

The Genes Reunited community is made up of millions of people with similar interests. Discover your family history and make life long friends along the way.
You will find a close knit but welcoming group of keen genealogists all prepared to offer advice and help to new members.
And it's not all serious business. The boards are often a place to relax and be entertained by all kinds of subjects.
The Genes community will go out of their way to help you, so don’t be shy about asking for help.

Findmypast DNA Banner

New posts
No new posts
Thread closed
Stickied, new posts
Stickied, no new posts

Login to Add Reply Watch This

Profile	Posted by	Options	Post Date
Member Since: February 2006 Posts: 65 Send Message	Maureen R	Report	6 Jan 2013 08:32
Member Since: February 2006 Posts: 65 Send Message	My GG grandfather, John Chicken, married in 1834, so before GRO registration. From the Bishops Transcript of the marriage record I have the names of the witnesses as Robert Chicken and Margaret Greenwell. Although I haven't at the moment identified Robert I'm convinced he's a relative and I will find him eventually in my searches. But Margaret Greenwell is more of a problem. I can find a Margaret Greenwell in the 1841 census in the right area (Dawdon, Co Durham) but there's no guarantee that's the right one. I wondered whether anyone here had had any success in tracking a female, apparently unrelated to bride or groom, prior to the introduction of civil records in 1837? I realise that sometimes the witnesses were merely parishioners who were asked to do the job, unlike today when they are almost always family or friends. Maureen
Member Since: April 2004 Posts: 17,958 Send Message	Chris Ho :)	Report	6 Jan 2013 09:00
	(for reference) County Durham Place Houghton-le-Spring Church St Michael RegisterNumber 622 MarriageDate 06 Sep 1834 GroomForename John GroomSurname CHICKEN GroomAge GroomParish GroomCondition GroomOccupation GroomAbode BrideForename Ann BrideSurname HODGSHON BrideAge BrideParish BrideCondition BrideOccupation BrideAbode GroomFatherForename GroomFatherSurname GroomFatherOccupation BrideFatherForename BrideFatherSurname BrideFatherOccupation WitnessOneForename Robert WitnessOneSurname CHICKEN WitnessTwoForename Margaret WitnessTwoSurname GREENWELL Notes Bride and 2nd Witness signed X Chris :) http://www.freereg.org.uk/cgi/Search.pl (from above link) County Durham Place Houghton-le-Spring Church St Michael RegisterNumber 656 MarriageDate 31 Oct 1824 GroomForename George GroomSurname GREENWELL GroomAge GroomParish GroomCondition GroomOccupation GroomAbode BrideForename Margaret BrideSurname ERRINGTON BrideAge BrideParish BrideCondition BrideOccupation BrideAbode GroomFatherForename GroomFatherSurname GroomFatherOccupation BrideFatherForename BrideFatherSurname BrideFatherOccupation WitnessOneForename George WitnessOneSurname WILSON WitnessTwoForename Lancelot WitnessTwoSurname APPLEBY Notes Bride signed X (a posible?)
Member Since: February 2006 Posts: 65 Send Message	Maureen R	Report	6 Jan 2013 11:40
Member Since: February 2006 Posts: 65 Send Message	Thank you very much Chris. That is a possibility. It's probably one of those mysteries I'm never going to solve - can't ask the bride & groom why they chose those witnesses nor who they are- but Ann Hodgson did come from Houghton so it could be that she asked a friend or relative with a different surname. Maureen
Member Since: January 2007 Posts: 7,623 Send Message	mgnv	Report	9 Jan 2013 20:19
	Maureen - I would vote against Margt just being some parishioner. Firstly, because she's a woman, secondly because she couldn't sign her name, just make her mark, and thirdly, because she doesn't appear as a witness on other marrs (there was no other marr that day, but one usually finds the "parishioner's" name appearing on almost every marr for the surrounding weeks). The only times I've seen a woman being used as an unrelated witness were in Canada, where it wasn't uncommon for the minister's wife to be a witness.
Member Since: February 2006 Posts: 65 Send Message	Maureen R	Report	9 Jan 2013 21:12
Member Since: February 2006 Posts: 65 Send Message	That's a good point. I hadn't thought about the fact that she couldn't sign her name being a factor against her being a random choice. It's going to be another of the mysteries that goes in the "too hard for the moment" box I think!

All site material is owned by Findmypast Limited and should not be used without prior permission.

Any views expressed in message boards and members notes represent the opinions of the author and do not represent the opinions of Findmypast Limited.

© Copyright 2024 Findmypast Limited.